Corrigé
Corrected
CR2013115
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
LAHAYE THE HAGUE
YEAR2013
Public sitting
field on Tllursday 4 Ju/y 2013JOaa.m., at tlle Peace Palace,
President Tomka presiding,
intlle case concemingWhaling in the Antarctic (Australiv.Japan:
New Zealand intervening)
VERBATIM RECORD
ANNÉE2013
Audience publique
tenue lejeudi 4juillet 2013, à 10 fleures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidencedeM. Tomka, président,
en l'affaire relative Chasse à la baleine dans l'Antarctique
(Australiec. Japon; Nouvelle-Zélande(intervenant))
COMPTE RENDU -2-
Present: President Tomka
Vice-President Sepulveda-Amor
Judges Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Judge ad hoc Charlesworth
Registrar Couvreur - 3-
Présents: M. Tomka, président
M. Sepùlveda-Amor, vice-président
MM. Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Mmes Xue
Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
M. Bhandari, juges
Mme Charles worth, juge ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier -4-
Tlle Government of Austrlllitl is representetl by:
The Honourable Mark Dreyfus Q.C., M.P., Attorney-General of Australia,
as Counse/ and Advocate;
Mr. Bill Campbell, Q.C., General Counsel (International Law), Attorney-General's Department,
as Agent, Counse/ and Advocate;
H.E. Mr. Neil Mules, A.O., Ambassador of Australia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. Justin Gleeson, S.C., Solicitor-General of Australia,
Mr. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London,
Mr. Henry Burmester, A.O., Q.C., Special Counsel, Australian Government Solicitor,
Mr. Philippe Sands, Q.C., Professor of Law, University College London, Barrister, Matrix
Chambers, London,
Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Professor of International Law at the University ofGeneva,
as Counse/ and Advocates;
Ms Kate Cook, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London,
Dr. Makane Mbengue, Associate Professor, University ofGeneva,
as Counse/;
Ms Anne Sheehan, Acting Assistant-Secretary, Attorney-General's Department,
Mr. Michael Johnson, Principal Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Danielle Forrester, Principal Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Stephanie Ierino, Acting Principal Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Clare Gregory, Senior Legal Officer, Attomey-General's Department,
Ms Nicole Lyas, Acting Senior Legal Officer, Attomey-General's Department,
Ms Erin Maher, Legal Officer, Attomey-General's Department,
Mr. Richard Rowe, Senior Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Dr. Greg French, Assistant Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, - 5-
Le Gouvememe11t tle I'Austrttlie est représe11té pllr:
L'honorable Mark Dreyfus, Q.C., M.P., Allorney-General d'Australie,
comme conseil et avocat ;
M. Bill Campbell Q.C., General Counsel (droit international), serv1ces de l'Allorney-General
d'Australie,
comme agent, conseil et avocat ;
S. Exc. M. Neil Mules, A.O., ambassadeur d'Australie auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M. Justin Gleeson, S.C., Solicitor-General d'Australie,
M. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., professeur de droit international à l'Université de
Cambridge, titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l'Institut de droit international, avocat,
Matrix Chambers (Londres),
M. Henry Burmester, A.O., Q.C., Special Counsel, Solicitor du Gouvernement australien,
M. Philippe Sands, Q.C., professeur de droit au University College de Londres, avocat,
Matrix Chambers (Londres),
Mme Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, professeur de droit international à l'Universitéde Genève,
comme conseils et avocats ;
Mme Kate Cook, avocat, Matrix Chambers (Londres),
M. Makane Mbengue, professeur associéà l'Universitéde Genève,
comme conseils ;
Mme Anne Sheehan, secrétaireadjoint par intérim,services de l'Attorney-General,
M. Michael Johnson, juriste principal, services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Danielle Forrester,juriste principal, services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Stephanie lerino,juriste principal par intérim,services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Clare Gregory,juriste hors classe, services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Nicole Lyas, juriste hors classe par intérim,services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Erin Maher,juriste, services de l'Attorney-General,
M. Richard Rowe, juriste hors classe, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce,
M. Greg French, secrétaireadjoint, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce, - 6 -
Mr. Jamie Cooper, Legal Officer, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Ms Donna Petrachenko, First Assistant Secretary, Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities,
Mr. Peter Komidar, Director, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities ,
Dr. Bill de la Mare, Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division, Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities,
Dr. David Blumenthal, Senior Adviser, Office of the Attorney-General,
Ms. Giulia Baggio, First Secretary, Senior Adviser, Office of the Attorney-General,
Mr. Todd Quinn, First Secretary, Embassy of Australia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Advisers:
Ms Mandy Williams, Administration Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
as Assistant.
Tlle Govemme11tof Japa11is represe11ted by:
Mr. Koji Tsuruoka, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs,
as Agent:
H.E. Mr. Yasumasa Nagamine, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the
Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent:
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professorat the University of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, President of the
Société française pour le droit international, associate member of the Institut de droit
international,
Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., member of the English Bar, Emeritus Professor of International Law,
Oxford University, associate member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Alan Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Edinburgh, member of the
English Bar,
Mr. Yuji Iwasawa, Professor of International Law at the University of Tokyo, member and former
Chairperson ofthe Human Rights Committee,
Mr. Payam Akhavan, LL.M., S.J.D. (Harvard), Professor of International Law, McGill University ,
member ofthe Bar ofNew York and the Law Society of Upper Canada,
Mr. Shotaro Hamamoto, Professor of International Law, Kyoto University,
Ms Yukiko Takashiba, Deputy Director, ICJ Whaling Case Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel and Advocates ; - 7 -
M. Jamie Cooper, juriste, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce,
Mme Donna Petrachenko, premier secrétaire adjoint, ministère du développement durable,
de l'environnement, de l'eau, des populations et des communautés,
M. Peter Komidar, directeur, ministère du développement durable, de l'environnement, de l'eau,
des populations et des communautés,
M. Bill de la Mare, scientifique, division de l'Antarctique australien, ministère du développement
durable, de l'environnement, de l'eau, des populations et des communautés,
M. David Blumenthal, conseiller principal, services de l'Attorney-Genera/,
Mme Giulia Baggio, conseiller principal, services de l'Attorney-General,
M. Todd Quinn, premier secrétaire,ambassade d'Australie au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers ;
Mme Mandy Williams, administrateur, services de l'Attorney-General,
comme assistant.
Le Gouvernement du Japon est représenté par:
M. Koji Tsuruoka, ministre adjoint des affaires étrangères,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Yasumasa Nagamine, ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire du Japon auprèsdu
Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l'Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,présidentde la Société
française pour le droit international, membre associéde l'Institut de droit international,
M. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., membre du barreau d'Angleterre, professeur émérite de droit
internationalà l'Universitéd'Oxford, membre associéde l'Institut de droit international,
M. Alan Boyle, professeur de droit international à l'Université d'Edimbourg, membre du barreau
d'Angleterre,
M. Yuji Iwasawa, professeur de droit international à l'Université de Tokyo, membre et ancien
présidentdu Comitédes droits de l'homme,
M. Payam Akhavan, LL.M., S.J.D (Harvard), professeur de droit international à l'Université
McGill, membre du barreau de New York et du barreau du Haut-Canada,
M. Shotaro Hamamoto, professeur de droit international à l'Universitéde Kyoto,
Mme Yukiko Takashiba, directeur adjoint à la division chargéede l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine
devant la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme conseils et avocats ; - 8 -
Mr. Takane Sugihara, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Kyoto University,
Ms Atsuko Kanehara, Professor of International Law, Sophia University (Tokyo),
Mr. Masafumi lshii, Director-General, International Legal Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,
Ms Alina Miron, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University of
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
as Counsel;
Mr. Kenji Kagawa, Director-General, Resources Enhancement Promotion Department, Fisheries
Agency,
Mr. Noriyuki Shikata, Minister, Embassy of Japan in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern lreland,
Mr. Kenichi Kobayashi, Director, International Legal Affairs Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Joji Morishita, Director-General, National Research lnstitute of Far Seas Fisheries,
Mr. Akima Umezawa, Ph.D., Director, Fishery Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ms Yoko Yanagisawa, Director, ICJ Whaling Case Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Naohisa Shibuya, Deputy Director, ICJ Whaling Case Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Ken Sakaguchi, ICJ Whaling Case Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ms Akiko Muramoto, ICJ Whaling Case Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Masahiro Kato, ICJ Whaling Case Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Takaaki Sakamoto, Assistant Director, International Affairs Division, Fisheries Agency,
Mr. Shigeki Takaya, Assistant Director, Fisheries Management Improvement Division, Fisheries
Agency,
Mr. Toshinori Uoya, Assistant Director, Fisheries Management Division, Fisheries Agency,
Mr. Shinji Hiruma, Assistant Director, International Management Division, Fisheries Agency,
Mr. Sadaharu Kodama, Legal Adviser, Embassy of Japan in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr. Nobuyuki Murai, LL.D., First Secretary, Embassy of Japan in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, -9-
M. Takane Sugihara, professeur éméritede droit international de l'Université de Kyoto,
Mme Atsuko Kanehara, professeur de droit international à l'Université Sophia (Tokyo),
M. Masafumi lshii, directeur généraldu bureau des affaires juridiques internationales, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
Mme Alina Miron, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université Paris
Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
comme conseils ;
M. Kenji Kagawa, directeur général du département de la promotion de la valorisation des
ressources, agence des pêcheries,
M. Noriyuki Shikata, ministre à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et
d'Irlande du Nord,
M. Kenichi Kobayashi, directeur à la division des affaires juridiques internationales, ministère des
affaires étrangères,
M. Joji Morishita, directeur généralde l'Institut national de recherche sur les pêcheries en eaux
lointaines,
M. Akima Umezawa, Ph.O., directeur à la division des pêcheries,ministère des affaires étrangères,
Mme Yoko Yanagisawa, directeur à la division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant
la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Naohisa Shibuya, directeur adjoint à la division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine
devant la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Ken Sakaguchi, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
Mme Akiko Muramoto, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ,
ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Masahiro Kato, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
M. Takaaki Sakamoto, sous-directeur à la division des affaires internationales, agence des
pêcheries,
M. Shigeki Takaya, sous-directeur à la division de l'amélioration de la gestion des pêcheries,
agence des pêcheries,
M. Toshinori Uoya, sous-directeur à la division de la gestion des pêcheries,agence des pêcheries,
M. Shinji Hiruma, sous-directeur à la division de la gestion internationale, agence des pêcheries,
M. Sadaharu Kodama, conseiller juridique à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
M. Nobuyuki Murai, LL.D., premier secrétaire de l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des
Pays-Bas, - 10-
Ms Risa Saijo, LL.M., Researcher, Embassy of Japan in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Ms Héloïse Bajer-Pellet, member of the Paris Bar,
as Advisers;
Mr. Douglas Butterworth, Emeritus Professor, University of Cape Town,
Ms Judith E. Zeh, Ph.D., Researcher Professor Emeritus, University of Washington,
Mr. Dan Goodman, National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries,
Mr. Luis Alberto Pastene Perez, Ph.D., Director, Survey and Research Division, Institute of
Cetacean Research,
as Scientific Advisers and Experts;
Mr. Martin Pratt, Professor, Department ofGeography, Durham University,
as Expert Adviser;
Mr. James Harrison, Ph.D., Lecturer in International Law, University ofEdinburgh,
Ms Amy Sander, member of the English Bar,
Mr. Jay Butler, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School,
member of the New York Bar,
as Legal Advisers.
