8. IMPLEMENTATION OF A WORLD-WIDE BAN ON WHALING

(from "Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting")


The Technical Committee adopted by a majority vote an Australian proposal for an amendment to the Schedule for a phased reduction in commercial whaling over five years. Australia stated that it believes that stocks have been greatly reduced by past catching and that those now given protection show little or no signs of recovering. Whaling is extending to the smaller cetaceans, but scientists cannot teach agreement in their assessments because of inadequate knowledge. The industry is jeopardising the resource which is an international heritage. It also was concerned over the evidence of serious breaches of IWC regulations by two member countries, with products imported by a third, which had been reported to the Commission's Infractions Committee. The inhumanity of whaling was another reason for taking this action, which can be reconsidered at any time by the IWC.

Japan indicated that it refuted a number of points made, and in particular believes that this proposal is a contravention of customary international law and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946. The ensuing discussion between Australia, Japan, Norway and India on the balance between jurisdictional rights and duties brought out the different interpretations of the balance which exists, although it was agreed that the whaling Convention itself is the basis for Commission action.

Denmark indicated that it considered the proposal should apply only to commercial whaling, and in the Plenary Session, Australia, seconded by the USA, France and Sweden added an amendment to clarify that this is the case.

On being put to the vote the amended proposal received 15 votes in favour, 8 against with 4 abstentions, and so failed to receive the three-quarters majority necessary to amend the Schedule.

_