Science and Law. Applying scientific principles in international law on whaling.

SCIENCE sciencemag.org I n March 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, ruled that a Japanese whaling program in the Antarctic, ostensibly for scientific purposes, was not sufficiently research-oriented and thus was illegal ( 1). The ICJ’s critical assessment represents the first time that scientific whaling has been reviewed by an authoritative body outside the International Whaling Commission (IWC). With Japan considering a replacement program, and the IWC meeting later this month, we discuss minimum realistic actions the IWC should take in response to the ICJ judgment. More broadly, we believe the approach used by the ICJ in reaching its judgment provides a precedent for how arbitrators might assess scientific principles when resolving complex technical disputes. Commercial whaling is currently prohibited under the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Japan argued that its Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) program satisfied Article VIII of ICRW, which allows special permits authorizing killing, taking, and treating of whales “for purposes of scientific research” ( 2). The stated objectives of JARPA II, which also had no stated time limit, were (i) monitoring the Antarctic ecosystem, (ii) modeling competition among whale species and developing future management objectives, (iii) elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure, and (iv) improving the management procedure for minke whales. Under JARPA II, Japan issued permits to take up to 935 minke whales (850 ± 10%) per year and 50 each of humpback and fin whales. The number of minke whales taken was substantially less than 850 in all but one year; more than 3500 were taken from 2005 to 2013 (see the photo). No humpback and fewer than 20 fin whales were taken. Applying scientific principles in international law on whaling