3d4yVkKMl

- 70 -
243. In view of the conclusions that the Court has reached regarding the characterization of
JARPA II in relation to Article VIII, as well as the implications of these conclusions for Japan’s
obligations under the Schedule, the Court does not need to address other arguments invoked by
Australia in support of its claims.
III. REMEDIES
244. In addition to asking the Court to find that the killing, taking and treating of whales
under special permits granted for JARPA II is not for purposes of scientific research within the
meaning of Article VIII and that Japan thus has violated three paragraphs of the Schedule,
Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan shall:
“(a) refrain from authorizing or implementing any special permit whaling which is not
for purposes of scientific research within the meaning of Article VIII;
(b) cease with immediate effect the implementation of JARPA II; and
(c) revoke any authorization, permit or licence that allows the implementation of
JARPA II.”
245. The Court observes that JARPA II is an ongoing programme. Under these
circumstances, measures that go beyond declaratory relief are warranted. The Court therefore will
order that Japan shall revoke any extant authorization, permit or licence to kill, take or treat whales
in relation to JARPA II, and refrain from granting any further permits under Article VIII,
paragraph 1, of the Convention, in pursuance of that programme.
246. The Court sees no need to order the additional remedy requested by Australia, which
would require Japan to refrain from authorizing or implementing any special permit whaling which
is not for purposes of scientific research within the meaning of Article VIII. That obligation
already applies to all States parties. It is to be expected that Japan will take account of the
reasoning and conclusions contained in this Judgment as it evaluates the possibility of granting any
future permits under Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
*
* *