Tlle Govemment of New Zealand is represented by:
The Honourable Christopher Finlayson Q.C., M.P., Attorney-General ofNew Zealand,
as Counsel and Advocate;
Dr. Penelope Ridings, International Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
as Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
H.E. Mr. George Troup, Ambassador ofNew Zealand to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Ms Cheryl Gwyn, Deputy Solicitor-General, Crown Law Office,
Ms Elana Geddis, Barrister, Harbour Chambers, Wellington,
as Counsel;
Mr. Andrew Williams, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, - 11-
Mme Risa Saijo, LL.M., chercheur à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme HéloïseBajer-Pellet, membre du barreau de Paris,
comme conseillers ;
M. Douglas Butterworth, professeur éméritede l'Université de Cape Town,
Mme Judith E. Zeh, Ph.D., chercheur, professeur éméritede l'Universitéde Washington,
M. Dan Goodman, Institut national de recherche sur les pêcheriesen eaux lointaines,
M. Luis Alberto Pastene Perez, Ph.D., directeur à la division des enquêtes et de la recherche,
Institut de recherche sur les cétacés,
comme conseillers et experts scientifiques ;
M. Martin Pratt, professeur au département de géographie de l'Universitéde Durham,
comme conseiller expert ;
M. James Harrison, Ph.D., chargéde cours en droit international à l'Université d'Edimbourg,
Mme Amy Sander, membre du barreau d'Angleterre,
M. Jay Butler, professeur associé invité de droit à la faculté de droit de l'Université George
Washington, membre du barreau de New York,
comme conseillers juridiques.
Le Gouvemement tle la Nouve/le-Zélamle est représentépar :
L'honorable Christopher Finlayson, Q.C., M.P., Attorney-General de Nouvelle-Zélande,
comme conseil et avocat;
Mme Penelope Ridings, conseiller juridique pour le droit international, ministère des affaires
étrangèreset du commerce,
comme agent, conseil et avocat ;
S. Exc. M. George Troup, ambassadeur de Nouvelle-Zélande auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
Mme Cheryl Gwyn, Solicitor-General adjoint, Crown Law Office,
Mme Elana Geddis, avocat, Harbour Chambers (Wellington),
comme conseils ;
M. Andrew Williams, conseiller juridique, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce, - 12-
Mr. James Christmas, Private Secretary, Attorney-General's Office,
Mr. James Walker, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of New Zealand in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Mr. Paul Vinkenvleugel, Policy Adviser, Embassy of New Zealand 111the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Advisers. - 13-
M. James Christmas, chef de cabinet, services de l'Allorney-General,
M. James Walker, chef de mission adjoint, ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
M. Paul Vinkenvleugel, conseiller politique, ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers. - 14-
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Good morning. The sitting is open. The Court meets
this morning to hear the continuation of Japan's first round of oral argument. Thus 1 shall now give
the tloor to Professor Vaughan Lowe. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. LOWE:
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Introduction
1. Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Court, Australia has put before you its account
of Japan's actions in relation to JARPA Il, and it has put before you the terms of the Whaling
Convention, as it interprets them. What it has not done is explain the legal reasoning as to how
precisely it reaches the conclusion that Japan's actions amount to a breach of the Convention.
Australia appears to assume that that is self-evident: but it is not.
2. Australia has sa id that it accepts that lethal whaling is sometimes justified1; but, it will no
doubt say, not on the scale of JARPA Il. So the question is, what is the Court's rote where
Contracting Governments disagree over an Article VIII research program?
3. If one of the Contracting Governments to the Whaling Convention thinks that catching
300 or 600 minke whales is enough for scientific purposes, is that a matter for the Court to decide?
If one Government thinks that the importance of deterrnining the age structure of a whale stock
requires lethal stock sampling now, but another Government thinks that the age-datais not required
this year, is the Court to decide if a delay is necessary?
4. Such questions arise in ali international organizations and under ali treaties where States
have powers to act for certain purposes or in certain contexts. The question is, what is the Court's
rote in reviewing a State's decisions regarding the exercise of its powers?
5. The essence of my submission on behalfof Japan in this round ofthe oral pleadings lies in
two propositions:
1CR 2013/7, pp. 33-34, para. 38 (Glceson); CR 2013/8, p. 49, para. 77 (Crawford): CR 2013/9, p. 15, para. 5
(Sands); CR 2013/9, pp. 40, 46, 61, 64, 65, 71 (Mangel); CR 2013/10, p. 45, para. 17(Crawford). - 15-
(i) First, that the Court can revtew the exercise of a State by its powers, but only in
circumstances where that exercise is alleged to violate an identified obligation of that
State under international law;
(ii) Second, that the result of the applicable obligations in this case is that the question for the
Court is whether Japan, as a Contracting Government to the Whaling Convention, has
acted in bad faith in establishing the JARPA Il program.
Australia must show that Japan bas violated a legal duty
6. As to the first proposition, it is in our submission axiomatic that the Court cannot be called
upon to review an exercise of governmental power by a State unless that exercise is alleged to
violate an obligation of that State under international law. An applicant cannot, for example,
properly cali upon the Court to review and condemn the provisions of another State's tax laws or
criminal laws just because it does not like those provisions. lt must allege that the other State is
legally obliged not to maintain the provisions in question. That point is obvious, but important.
7. What is the obligation that Australia says is violated here? Japan has pointed out that the
right to issue special permits isnot created or given by the Whaling Convention: whaling, whether
for commercial or scientific reasons, was an undisputed exercise of the freedom of the high seas for
generations before the 1946 Whaling Convention and its predecessors were even conceived. There
is no suggestion that Japan could not have issued permits for JARPA Il in the past as an exercise of
the high seas freedom offishing and/or high seas freedom ofresearch.
8. Whaling for scientific purposes was a freedom that pre-existed the Whaling Convention,
and Article VIII stipulates that it is exempt from the operation of the Whaling Convention. So, the
question here is not, "what are the limits of a power given by a treaty?", but rather "what limits on
the exercise of a freedom have been imposed by a treaty?" And our friends on the other side have
not addressed that point.
9. My colleagues will address that point. They have already explained, and will explain
further, that the limits imposed by Article VIII do no more than require that Japan comply with the
procedural obligations set out in the Convention, and that Japan has, most assuredly in fact,
complied with ali those procedural obligations. - 16-
1O. The question therefore is whether any other provision in the Convention forbids the
activities involved in JARPA Il. Australia says that JARPA Il violates the moratorium on
commercial whaling in paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule, and in the case of fin whales the provision
on the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in paragraph 7 (b),and again in the case of fin whales, the
moratorium on catching by means of factory ships in paragraph 10 (d). Australia sometimes slides
over the facts that Japan is not bound by the Southern Ocean Sanctuary provisions as regards minke
whales, and that the moratorium on factory ship whaling is a moratorium rather than an outright
prohibition, and that it is stated- twice, in the 47 words of paragraph 10 (d)- that it does not
apply to minke whales.
11. Australia says that these provisions are violated because Japan cannot rely upon its
Article VIII right to conduct scientific whaling because it is acting in bad faith, and that its reliance
on that rightis an abuse of right.
12. Australia and New Zealand also hint at the proposition that the Convention extinguished
ali the pre-existent rights under customary international law to conduct whaling, for whatever
purposes, except for "whaling for scientific purposes" within the particular meaning that they give
to it under the Convention; a hint that Japan must prove that JARPA Il falls within the scope of the
"scientific purposes" provision. The proposition that the Convention extinguished ali customary
international law rights relating to whaling has not been argued before you, and we cannot see any
basis for it. So we leave that point there.
