3d4yVkKMl

- 51 -
above example, the JARPA II researchers recommended a sample size in the range of 663 to
1,617 whales in order to detect a rate of change from minus 1 to minus 1.5 per cent within a
six-year period.
168. Based on the evidence presented by Japan, after the JARPA II researchers select a
particular sample size for each research item, the fifth and final step in the calculation of sample
size is to choose an overall sample size in light of the different sample sizes (or ranges of sample
sizes, as in the above example) required for different aspects of the study. Because different
research items require different sample sizes, it is necessary to select an overall sample size for
each species that takes into account these different research requirements.
169. To determine the overall sample size for Antarctic minke whales in JARPA II, for
example, Japan asserts that it looked at the possible sample size ranges for each research item and
selected the sample size of 850 (plus or minus 10 per cent) because that number of whales can
provide sufficient data on most research items with “a reasonable level of statistical accuracy
overall”, but “will cause no harm to the stock”.
170. It is important to clarify which steps in the above-described process give rise to
disagreement between the Parties, in order to bring into focus the reasons for the Parties’ detailed
arguments in relation to sample sizes. As discussed above, there is disagreement about whether
lethal methods are warranted and whether the information being gathered through the use of lethal
methods is reliable and valuable (the first and second steps), but that disagreement is addressed
elsewhere in this Judgment (see paragraphs 128-144). The proceedings revealed some areas of
methodological agreement in respect of the third step. For example, the equation and the
calculations used to create tables like the one shown above are not in dispute. There is also
agreement that researchers need to make choices about variables such as the rate of change to
detect or the length of a research period as part of the design of a scientific programme.
171. For present purposes, the critical differences between the Parties emerge at the fourth
and fifth steps of the process of setting sample sizes. These differences are reflected in the
arguments of the Parties summarized above (see paragraphs 157-159).
172. In considering these contentions by the Parties, the Court reiterates that it does not seek
here to pass judgment on the scientific merit of the JARPA II objectives and that the activities of
JARPA II can broadly be characterized as “scientific research” (see paragraphs 88 and 127 above).
With regard to the setting of sample sizes, the Court is also not in a position to conclude whether a
particular value for a given variable (e.g., the research period or rate of change to detect) has