3d4yVkKMl

- 69 -
must be submitted to the Commission pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
which states that “[e]ach Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such
authorizations which it has granted”. Australia does not contest that Japan has done so with regard
to each permit that has been granted for JARPA II.
239. As regards the substantive requirements of paragraph 30, the Court finds that the
JARPA II Research Plan, which constitutes the proposal for the grant of special permits, sets forth
the information specified by that provision. This was also recognized by the Scientific Committee
in 2005 in its review of the JARPA II Research Plan. The lack of detail in the permits themselves
is consistent with the fact that the programme is a multi-year programme, as described in the
JARPA II Research Plan. Japan’s approach accords with the practice of the Scientific Committee.
240. The Court observes that paragraph 30 and the related Guidelines regarding the
submission of proposed permits and the review by the Scientific Committee (currently, Annex P)
must be appreciated in light of the duty of co-operation with the IWC and its Scientific Committee
that is incumbent upon all States parties to the Convention, which was recognized by both Parties
and the intervening State. As has been discussed above (see paragraphs 199-212), the
implementation of JARPA II differs in significant respects from the original design of the
programme that was reflected in the JARPA II Research Plan. Under such circumstances,
consideration by a State party of revising the original design of the programme for review would
demonstrate co-operation by a State party with the Scientific Committee.
241. The Court notes that 63 Scientific Committee participants declined to take part in the
2005 review of the JARPA II Research Plan, citing the need for the Scientific Committee to
complete its final review of JARPA before the new proposal could be assessed. Those scientists
submitted a separate set of comments on the JARPA II Research Plan, which were critical of its
stated objectives and methodology, but did not assert that the proposal fell short of Scientific
Committee practice under paragraph 30.
242. For these reasons, the Court is persuaded that Japan has met the requirements of
paragraph 30 as far as JARPA II is concerned.
*
* *