13. The claim that we have to answer is, essentially, that JARPA Il is not an exercise of the
right to carry out whaling for purposes of scientific research, but is commercial whaling.
Professor Iwasawa will explain shortly how the aims and methods of catching whales under
JARPA Il is quite different from the practice of commercial whaling, and that JARPA Il is not
commercial whaling.
14. Japan authorized JARPA Il as a scientific expedition, and it has described the scientific
methods and purposes of JARPA Il. Australia carries the burden of persuading the Court that
Japan's considered determination that JARPA Il is a scientific research program that can properly
be authorized under the Whaling Convention's Article VIII, is legally invalid and must be set aside. - 17-
The importance of the standard of review
15. The question that immediately arises is, what is the standard of review? How should the
Court approach the task of deciding whether an exercise of discretion by a State- the exercise of
a legal freedom or right that undoubtedly exists- is invalid and without legal effect on the plane
of international law?
16. Australia has given no clear indication of what its case is on this point. The Memorial
did not make clear whether Australia thought that this was close to an appeal against Japan's
decision on JARPA II, in which the Court could consider the matter de nova and substitute its own
view on the desirability of JARPA Il for the view of Japan; or whether the Court should, for
example, overturn a Contracting Government's determination under Article VIII only if it could be
shawn to be manifestly arbitrary or capricious; or whether the Court could look only at the process
by which the determination was made and not at its substance.
17. We are stiJl not clear what Australia's position is. Professor Crawford rejected the idea
2
that there was any margin of discretion or appreciation allowed to Contracting Governments ,
presumably with the result that what the Court decides what is, or what was- and there is an
important question between those two formulations- "necessary" for the purposes of scientific
research; and the question is then whether JARPA Il does or does not get over that line. lt does
not matter how far or how close it is to that line; and it does not matter that other Governments,
other tribunals, and other scientists might have drawn the line in a different place.
18. The Solicitor-General, on the other hand, spoke in terms of the "departure from standards
of reasonableness and bona fides" by Japan in the exercise of its right\ which seems rather closer
to Japan's position than to Professor Crawford's. The Solicitor-General vigorously advanced the
argument that Japan had indeed been "arbitrary and capricious" in its action, and he identified the
arbitrary and capricious action as a breach of the procedural requirements to give real consideration
to the Whaling Commission's views, and a failure to "show" the compelling need to kill so many
4
of the abjects ofstudy- bath ofwhich Japan equally vigorously denies •
2
CR 2013/8, p. 45, pams. 63-64 (Crawford).
3
CR2013/II, p. 38, para. 43 (Gleeson).
4CR 2013/11, p. 40, para. 51 (Gleeson). - 18-
19. ln our submission the question of the standard to which Japan is being held accountable
is of central importance in this case. Professor Pellet will set out our submissions on the legal
requirements of the doctrine of good faith under international law. My preliminary task is to
address the standard ofreview more broadly.
20. 1referred some moments ago to some of the standards of review: appeals and de novo
reviews; reviews based on the manifest arbitrariness or capriciousness of decisions; attacks based
on the procedures by which decisions were adopted; and so on.
21. De novo review is clearly not appropriate, or even practicable, here. Tribunals engage in
de novo review in circumstances where the procedures by which cases come before those tribunals
are designed so as to bring the case in a manner that enables the tribunal to act effective/y in
conducting a full de novo review.
22. That requires, for example, the presentation to the tribunal of ali of the evidence on
which the original decision was- or should have been- based. The Solicitor-General outlined
on Friday the matters that he said Japan should have addressed in good faith, and these would
5
necessarily have had to be supported by evidence presented to the Court • He referred to the
questions, how might the objectives of JARPA be revised so that they align with the critical
research needs, identified by the Whaling Commission and the Scientific Committee, and how
might the methods of JARPA be adjusted to have a real likelihood of achieving the objectives so
tailored?
23. He said "rather than start with a pre-determined view that a certain number ofwhales had
to be kilied each year, how might non-lethal means- existing or reasonably capable of
6
development- provide a partial or complete alternative?" We have yet to see what evidence
Australia thinks it may have for the accusation, which Japan emphatically rejects, that it started
with a pre-determined view that a certain number of whales had to be kilied each year; and we
hope that Australia might think of rephrasing its claims so that they stay closer to the evidence that
it has adduced. But the question of how far non-lethal means, which currently exist or are
5
CR 2013/11, p. 27, para. 9 (Giccson).
6CR 2013/11, p. 27, para. 9 (Giecson). - 19-
reasonably capable of development, provide for a partial or complete alternative to lethal takes is
certainly another question to be addressed in a de nova review.
24. The Solicitor-General's fourth question was, should JARPA be suspended or deferred
until those other questions could be answered? That looks like a policy question; and it is not clear
what criteria or supporting evidence the decision-makers should use. But again, it adds to the
evidence that must, in Australia's submission, be considered before the necessity or propriety of
JARPA II as an Article VIII research program can be decided.
25. That decision would require a survey of the existing data, an analysis of the questions left
unanswered by that data and of the importance ofthat data and of the alternative ways in which that
data might be obtained, and ofthe levels ofaccuracy needed. It would involve the determination of
the necessary sample size, and of the frequency and duration of the data collection. Crucially, it
would be premised upon a determination ofwhat are the proper questions that people- biologists,
oceanographers, ecologists, resource managers, environmentalists or whatever- should be asking,
or perhaps are entitled to ask- it is not clear how much freedom Australia would permit in
framing research aims - whether these question be classical hypotheses such as "whale abundance
is related to krill abundance" and "krill abundance in Antarctic waters is declining", or broader
questions within a scientific framework such as "given that we know that the Antarctic climate is
changing, what are the effects upon whale populations?"
26. But Australia has not put before the Court the information that is necessary for the
making of decisions on these questions. And, with respect, it is not obvious that the Court has the
necessary expertise to enable it to analyse such information, even if it were put before it.
27. That is not to say that the Court cannot question- and in appropriate cases, declare to
be in contravention of international law- decisions taken by national authorities. Let me be clear.
Japan does not argue that there should be complete deference to decisions taken by Contracting
Governments.
28. But there is a great deal of intermediate ground between de nova review and total
deference. We are ali familiar with the concepts in domestic law: the quashing of decisions
because they are arbitrary, or are decisions that no reasonable person could possibly have reached,
or that rest upon incorrect facts; the distinction in administrative law in civil law countries between - 20-
le pouvoir discrétionnaire, and la compétence liée. And, the question is, what is the test in
international law?
The different roles of courts in relation to international organizations
29. Weil, that question arises here under the International Whaling Convention , and in our
submission, it must be answered in that specifie context. A comparison with other treaty
organizations established around the same time shows that different bodies were set up to work in
different ways.
30. For instance, the constitutions of both the World Health Organization (1946) (Art. 75)
and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (1945) (Art. XVII) give this Court the
key rote in the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation of those constitutions. The
Whaling Convention gives the ICJ no rote.
31. Neither the F AO nor the WHO Constitution provides for the imposition of binding
substantive measures upon Member States by majority vote, although the WHO (Art. 20) does
oblige Member States to furnish a statement of the reasons for the non-acceptance of any
convention or agreement adopted by a two-thirds vote in the WHO Health Assembly. The Whaling
Convention provides for the adoption by a three-quarters majority vote of amendments to its
schedule; but those amendments do not bind objecting States. Moreover, the Whaling Convention
does not require any reasons to be given for objections- a point which was regarded as significant
by President Klaestad in the Constitution of IMCO case •
32. The 1958 Convention on Fishing and the Conservation of Living Resources on the High
Seas provides for a Commission to decide disputes,- and specifically, in Articles 7, 9, and 10,
disputes over the need for the urgent application of conservation measures and the existence of a
basis for such measures in "appropriate scientific findings". That Commission, whose members
would be drawn from those specialized in administrative or scientific questions relating to fisheries
(not only from lawyers), would decide by majority vote with binding effect on the parties in
dispute.
Sce Constitution of the lvlaritmze Safety Committee of the lnter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organi=ation,dvis01yOpinion, 1.C.J. Reports 19p. 150; disscnting opinion of President Klacstad, p. 175. - 21 -
33. These four examples - the IWC, the WHO, the FAO and the 1958 Convention on
Fishing - illustrate something of the range of institutional arrangements that there might be. The
point is that one needs to look at the specifie terms of a convention in arder to determine the rote of
the Court in relation to determinations which are made by the contracting parties under that
convention.
The specifie procedural requirements onder the ICRW
34. Article VIII of the Whaling Convention preserves the right of Contracting Governments
to authorize whaling by special permit for research purposes. The Convention does not require the
Government to give a reasoned decision on authorization; it does not require the consent of the
International Whaing Commission or its Scientific Committee to such authorization; it does not
even require that the authorization be given by the Government "acting on the advice" of the
Scientific Committee, as do many provisions in European Union law.
35. The Whaling Convention requires (in paragraph 30 of the Schedule) only that members
of the Scientific Committee have the opportunity to "review and comment" on permits that a
Government proposes to issue.
36. Japan accepts that the provision for "review and comment" implies that the comments
are to be considered through a process which enables an informed expert view on the merits of any
comments received to be put before the officiais taking the final decision on the issue of the permit,
and that the comments and the appraisal of them be taken into account by the officiais when taking
the final decision.
37. Japan has done this. Japan is weil aware ofthe controversy concerning lethal whaling;
and it studies and considers views from the Whaling Commission and its Scientific Committee with
the greatest care.
