3d4yVkKMl

- 9 -
THE COURT,
composed as above,
after deliberation,
delivers the following Judgment:
1. On 31 May 2010, Australia filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting
proceedings against Japan in respect of a dispute concerning
“Japan’s continued pursuit of a large-scale program of whaling under the Second
Phase of its Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(‘JARPA II’), in breach of obligations assumed by Japan under the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling . . . , as well as its other international
obligations for the preservation of marine mammals and the marine environment”.
In its Application, Australia invoked as the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court the
declarations made, pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, by Australia on
22 March 2002 and by Japan on 9 July 2007.
2. In accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Registrar communicated the
Application forthwith to the Government of Japan; and, pursuant to paragraph 3 of that Article, all
other States entitled to appear before the Court were notified of the Application.
3. On the directions of the Court under Article 43 of the Rules of Court, the Registrar
addressed to States parties to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
(hereinafter the “ICRW” or the “Convention”) the notification provided for in Article 63,
paragraph 1, of the Statute. In accordance with the provisions of Article 69, paragraph 3, of the
Rules of Court, the Registrar also addressed to the International Whaling Commission (hereinafter
the “IWC” or the “Commission”) the notification provided for in Article 34, paragraph 3, of the
Statute. The Commission indicated that it did not intend to submit any observations in writing
under Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court.
4. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of Australian nationality, Australia
proceeded to exercise its right conferred by Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute to choose a judge
ad hoc to sit in the case; it chose Ms Hilary Charlesworth.
5. By an Order of 13 July 2010, the Court fixed 9 May 2011 and 9 March 2012 as the
respective time-limits for the filing of the Memorial of Australia and the Counter-Memorial of
Japan; those pleadings were duly filed within the time-limits thus prescribed.