14 Legal precedents for whaleprotectionKitty Block, Special Counsel to the UN & Treaties Dept., The Humane <strong>Society</strong> of the UnitedStates (HSUS), Washington D.C., US.Sue Fisher, US Director, WDCS US, P.O. Box 820064, Portl<strong>and</strong> 97282 – 1064,Oregon, US.“Recent history indicates that man’s impact upon marine mammals has ranged from whatmight be termed malign neglect to virtual genocide. These animals including whales,porpoises, seals, sea otters, polar bears, manatees <strong>and</strong> others, have not only rarely benefitedfrom our interest; they have been shot, blown up, clubbed to death, run down by boats,poisoned <strong>and</strong> exposed to a multitude of other indignities, all in the interest of profit orrecreation, with little or no consideration of the potential impact of these activities on theanimal populations involved” (US Congress 1971).IntroductionThis powerful testimony presaged both the birth of the ‘save the whale’ movement <strong>and</strong> a call by theUnited Nations Conference on the Human Environment for the International Whaling Commission(IWC) to consider adopting a ten-year moratorium on all commercial whaling 1 . Although the IWCtook fifteen more years to agree a moratorium on the commercial slaughter of whales, the number ofnational, regional <strong>and</strong> international agreements concerning whales has increased significantly sincethe early 1970s, <strong>and</strong> continues to grow.LEGAL PRECEDENTS FOR WHALE PROTECTION111The laws that were first enacted in the 1970s <strong>and</strong> 1980s tended to focus primarily on cetaceanconservation, not welfare, <strong>and</strong> were mainly directed at trying to regulate the exploitation of whales.However, in the last 30 years, civil society has shown a growing concern for the protection of animalsin general, <strong>and</strong> for cetaceans in particular. As a result of this movement, which has gained evengreater momentum in the last 15 years, the science of animal welfare has developed into a majordiscipline, <strong>and</strong> national, regional <strong>and</strong> international animal protection legislation has been enacted.Space does not permit a review of the evolution of animal protection legislation in general, althoughsuch reviews exist (Ritvo 1987, The Animal Welfare Institute 1990, Wise 2003). This chapter brieflyconsiders some national, regional <strong>and</strong> international developments relating to cetaceans that areconsistent <strong>and</strong> concurrent with this trend, <strong>and</strong> summarises the various regional <strong>and</strong> internationalagreements that specifically address the treatment of cetaceans. It argues that emerging customary lawmay modify these agreements over time to incorporate even greater protection measures for cetaceansin the future.
<strong>Whale</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the lawCetaceans (<strong>and</strong> whales in particular) have a special legal status, almost unique in the animalkingdom, that reflects the highly migratory status <strong>and</strong> unique life histories of the 80-plus species 2 <strong>and</strong>their history of over-exploitation.Consistent with the trend in civil society towards treating cetaceans <strong>and</strong> other ‘high order’ mammalsas a ‘flagship’ species for the environment, <strong>and</strong> the growing tendency of the public to identify withindividual animals 3 as well as their species as a whole, whales <strong>and</strong> dolphins are increasingly affordedeven greater treatment under the law. Many coastal states, in addition to, or included within, theirgeneral animal welfare or conservation laws, have strong specific provisions relating to marinemammal protection. 4 For example, New Zeal<strong>and</strong> 5 , Australia 6 <strong>and</strong> the US 7 (all former whaling nations)have adopted whale or marine mammal protection acts that address the welfare as well as theconservation of cetaceans <strong>and</strong> prohibit killing, harming or harassing them.Many countries prohibit the killing, taking or injuring of cetaceans regardless of their conservationstatus. 8 Some countries, such as the US, extend this prohibition to their nationals operating withininternational waters, while Australia extends it to other sovereign jurisdictions.112A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIESA number of countries have taken the additional step of protecting cetaceans in their territorialwaters by establishing areas of sanctuary from human activities 9 . Although many of these sanctuaryzones (including those designated by the IWC 10 ) are not ‘Marine Protected Areas’, as defined by TheWorld <strong>Conservation</strong> Union (IUCN) 11 , <strong>and</strong> so lack management plans or enforcement provisions,they reflect the international groundswell of support for the special status, <strong>and</strong> need for protection, ofcetaceans. The IWC has already designated two whale sanctuaries in the Southern Ocean <strong>and</strong> theIndian Ocean. Argentina <strong>and</strong> Brazil, <strong>and</strong> Australia <strong>and</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong> have proposed new sanctuariesin the South Atlantic <strong>and</strong> South Pacific respectively.The concept of ‘global commons’ is clearly defined (Palmer 1998) 12 . Highly migratory species ofwhales are treated as the property of no nation, but the responsibility of all – i.e. a ‘global commons’.As a result, several international <strong>and</strong> regional agreements address their conservation <strong>and</strong> management.Some of these agreements, including the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling(ICRW), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora(CITES) <strong>and</strong> the Agreement on the <strong>Conservation</strong> of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea<strong>and</strong> Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), incorporate important provisions relating to thewelfare <strong>and</strong> humane treatment of cetaceans 13 .INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTSUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 14UNCLOS provides the foundation on which all marine management is built. It came into force inNovember 1994 <strong>and</strong> currently has 143 member parties. It declares the ‘preservation <strong>and</strong> protection’of the marine environment <strong>and</strong> ‘conservation’ of marine living resources as fundamental obligations.All States must take measures to control pollution from all sources <strong>and</strong> are obliged to manage theliving resources within sustainable limits in both national jurisdictions <strong>and</strong> on the high seas (IUCN1996). This is a dramatic departure from the conventional practice of unregulated exploitation ofcommon resources of the past (Prideaux 2003).