The duty to act in good faith
38. Japan accepts, tao, that the discretion which Contracting Governments have under
Article VIII is not unrestricted. As a matter of international law, if Australia proved that the
decision to issue permits for JARPA II had been taken in bad faith and was manifestly an abuse of - 22-
Japan's rights, the Court would be entitled to review the decision and to declare that it contravened
the Convention.
39. lt is not uncommon for the Court and other international tribunals to be faced with cases
in which the actions by aState are challenged on the basis that although the action is nominally an
exercise of a power that indisputably exists, the circumstances are such that the action cannot be
regarded as a "proper" exercise of that power.
40. The Court has consistently approached these situations by requiring the applicant State to
prove that the action was taken in bad faith. Let me mention some of the most illuminating
examples.
41. Bad faith arises in two contexts: the interpretation and the application of treaties; and
the exercise ofrights in international law in general.
42. The obligation to interpret and apply treaty provisions in good faith is spelled out in
Articles 31 and 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties. lt has been reiterated in many
cases and 1 need not take you to them. But 1 should refer you to the Court's decisions in the
Conditions of Admission and Peace Treaties cases- 9 the latter an instance of a case where the
Court might have introduced a general reference to good faith to override the specifie wording of a
treaty, but very firmly refused to do so. In arbitral practice, there are the awards in the North
Atlantic Coast Fisheries case 10,and in the La Bretagne arbitration, where the tribunal referred to
11
the "principle of good faith which is of necessity a principal factor in the performance oftreaties" •
43. What is significant about this body of practice is not so much that there is such a duty in
relation to the interpretation and application oftreaties- it is barely conceivable that there should
not be. What is significant is that the duty is tied to the criterion of good faith, and not to some
other standard.
44. The cases do not say that there is a duty to apply the treaty in the manner that the
majority of the other States Parties think it should be applied, or in the manner that the Court
8Conditions of Admission of a State to ,\1embership in the United Nations (Article -1of the Charter), Advis01y
Opinion, 19-18,I.C.J Reports 19-17-1948p. 63.
9/nterpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungwy and Romania, Second Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
Reports 1950, p.221.
1United Nations Reports of international Arbitral Awards (UNRIAA), Vol. Xl, p. 188.
182/LR 591, at p. 614, para. 27. -23-
determines would be the ideal implementation. They say that there is a duty to apply the provisions
of a treaty in good faith.
45. As far as the doctrine of good faith in the exercise of rights in international law more
generally is concerned, the principle is again weil established in international jurisprudence.ln the
case concerning Rights of United States Nationals in Morocco, the Court referred to the exercise of
a power (there, of making customs valuations), saying that "it is a power which must be exercised
reasonably and in good faith"12• ln Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries, the Court referred to its power to
13
review the drawing of a baseline in a particular locality in cases of"manifest abuse" •
Good faith under ICRW Article VIII
46. Taking the procedural obligations under the Whaling Convention and the duty of good
faith together, Japan fully accepts that it is bound to consider and take account of any comments
received from the Scientific Committee under paragraph 30 of the Schedule to the Convention
when it decides upon the issuance and terms of any special permit.
47. But Japan does not accept that it is under any obligation to agree with, or to implement,
every comment that it receives.
48. lt was no part of the agreement made in 1951 by Japan that research related to whales
conducted by any individual State or group of States should be subjected to collective control by
IWC Contracting Governments, orto control by the IWC itself. We explained that in Chapter 2 of
the Counter-Memorial; and we have developed that point in paragraphs 26 to 36 of our response to
New Zealand's Written Observations.
49. New Zealand tries to portray the IWC as a prototype for the subjection of high seas
resources to a system of collective management by an international organization - and that
achieved almost 70 years ago. But in Japan's submission, that view is not borne out by the
examination of the travaux préparatoires, to which New Zealand barely refers, or by the reading of
the 1946 Convention itself. The International Whaling Commission has the powers that it is given
under the Convention: no Jess, and no more.
1Ca. c~nccming Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in ,\Iorocco (France v. United States of
America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports p. 212.
1Fisheries (United Kingdv. Norway), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports p. 142. -24-
50. 1f Japan formulates a plan for the conduct of scientific research into whaling and, if it
involves a lethal take, it submits to the Scientific Committee the proposai to issue whaling permits,
and it gives the necessary consideration to the reviews and comments that it receives, and it reaches
a decision in good faith as to how to proceed, and that includes an informed consideration of those
reviews and comments, then Japan says that it validly exercises its rights to authorize the killing,
taking and treating of whales for purposes of scientific research under the Convention. And
Japan's decisions arrived at in this way cannot be overturned by the Whaling Commission or, in
our respectful submission, by this Court.
51. So, in Japan's submission, a Contracting Government fulfils the requirement when it
exercises its ArticleVIII rights in good faith if, in issuing a special permit, it considers:
(a) whether there is a need for data of the kind that it is proposed to collect;
(b) what are the appropriate methods for the collection ofthat data;
(c) the number of whales that, according to good scientific practice, should be caught, and the
length oftime over which they should be caught, in order to generate a sound database; and
(d) whether that number of whales can be taken without damaging the health and sustainability of
the stocks from which they are taken.
52. And as that procedure was modified in 1979 with the adoption of paragraph 30 of the
Schedule, also Japan accepts the duty to submit proposed permits for review and comment by the
Scientific Committee.
53. That is what Japan agreed to. That is the procedure on which the functioning of the
Whaling Commission is based. And that is the procedure that Japan in fact adopted in relation to
JARPA Il. And Japan submits that in doing so it fulfilled its obligations under the Whaling
Convention.
54. The role of the Court, in our submission, is to secure the integrity of the process by
which the decision is made, and not to review the decision itself. Unless there is evidence that
Japan acted in bad faith, there is no basis for holding that Japan's decision to authorize JARPA Il
amounts to a violation of the Convention. - 25-
Australia 's argument
55. Last Friday, counsel for Australia said that "Japan has never opened its mind to a
consideration of making the slightest change to the core aspects of its lethal methodology; scale,
14
continuity and indefinite period, have never been the subject of reconsideration by Japan" •
"Japan"- whichever individuals are to be counted under that label- "never opened its mind to a
consideration of making the slightest change". There is no evidence offered in support of that
astonishing, categorical assertion, one of severa! made by Australia in its pleadings. It was not
supported by Professor Mange!; and it may be that Australia thinks it appropriate to come back
with a more carefully articulated statement of its position next week.
56. But the point is that Australia has produced no evidence of bad faith. It seems to regard
the very fact that Japan and Australia are in profound disagreement on this matter as indicating that
Japan must be acting in bad faith. But that is not so. As a matter offact Japan has not acted in bad
faith. And as a matter of law, as the tribunal in the Lac Lanoux case observed, "there is a general
15
and well-established principle of law according to which bad faith is not presumed" •
57. Australia's experts were frank and helpful. Professor Mange! made it clear that his views
on the indicia of "scientific research" were not aimed at the term "scientific research" as a legal
termina treaty. He was providing:
"a general assessment of what it means to do a program for purposes of scientific
research and then by reference to the IWC's writings, the activity of the Commission
and the Scientific Committee, to try to make it in sorne sense more operational for the
16
context of conservation and management ofwhales" •
58. He accepted that there is a difference in meaning between the term "for purposes of
scientific research", which is what the Convention says, and "for the purposes of scientific research
in the context of conservation and the management of whales", which is the term upon which he
17
focused • Professor Mangel's testimony gave a clear view of his own understanding of the
desiderata of scientific research in a specifie context, but he did not purport to address the legal
requirements imposed under the Convention, which refer to scientific research in a different
14
CR 2013111, p. 36, para. 36 (Glccson).
1
$24/LR, p. 126; XliUNRIAA, p. 305.
1CR 2013/9, p. 53 (Mangcl).
1CR 2013/9, p. 52 (Mangcl). - 26-
context. Even in its own terms, Professor Mangel accepted that his approach does not produce a
bright-line test: there may be border-line cases where sorne scientists think that a project falls on
18
one side of his criteria, whilst others think that it falls on the other sid•
59. Dr. Gales accepted that there have been a number of divisive issues in the Scientific
Committee and that there are times when it is quite Jegitimate to have disagreement within that
Committee 1• His criticism was that the divisions of opinion over JARPA Il have not been able to
advance in the Scientific Committee so as to enable it to advise the Commission on how it should
understand that division of views. His criticism is that it has impeded the development of a unified
message from the Scientific Committee.
60. It is evident that Japan and Australia disagree fundamentally over JARPA Il. But the
fact that Japan takes a different view on certain technical matters does not entail the conclusion that
Japan is acting in bad faith. ln the field of science and scientific debate, bad faith is the refusai to
listen, not the refusai to agree. Listening and disagreeing, and exploring the reasons for the
disagreement and the evidence bearing upon it, is how science progresses .
Conclusion
61. Mr. President, Members of the Court, my submission is that Japan has fulfilled ali of the
requirements set out in the Whaling Convention in respect ofthe issuance ofthe JARPA Il permits,
and that there is no legal basis upon which the Court can find that the issuance of those permits
violated Japan's legal obligations under that Convention. Unless 1 can be of further assistance,
Mr. President, 1would ask you now to invite Ms Takashiba to take the floor.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Professor Lowe. give the floor to
Ms Takashiba. You have the floor.
Mme TAKASHIBA : Thank you Mr. President.
1CR 2013/9. p. 59 (Mange!).
qCR 2013/10, p. 27 (Gales). - 27-
La portéeet la pratique du paragraphe 30
Introduction
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court. lt is a great honour for me to appear
before you today. To represent one's country is a privilege, but for me it is a particularly humbling
moment.
2. Monsieur le président, il m'incombe de vous exposer le cadre procédural de la mise en
Œuvre de JARPA Il. En particulier, je me propose de montrer que la procédure d'«examen et de
commentaires» du comitéscientifique conformément au paragraphe 30 du règlement ne revient pas
à un «examen et approbation» préalablesà la chasse scientifique, comme le suggèrent l'Australie et
la Nouvelle-Zélande. Pour en arriver là, l'Australie a tenté la semaine dernière de réécrire
unilatéralement des observations du comitéscientifique en fonction de ses intérêts 20 et a prétendu
21
que les résolutions adoptées par la commission baleinière internationale (CBI), en dépit de ses
divisions, se fondaient sur de telles observations qui n'existaient pas;pour dire que le Japon rejette )(
22
tout mécanisme prévupar la convention • Or cette construction n'informe guère sur les exigences
~~Cq\..o.\..,.J..o
exactes ies ~RR@II du paragraphe 30. Je me propose donc de remettre le paragraphe 30 dans son x
contexte véritabledans lequel le comitéscientifique joue un rôle central et de montrer que le Japon
se conforme pleinement aux exigences du paragraphe 30.
3. La Cour a déjàlonguement entendu parler du paragraphe 30. Il exige des gouvernements
contractants qu'ils notifient les propositions de permis au comitéscientifique de la CBI avant leur
"'c :..~"'"
délivrance pour que ce dernier puisse «les examiner et formuler un avi* 23• Les gouvernements >f
doivent aussi présenter les résultats préliminaires de toute recherche issue des permis au comité.
Le paragraphe 30 établit donc un mécanisme pour faciliter l'échange des renseignements de
caractère scientifique nécessaire pour accomplir les buts de la convention . Le comité n'étant pas
lui-mêmemuni de ses propres vaisseaux ou d'équipes de recherche, il dépend des recl"lerches
scientifiques effectuées par les gouvernements contractants.
° CR 2013/8, p. 25, par. 44 (Bunnester) ; CR 2013/8, p. 63, par. 19 (Sands); CR 2013/9, p. 21, par. 27.
21
CR 2013/ 11, p. 35, par. 36 (Gieeson).
22
CR 2013/8, p. 20, par. 24 (Bunnester).
23Paragraphe 30 du règlement annàxla convention. -28-
4. L'Australie a beaucoup insisté sur la première exigence du paragraphe 30 dans ses
plaidoiries 2• Elle a, en revanche, très peu mentionné l'échange de renseignements scientifiques,
alors que c'est le but mêmede cette disposition. Au lieu de le faire, l'Australie a tentéd'avancer
deux arguments : premièrement, elle suggère que l'adoption du paragraphe 30 atteste que la
convention restreint le pouvoir discrétionnaire des Etats pour octroyer des permis scientifiques en
25
vertu de l'article V111 ;et deuxièmement, que, dans la pratique, le Japon se trouve en violation des
exigences procédurales du paragraphe 30 au méprisde la cse 6•
5. Avant de traiter de ces deux arguments, force est de constater que l'Australie invoque ce
paragraphe 30 d'une manière fort curieuse. Pendant les décennies de négociations, l'Australie n'a
jamais prétendu que le Japon avait violé cette disposition. A fortiori, le comité scientifique n'a
jamais discuté une telle réclamation. Cette disposition a fait l'objet de controverses uniquement
après que l'Australie eut saisi la Cour de la présenteaffaire.
6. Monsieur le professeur Pellet a déjà expliqué pourquoi l'amendement du règlement ne
peut pas restreindre le pouvoir discrétionnaire des gouvernements contractants d'octroyer des
permis scientifiques sans autorisation préalable en vertu de l'article VIII. En conséquence,
j'expliquerai maintenant, primo, la portéeexacte du paragraphe 30 et la conformité de l'attitude du
Japon à celle-ci (1.) ;secundo, je démontrerai que le Japon est allé bien au-delà de l'exigence
minimu111du paragraphe 30 en s'engageant de manière continue dans un dialogue scientifique (Il.).
1.La portéede l'exigence procédurale selon le paragraphe 30 du règlement
et le respect de cette disposition par le Japon
A. Notification préalable de propositions de permis scientifiques au comitéscientifique
7. En ce qui concerne mon premier point, Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de
la Cour, la question est assez simple. Le paragraphe 30 se réfère à l'«examen» et aux
«commentaires». Le sens ordinaire de ces termes ne peut êtreplus clair. Il s'en déduit,d'une part,
une obligation de notifier des propositions qui s'impose aux gouvernements contractants et, d'autre
part, la possibilité pour le comité de formuler un avis. Il n'est fait mention nulle part d'une
24
MA, par. 4.20-4.24; CR 2013/8, p. 33, par. 26-30 (Crawford).
2'MA, par. 4.22; CR 2013/8, p. 32, par. 23-24 et p. 34, par. 30 (Crawford); CR 2013/11, p. 34, par. 33-35
(Giecson).
26MA, par.5.127. -29-
procédure d'examen et d'approbation. Le texte entier du paragraphe 30 se trouve sous
l'onglet n"45 de vos dossiers et s'affiche en ce moment à l'écran. Comme cette disposition vous
est familière, nul besoin pour moi de la lire.
[Projection n" 1.]
«Il appartient à tout gouvernement contractant de fournir au Secrétaire de la
commission baleinière internationale ses propositions de permis scientifiques avant
leur délivrance et dans un délaisuffisant pour permettre au comitéscientifique de les
examiner et de formuler un avis à ce sujet.»
Ensuite, cette disposition identifie les quatre types de renseignement à spécifier dans les
propositions, comme vous le voyez à l'écran:
«a) les objectifs de la recherche ; b) le nombre, le sexe, la taille et la population des
animaux à capturer ; c) les possibilitésde participation aux recherches de scientifiques
provenant d'autres pays ; et d) les effets potentiels de cette chasse sur la conservation
27
de la population concernée» •
8. L'adoption du paragraphe 30 en 1979 ne fut nullement «une date historique dans
28
l'évolution du système de délivrance de permis spéciaux» , comme l'affirme l'Australie
aujourd'hui. [Débutde la projection n°2.] En effet, la disposition n'a fait que préciserl'obligation
découlant déjàde l'article VIII, paragraphe 3, de la convention de transmettre les renseignements
29
de caractère scientifique ,obligation qui se reflèter.;Jéjd ilans la règle F du règlement intérieurdu >c
30
comitéscientifique • [Fin de la projection n° 2.]
9. M. Gleeson a prétendu que le Japon «avait systématiquement refuséde se plier» à cette
exigence «en ne soumettant pas ses propositions de permis scientifiques à l'examen de la
31
commission avant de lancer ses campagnes de chasse» • Mais l'élémentde preuve qu'il a voulu
apporter ne l'amène nulle part. M. Gleeson se réfèreà des permis que le Japon a soumis à la
commission après les avoir délivrésalors que le Japon a soumis la proposition avant de délivrer
32
des permis, comme l'exige le paragraphe 30 • La prétendueméconnaissance de cette exigence par
27
Paragraphe 30 du règlement.
28
MA, par. 4.22.
29
Derek Bowett, «Avis juridique sur une disposition du règlement annexéà la convention de 1946 qui prévoirait
l'examen préalable des permis scientifiques ct l'interdiction de la chasse à la baleine dans le cadre d'opérations pour
lesquelles toutes lt:sdonnées requises n'auraient pas étéfournies», IWC/31/9, p. 4 (CMJ, annexe 78).
10
Adoptéeen 1977. Disponible à l'adresse http://iwc.int/indcx.php?ciD=2385&cType=documcnt&dov.nload =l.
31
MA, par. 5.127. CR 2013/11, p. 34, par. 33 (Giccson).
32
CR 2013111, p. 34, par. 33 (Giccson). - 30-
le Japon n'a jamais étéinvoquée au sein du comité scientifique. Au contraire, il est incontestable
que le Japon n'a jamais délivréses permis scientifiques sans avoir au préalable donné au comité
scientifiquela possibilité d'examiner les projets de permis et de formuler un avis à ce sujet bien
avant l'expiration des délais,et ceci tout au long des périodesdePA et JARPA Il.
B. La procédured'«examen et de commentaire)) du comitéscientifique
1O. Une fois soumise, [projection n° 3] la proposition fait l'objet d'un examen et de
commentaires du comité scientifique lors des réunions annuelles, conformément aux lignes
directrices du comitéscientifique, incluses dans les annexeses rapports.
Il. Quant à la portéedes commentaires, absolument rien n'indique qu'ils aient un caractère
contraignant ni qu'ils constituent une condition préalable à la chasse scientifiqItt:e EhAl ~lieA
comité scientifique n'a pas pour fonction de valider, modifier ou révoquer les permis proposés.