- Page 5 and 6:
ForewordWhales are highly evolved a
- Page 7:
1 Executive SummaryThis review exam
- Page 11 and 12:
2 A background to whalingPhilippa B
- Page 13 and 14:
y the weapon’s enormous recoil, w
- Page 15 and 16:
Japan currently whales in the Antar
- Page 17 and 18:
Otto, K. 1997. Animal Pain Behaviou
- Page 19 and 20:
Protecting the welfare of animals i
- Page 21 and 22:
Toothed whales (Odontoceti)Toothed
- Page 23 and 24:
Social behaviourMother-calf pairsOn
- Page 25 and 26:
to store and pass on information to
- Page 27 and 28:
Communication in great whalesThe mo
- Page 29:
Self-awarenessOne of the most compe
- Page 32 and 33:
J.G.M. Thewissen), pp. 158-162. Aca
- Page 34 and 35:
Whitehead, H., Waters, S. and Lyrho
- Page 36 and 37:
humanitarian purposes the time take
- Page 38 and 39:
Welfare and the modern IWCFrom 1980
- Page 40 and 41:
1996 UK proposes guidelines for col
- Page 42 and 43:
Section TwoWhale killing6 Commercia
- Page 44 and 45:
Table 1 Commercial, special permit
- Page 46 and 47:
It can be argued that the figures f
- Page 48 and 49:
Since struck and lost whales can in
- Page 50 and 51:
equipment to Russian subsistence wh
- Page 52 and 53:
This is the time from the throwing
- Page 54 and 55:
Table 3 Aboriginal Subsistence Whal
- Page 56 and 57:
International Aid For Korean Animal
- Page 58 and 59:
29 In Resolution 1999-1, the IWC no
- Page 60 and 61:
For example, Greenland and the Faro
- Page 62 and 63:
the past they made an important con
- Page 64 and 65:
however, has been made on the exten
- Page 66 and 67: hunt indicate that the whales are s
- Page 68 and 69: 8 Weather, sea condition and shipmo
- Page 70 and 71: chance of fog decreases from 15 to
- Page 72 and 73: experienced in December, or y could
- Page 74: 9 The potential stress effects ofwh
- Page 77 and 78: Both chase and pursuit cause stress
- Page 79 and 80: and manifest in a series of lethal
- Page 81 and 82: Ridgeway, S. H. (1966). Dall porpoi
- Page 83 and 84: 10 Euthanasia of cetaceansPhilippa
- Page 85 and 86: for the task. The correct target ar
- Page 87 and 88: whales the size of minke whales (Ø
- Page 89 and 90: 11 Review of criteria for determini
- Page 91 and 92: It is apparent from Figure 1, that,
- Page 93 and 94: interpreted criteria, comparisons o
- Page 95 and 96: 90A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATI
- Page 97 and 98: 12 A comparison betweenslaughterhou
- Page 99 and 100: include levels of premature mortali
- Page 101 and 102: the emphasis during some whaling op
- Page 103 and 104: affect an immediate and thereby law
- Page 105 and 106: Table 1 Animal welfare and the Sche
- Page 107 and 108: CIWF Trust, 2002. Farm Assurance Sc
- Page 109 and 110: 13 Ethics and whaling under special
- Page 111 and 112: Table 1. Consideration of the 3Rs i
- Page 113 and 114: skin samples, without the need for
- Page 115: IWC (2001) Report of the Scientific
- Page 119 and 120: scientific and technical committees
- Page 121 and 122: ASCOBANS came into force in 1994. F
- Page 123 and 124: The Treaty of the Panama Canal, ena
- Page 125 and 126: 2 As a result, their need for prote
- Page 127 and 128: law says, but also the extent to wh
- Page 129 and 130: 15 Whaling and welfarePhilippa Brak
- Page 131 and 132: commercial whaling. Times to death
- Page 133 and 134: eath). Using the current criteria t
- Page 135 and 136: possibility of establishing a simil
- Page 137 and 138: international customary law and exi
- Page 139 and 140: 16 Summary of conclusionsModern day
- Page 141 and 142: Glossary136A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE
- Page 143 and 144: 138A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
- Page 145 and 146: Appendix IIColour plates©Mark Voti
- Page 147 and 148: 142A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
- Page 149 and 150: Figure 13. Processing minke whales