Ceci n'est pas seulement l'interprétation du Japon. Avant d'adopter le paragraphe 30, la CBI avait
sollicité l'avis du professeur Derek Bowett. Celui-ci avait préciséquela licéitéde l'amendement
envisagé étaitconditionnée à l'interprétation stricte de celui-ci, qui ne pourrait êtreconçue comme
ajoutant des conditions à l'article VIII, ou comme conférant au comité scientifique le pouvoir
d'autoriser ou de censurer les permis notifiés par les gouvernements contractants [début de la
projectionn° 4] :
"The function of the Scientific Committee must therefore be retained as one of
'review and comment'. There can be no question of the Scientific Committee
assuming a power to authorise or disallow a permit. Even the fixing of the number of
whales to be taken, and any other conditions, rests in the discretion of the Contracting
Governments ('as the Contracting Government thinks fit'), so that the most the
Scientific Committee can do is to comment on these conditions, and this by way of
reports and recommendation to the Commission as the Rule J 3 recognizes. "3
[Fin de la projection n°4.]
34
Je note au passage que l'Australie, qui cite cette consultation garde d'en reproduire ce passage
crucial dansle corps de son mémoire,ou dans ses annexes.
12. Dans le même sens, le commissaire de l'Islande a insisté: «Paragraph 30 of the
Schedule ... is carefully drafted so as not to question the right granted by the Convention.»
33
Bowett, D., voir ci-dessus, (CMJ, annexe 78).
34
MA, par. 4.66. - 31 -
Cette interprétation est bien celle de la CBI. Elle l'a affirmé à plusieurs reprises que: «the
ultimate responsibility for issuing [proposed scientific permits] lies with the member nation» 36•
M. le professeur Crawford a soutenu la semaine dernière que la question de savoir si le
comitéscientifique assumait un pouvoir d'autorisation ou de désapprobation n'étaitpas la question
37
et que seul compte le caractère obligatoire du paragraphe 30 • Avec tout le respect dû, cela n'est
pas la question. Le Japon est d'accord avec l'Australie en ce que le paragraphe 30 s'impose à lui.
Mais c'est sur l'apport exact de cette disposition que les Parties divergent.
13. Dans ses écritures, la Nouvelle-Zélande transforme de manière arbitraire la procédure
d'examen et de commentaires en «système de réglementation collective>>. Pourtant, rien dans la
disposition ne subordonne la délivrance des permis à l'examen par la CBI des recommandations du
38
comité scientifique • Elle est encore moins soumise à l'approbation des autres gouvernements
contractants.
14. Il est aussi instructif d'examiner la portée du paragraphe 30 à la lumière du rôle des
comités scientifiques dans d'autres organisations internationales et régionales pour la pêcherie,
telles que l'Organisation des pêches de l'Atlantique Nord-Ouest (OPANO) et la Commission
internationale pour la conservation des thonidés de l'Atlantique (ICCAT). Dans le cadre de ces
mécanismes, similaires à celui prévu par le paragraphe 30, le rôle des comités scientifiques n'est
pas celui d'un organe qui a pour but de juger des actions des Etats contractants. Il s'agit également
39
d'organes consultatifs constituant des forums de consultation et de coopération avec les
40
gouvernements contractants •
35 Procès-verbal de la CBI, 1986, p. 24.
36 Rapport du présidentsur les travaux de la 57• Réunionannuelle de la CBI, 2005, p. 48, par. 10.1.1(onglet n°47
du dossier des juges) ; Rapport du présidentsur les travaux de la 58• Réunionannuelle de la CBI, 2006, p. 40, par. 11.1.2.
17CR 2013/8, p. 33, par. 29 (Crawford).
18 Answer by the Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs ofNorway, Lisbeth Berg-Hansen to Written Question
from Terje Aasland dated 20 June 2013, disponible à l'adresse (http://www.regjeringen.no/en/depllkd/What s
new/News/2013/scientific-research-on-whales.html ?id=731449). Voir observations écrites de la Nouvelle-Zélande
(OEN, par. 105).
39
Voir, par exemple, OPNA, art. IX; SEAFO, art. 10; CCAMLR, art. XIV; CCSBT, art. 9; CGPM, règles de
procédure,règle X; CITT, art. Xl; CICTA, art. IV; CTOI, règles de procédure,règleX; CPAPN, règles de procédure,
par. Il ; WCPFC, art. Il.
40 Voir, par exemple, OPNA, art. IV. OPNA, art. VI; SEAFO, art. 10, 13; CCAMLR, art. XV; CCSBT, art. 5;
CGPM, règle de procédure, règleX; CITT, annexe 4; CICTA, art. IX; CTOI, règle de procédure, règleX: CPAPN,
règlede procédure,par. 11; WCPFC, art. 12, 13. - 32-
15. Le comité scientifique établi par la CBI ne se distingue guère à cet égard. Il a
exclusivement pour fonction de servir d'organe consultatif conformément à la règle M (4) des
41
règles de procédure •
C. La proposition de JARPA II a dûment fait l'objet d'examen et de commentaires par le
comitéscientifique
16. Je vais maintenant expliquer comment la procédure d'«examen et de commentaires» a
étémise en Œuvre dans le cadre de JARPA Il. M. Gleeson prétend encore une fois que la
proposition de JARPA n'aurait pas étésoumise au comité de sorte que les renseignements requis
par le paragraphe 30 n'auraient pas étésoumis. Mais c'est inexact car [débutde la projection n° 5]
le Japon a bien soumis la proposition de JARPA Il en mars 2005 et a exposé des types de
42
renseignements conformément au paragraphe 30 • Le comité scientifique a reconnu que «The
43
proposai provides the information under Paragraph 30 of the Schedule.» Après un échange de
questions et réponses entre les membres du comité et les scientifiques participant à JARPA 11 4, le
comité scientifique, conformément à son mandat, s'est acquitté de la tâche de l'examiner et de
formuler des avis sur la méthodologie, les effets de captures sur la population concernée et sur les
possibilités de participation aux recherches, conformément à la ligne directrice du comité dans
l'annexe Y dans son rapport de 2001 45• [Fin de la projection n° 5.]
17. Afin de mettre en cause l'examen du comité scientifique, l'Australie se réfèreà la
46
résolution de la CBI 2005-1 qui condamne JARPA 11 • Cependant, la résolution n'a rien à voir
avec la procédure du paragraphe 30 : seul le comité scientifique peut examiner le mérite
scientifique de la proposition. Comme on l'a déjàvu, les discussions au sein de la commission au
sujet des constatations du comité scientifique à l'égarddes permis scientifiques sont dominées par
une autre dynamique. La résolution de la CBI, elle-même à peine adoptée à une faible majorité de
41
Voir règleM (4) des règles de procédure du comité scientifique. Disponible à l'adresse
http:/iwc.int/indcx.php?clD=2385&cType=document&download =1.
42
CMJ, Annexe 150.
41
JCRM 8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 50 (onglet n°48).
44
Ibid.
45 Lignes directrices pour l'examen de propositions des permis scientifiques, annexe Y, JCRM 3 (Suppl.), 2001
[MA, annexe 48] ; rapport du comitéscientiliquee (SC Report) 2005 (JCRM 8 (Suppl.), 2006), p. 49. Tous les rapports
du comitéscientifique citésci sont disponiblàsl'adresse http://iwc.int/scientifc-committce-reports.
46
MA, par. 5.16; CR 2013/11, p. 32, par. 28 (Glceson). - 33-
30 Etats contre 27' 1, ne peut pas annihiler la procéduresuivie par le comitéscientifique sur la base
de critères scientifiques.
18. Tant M. le professeur Sands que M. Gleeson ont souligné en outre le fait que
63 membres -sur 195- du comité scientifique ont étéabsents lorsque la proposition de
JARPA Il a étéexaminée par le comité,pour ainsi réfuter la validitéde sa procédure 48• En réalité,
l'absence de 63 scientifiques, y compris les membres australiens, atteste plutôt du manque de
coopération dans le cadre du paragraphe 30 par les scientifiques qui s'opposent à la chasse. Leur
absence ne prouve certainement pas un manque de conformité du Japon. L'Australie ne peut pas
s'appuyer sur le boycottage de délibérationsau sein du comitéscientifique par des scientifiques qui
s'alignent à sa politique et prétendre devant la Cour maintenant que ces membres n'ont pas eu la
possibilité de participer aux délibérations. Les choses sont claires. Après la soumission, par les
49
63 scientifiques, d'une déclaration d'objection à l'examen de la proposition , et d'une réfutation
écrite de cette objection 50, le comité s'est acquitté de sa fonction. Le comité n'a jamais
recommandé de changer les méthodes de recherche. En revanche, lorsque le comité scientifique
avait estiméqu'une proposition de permis- soumise par des autres Etats- ne répondaitpas à ses
critères, il avait recommandé spécifiquement de ne pas délivrer les permis demandés 51• Ce fut le
cas, par exemple, lorsqu'il avait estimé que le programme d'observation prévu n'était pas assez
aléatoireou que les impacts sur la population suscitaient des préoccupations. Ce n'étaitpas le cas
pour JARPA Il.
19. Les 63 scientifiques se sont retirés de la salle en 2005, en déclarant qu'il serait
inappropriéde présenter une critique détailléeavant que l'évaluation de JARPA ne soit achevée 5•
En décembre2006, l'évaluation finale des résultats de JARPA a étéeffectuée par le comité. Ses
conclusions ont étéensuite appuyées par le comité scientifique dans sa réunion annuelle de
47JCM, par. 5.88.
48MA, par. 5.86; CR 2013/9, p. 33, par. 66-67 (Sands); CR 2013111, p. 32, par. 25-27 (Giceson).
49JCRM 8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 260, annexe 01, appendice 2 (JCM, annexe 108).
50JCRM 8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 262, annexe 01, appendice 3 (JCM, annexe 152).
51
Voir, par exemple, Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn 37, 1987, p. 29 ; ibid. 38, 1988, p. 54 (onglet n°49).
2
~SC Report 2005 (JCRM 8 (Suppl.) 2006), p. 49. -34-
53
mai 2007 • Cependant, personne parmi ces 63 scientifiques n'a saisi l'occasion de formuler une
critique détailléede la proposition de JARPA Il à cette occasion 54• Voici ce que le comité a dit
en 2010 [projection no6]: «the chair noted that both JARPA Il and JARPN Il are continuing on the
basis of plans already submitted and reviewed in the Scientific Committee» 55• Pour le comité, la
procédure prévuea donc étépleinement suivie.
II. L'engagement continu du Japon dans le dialogue scientifique
A. Le Japon a étéà l'écoutedu comitéscientifique
20. Ceci m'amène à ma deuxième partie. L'Australie soutient maintenant que le Japon
n'étaitpas à l'écoutedes préoccupations soulevées par les membres du comitéscientifique 56•
21. A la lumière du but du paragraphe 30, les échanges entre le comité scientifique et un
gouvernement contractant sont évidemment de nature scientifique. La disposition n'impose pas
d'exigence de coopération entre les gouvernements contractants eux-mêmes. L'Australie déforme
le sens du paragraphe 30 en suggérant que les vues d'autres Etats de la CBI puissent intervenir dans
la procéduredu paragraphe 30 57•
22. En tant que membres de la CBI, les gouvernements contractants doivent coopérerafin de
s'acquitter de bonne foi de leurs engagements pour la réalisation du but de la convention. Lorsque
le comité scientifique examine la proposition, le gouvernement concerné doit tenir compte
sérieusement des discussions qui ont eu lieu en son sein et de ses éventuelles conclusions.
58
23. Cependant, premièrement, la mauvaise foi ne peut pas êtreprésumée mais doit être
prouvée 5• Deuxièmement, les moyens spécifiques de coopération demeurent largement à la
discrétion des Etats 60•
53
SC Report 2007 (JCRM 10(Suppl.) 2008), p. 58.
54
SC Report 2007 (JCRM 10(Suppl.) 2008), annexe 0, p. 342-345, 347-350.
55
SC Report 2010 (JCRM 12(Suppl.), 2011), p. 57 (onglet n° 50).
56
MA, par. 5.84-5.93; CR 2013/8, p. 26, par. 45 (Burrnester); CR 2013/9, p. 33, par. 74-76 (Sands);
CR 2013/11, p. 14 (Crawford).
57
MA, par. 5.88; OEN, par. 86; CR 2013/8, p. 34, par. 30 (Crawford).
58
Voir également, Essais nucléaires (Nouvelle-Zélande c. fi·ance), arrêt,C.J.J.Recueil 197-J,p. 473, par. 49;
Di.!Jérendrelatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), t,C.l.J. Recueil 2009,
p. 267, par. 150 ; Application de l'accord intérimaire du 13septembre 1995 (ex-Républiqueyougoslave de A1acédoine
c. Grèce), arrêtdu 5 décembre20Il, par. 168.
q Application de 1'accordintérimaire du 13septembre 1995(ex-République yougoslave de Macédoinec. Grèce),
arrêtdu 5 décembre2011, par. 138. - 35-
24. Les arguments de la Nouvelle-Zélande à cet égard sont erronés. En se fondant sur sa
propre interprétation de la convention en tant que système (complet) de réglementation collective,
la Nouvelle-Zélande prétend, sans fondement, que la coopération effective dans le cadre du
paragraphe 30 exige que «le gouvernement contractant prenne en compte les vues exprimées par
les autres parties, dans le respect de leurs intérêts,t soit prêtà modifier sa proposition de permis
61
scientifique en conséquence» • Et bien évidemment, pour la Nouvelle-Zélande, le seul moyen de
s'acquitter de ce devoir consisterait à se plier aux avis des Etats hostiles à la chasse à laaleine 6•
C'est là une interprétation assez originale du terme «coopération». Elle tente en outre de renverser
la charge de la preuve, en soutenant qu'il appartient au gouvernement contractant octroyant les
permis spéciaux de «démontrer qu'il a dûment tenu compte des vues du comitéscientifique et de la
63
commissiom> • La Nouvelle-Zélande part de la position selon laquelle un Etat est présuméagir de
64
mauvaise foi sauf s'il peut démontrer le contraire • Il s'agit d'une théorie fort nouvelle et
indéfendable.
25. Dans la mesure où la convention impose un devoir particulier de coopération, la question
se pose de savoir si le Japon a tenu compte de bonne foi des commentaires du comitéscientifique.
Comme la Norvège l'a indiqué récemment: «The ~rt yoncerned will also have to take into ~
account any advice provided by the Scientific Committee under Article VI - such advice,
65
however, being recommendations as opposed to decisions or injunctions.» Dans le cadre de la
consultation préalable avec le comité scientifique, et non du consentement préalable de la
CBI- que rien n'impose, la question n'est pas de savoir si le Japon a modifié sa proposition en
postulant, à tort, que les commentaires constituent une décision contraignante ou conformément
60Murase, Shinya, International Law: An Integra/ive Perspective on Transboundmy Issues, Sophia Univ. Press,
2011,p. 114.
61OEN, par. 106.
62Ibid.
" OEN, conclusion e), p. 66.
04
Application de 1'accord intérimaire du 13septembre 1995 (ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine c. Grèce),
arrët du décembre20Il, par. 132.
65
Answer by the Minister ofFisheries and Coastal Affairs ofNorway, voir ci-dessus. - 36-
66
aux «vues exprimées par les autres parties» • A cet égard, la pratique du comité scientifique est
claire et c'est sur ce dernier point que je me pencherai maintenant.
B. Dialogue scientifique continu mêmeaprès l'examen et les commentaires par le comité
scientifique
26. La procédure que j'ai eu l'honneur d'exposer fait partie d'un dialogue scientifique plus
large. Comme je l'ai mentionné tout au début de ma présentation [projection no7], le
paragraphe 30 exige aussi la présentation de «résultats préliminaires de toute recherche issue des
67 68
permis» • Le Japon a tenu le comitéscientifique au courant des progrès de JARPA 11 et d'abord ,
69
en lui présentantannuellement des rapports de mission •
27. L'Australie soutient que le Japon n'a pas répondu aux points soulevés lors de
70
l'évaluation finale de JARPA par le comité scientifique • JARPA Il est un programme de
recherche devant se dérouler sur six ans, après lesquels la première évaluation périodique est
prévuepour le début2014 71• Le Japon est prêtà modifier le programme, si nécessaire, sur la base
des résultats de ladite évaluation 72• Il a en outre déjàaccepté d'y apporter des modifications. Le
comitéscientifique a d'ailleurs noté:
[Débutde la projection n° 8.]
«Although there is no formai requirement for Special Permit holders to report
on what changes have been made to their research plans as a result to any comments
or suggestions received from the Scientific Committee, the Committee agrees that it
would be good practice to do so. This would help speed up future review process and
would constitute an act of good faith.» 73
[Fin de la projection n° 8.]
66 MA, par. 5.88 ; OEN, par. 95. Answer b) the Minister of Fisheries and Coa.A ~fais lof Norway, voir
ci-dessus.
67
Paragraphe 30 du règlement.
68
Voir par exemple, SC Report 2012, p. 86 ; SC Report 2011 (JCRM 13 (Suppl.), 2012), p. 54 ; SC Report 2010
(JCRM 12 (Suppl.), 2011), p. 57.
6
q Voir par exemple, SC Report 2012, p. 85. Tous les rapports de croisière de JARPNJARPA Il sont disponibles
à l'adresse: http://www.icrwhale.org/CruiseReportJARPA .htm.
70
MA, par. 5.87 ; CR 2013/9, p. 36, par. 75 (Sands). Voir aussi CMJ, par. 5.18.
71
Rapport du présidentde la CBI, 2012, p. 52.
72
Projet de recherche JARPA Il (SC/57/0 1), p. 13 (CMJ, annexe 150) : «At the end of this phase, a review will
be held and revisions made to the program ifrequired».
71MA, par. 5.90 ; SC Report 2005, (JCRM 8 (Suppl.), 2006), p. 48 (onglet n° 51). - 37-
28. C'est donc dans cet esprit que le Japon, depuis l'époquede JARPA, a continuellement
participé, en toute bonne foi, aux débats scientifiques avec la communauté scientifique de la CBI,
en exposant ses résultats à l'analyse et à la cri.tique. Il a trèsattentivement pris en considération les
74
vues exprimées par les membres du comité scientifique •
29. Ce dernier a reconnu à de nombreuses reprises que le Japon avait accepté d'adapter son
75
programme de recherche • [Début de la projection n° 9.] : «The Committee welcomed the
presentation of this report in response to a request from last year.» 76 C'est d'ailleurs en réponseà
des avis du comité scientifique que les méthodes de collecte de données ont étémodifiées pour
renforcer la composante d'observation 77• Les scientifiques ayant fait des propositions de
modification concrète ont exprimé leur appreciation : un membre américain «noted, with
appreciation, that many of the concerns he had expressed last year had been addressed in papers to
78
the meeting ». La CBI a en outre reconnu que «the programme had been revised to try to take into
79
account comments made by the Scientific Committee in the previous year» . Depuis 1987, le
80
Japon s'est employéà développer des outils spéciauxpour l'échantillonnage des biopsies •
[Fin de la projection no9.]
30. L'Australie et le Dr Gales prétendent que le Japon ne s'est pas montrédisposéà accepter
les changements 81• Cela n'est tout simplement pas exact. Le débatsur les méthodesde substitution
des méthodes létalesainsi que sur l'utilitéde données de JARPA/JARPA Il pour la mise en Œuvre
de la RMP pour les petits rorquals antarctiques est très révélateur. Et ce débat doit êtreapprécié
74
CMJ, p. 375-380, par. 8.68.
7
~SC/44/SHBI4 (JCM, annexe 143); voir également: «Report of the lnterscssional Workshop to Rcvic\\ Data
and Rcsults from Special Permit Rescarch on Minkc Whales in the Antarctic», Tokyo, 4-8 décembre2006,
(onglet n° 15); SC/64/IA4, disponible à l'adresse: http://iwc.int/sc64docs; SC Report 2002 (JCRM 5 (Suppl.), 2003),
p. 35); (JCRM 10 (Suppl.), 2008, p. 423; SC/59/08, disponible à l'adresse:
http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/SC-59-08.pdf; SC/62/IA Il, disponible à l'adresse : http://iwc.int/sc62docs ;
SC Report 2010 (JCRM 12(Suppl.), 2011), p. 26).
76
Rep. /nt. IVhal.Commn46, 1996, p. 78
77
Rep. !nt. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, p. 75.
78
Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn 42, 1992, p. 73 (comments by Smith (USA)). Voir égalementibid., 1992, p. 73 ct
p. 76 ; Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn 44, 1994, p. 61.
q Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn42, 1992, p. 13.
80 SC/42/0 16 (Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn 41, 1991, p. 555-557) ; Kasamatsu et al. 1989 (SC/41/SIIMi 16),
disponible à l'adresse : http://www.icrwhale.org/pdi/SC-41-SHMi16.pd(; Nishiwaki et al. 1990 (SC/42/ShMi21),
disponible à l'adresse : http://www.icm halc.org/pdi7SC-42-SIIMi21.pdf.
81
Déclarationdu Dr Gales, en date du 15avril2013, par. 3.28-3.29; CR 2013/11, p. 36, par. 36 (Gieeson). -38-
dans son contexte. En 1997, le président de la CBI a demandé aux tenants de deux positions
82
opposées de présenter leur vues de façon succincte pour éviter que le débat ne s'éternise • La
nécessitéde l'échantillonnage létala étéexpliquée de façon exhaustive, sous des angles multiples :
besoin de grands nombres d'individus pour les études d'identification de stocks, succès limité
d'élaboration de techniques de prélèvement de biopsies sur les petits rorquals, importance de
disposer de données précises sur l'âge et la morphométrie, par exemple, que les méthodes
83
non létales ne fournissent pas • A la mêmeoccasion, l'utilité des résultats de JARPA pour la
84
gestion fut expressément reconnue par le groupe de travail de mi-parcours • Pourtant, plusieurs
années plus tard, en 2005, lorsque le comitéscientifique a examiné la proposition de JARPA Il, les
63 scientifiques évoquéstout à l'heure ont à nouveau soutenu qu'«il avait étédémontréque le
recours à des méthodes non létalespermettait de suivre les changements temporels et spatiaux dans
la structure des stocks», sans apporter d'élément de preuve scientifique à l'appui de cette
85
affirmation • Deux ans plus tard, en 2007, le Japon a présentéau comitéscientifique un document
scientifique détaillédans lequel il mettait en relief les avantages et les inconvénients des deux
méthodes 86• Cependant, les mêmesscientifiques opposés aux méthodes létales sont revenus à la
charge, en affirmant que «la description qui y étaitfaite des moyens offerts par les méthodes non
87
létales et de leurs limites étaittrès inexacte» ,sans pourtant produire le moindre élémentprobant
88
concernant l'utilisation de ces méthodes pour les petits rorquals • Les scientifiques qui s'opposent
à la chasse n'ont pas présentéde propositions concrètes pour atteindre les objectifs de recherche
visés par JARPA Il dans son ensemble uniquement par des méthodes non létales pouvant être
utiliséesde manière réaliste.
82
Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn48, 1998, p. 382 (sommaires dans le rapport du groupe de travail intersessions,
annexe H, p. 412).
81Ibid.
84
Rapport du groupe de travail intersessions chargéd'examiner les donnéesct les résultats obtenus dans le cadre
de la chasse au petit rorqual dans l'Antarctique au titre d'un permis spécialen vue de recherches scicntiliqucs, Tokyo,
12-16 mai 1997, Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, SC/49/Rcp1, p. 386 (CMJ, annexe 95).
85JCRM 8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 260, annexe 01 , appendice 2, p. 261 (CMJ, annexe 108).
86 SC/59/02 , disponible à l'adresse: http://www.icrwhale.org/pdl7SC-59-02.pdf ; sur JARPN Il, voir également
SC/J09/JR I(Revl.) , disponible à l'adresse: http://w\\w.icrwhale.or g/pdf/SC-J09-JRI.pdf ; SC/61/JR 1, disponible à
l'adresse: http://iwc.int/index.php?ciD=I785&cTypc =documcnt.
87 JCRM 10(Suppl.), 2008, annexe O. p. 343 (onglet n° 53).
88 Ibid. -39-
31. Le refus de l'Australie de reconnaître les efforts d'adaptation du Japon n'est guère
étonnant à la lumière de ce que l'Australie a répété au sein de la CBI, à savoir qu'elle s'oppose à
89
toute recherche qui comporte la capture de baleines • Ceci ne laisse d'emblée aucune place pour la
discussion.
32. Les débatsau sein du comité scientifique sont polarisés, comme M. le professeur Wallae
l'a dit hier, quand il s'agit de débat sur les méthodes létalesou non létales,entre les membres qui
croient que les baleines ne doivent êtretuées sous aucun prétexte et d'autres qui considèrent que
l'utilisation durable des baleines est un but légitime. Dans cette situation, l'évaluation de la
recherche dépenddes positions respectives de chacun par rapport à l'une de ces positions opposées.
L'Australie prétendque le Japon n'est pas prêtà ajuster JARPA II en fonction des commentaires et
recommandations présentéeslors de l'évaluation finale de JARPA en 2006 90 alors mêmeque c'est
précisémentà cet égard que la bonne foi du Japon et sa volonté d'adaptation se révèlentde façon
manifeste. Les scientifiques engagés dans JARPA II ont incorporé les recommandations de ladite
91
évaluation de JARPA dans leur mise en Œuvre de JARPA Il. Le document figurant sous
l'onglet n° 53, pages 349 et suivanteX, de vos dossiers est un tableau récapitulatif des x
recommandations présentéeslors de l'évaluation finale de JARPA en 2006, maintenant aussi à
l'écran. [Débutde la projection no 10.] Les recommandations ont étésérieusement examinées, des
articles scientifiques ont étéprésentésau comité et publiés dans des revues après examen par des
. 9'
pa1rs -.
33. S'agissant des paramètres biologiques importants de l'échantillonnage létal,
deux exemples parmi d'autres illustrent bien le processus de dialogue scientifique: l'épaisseur de
la graisse et la structure des stocks. Comme montré à l'écran, sur deux questions essentielles, le
dialogue entre le comité scientifique et les spécialistes sur les recommandations -dans les
colonnes à gauche- a donné lieu à des mesures concrètes -dans les colonnes à droite.
Premièrement, en ce qui concerne l'analyse de l'épaisseur de la graisse- en haut à gauche- qui
89
Procès-verbal de la CBI, 1998, p. 131(onglet n° 52).
90MA, par. 5.90-5.91; CR 2013/9, p. 36, par. 75 (Sands).
91Appendice 3, «Summary of Recommendations from the JARPA Review Workshop», in JCRM 10 (Suppl.),
2008, p. 349-350 (CMJ, annexe 112, onglet n° 53).
92CMJ, par. 5.18 ; SC Report 2010 (JCRM 12(Suppl.), 20Il), p. 26. -40-
indique l'état corporel de baleines à partir duquel on peut détecter les changements dans
l'écosystème, le comitéscientifique a recommandé en 2006 d'inclure dans l'étudedes facteurs tels
93
que l'âge et la latitude des prises • L'année suivante, un document a étéprésentéau comité
94
scientifique lors de sa réunion annuelle et, après un travail de refonte, publié dans une revue à
95
comité de lecture en 2008 • Deuxièmement, pour ce qui est de l'information sur la structure des
stocks- en bas à gauche-, les scientifiques ont proposécomme hypothèse d'étude deux stocks
de petits rorquals antarctiques dans la zone de recherche et une zone mixte 96• Le comité
scientifique a appuyé cette hypothèse et a recommandé l'élaboration d'un modèle spécifique pour
étudier d'une manière plus approfondie la zone de transition 97 des deux stocks. Ledit modèle a été
présentéà la réunionannuelle du comitéscientifique de 2012; voilà un exemple récentde mise en
Œuvre des recommandations du comité scientifique par les responsables scientifiques de
98
JARPA 11 • [Fin de la projection no 10.]
34. L'analyse des changements dans l'épaisseurde graisse fut d'ailleurs reconnue comme un
élémenttrès important par le groupe de travail sur la modélisation de l'écosystème,car il est utile
99
dans l'interprétation des interactions entre les espèces et l'écosystème de l'océan Antarctique •
Les discussions sur ce point continuent au sein du comitéscientifique 10• Ce dernier a notéque le
modèle de structure des stocks employé était «simple and potentially powerful» et que, «[a]side
from the general relevance of the results to understanding [of] Antarctic minke whale dynamics, it
might in the future prove useful in allocating historical catches to stocks 101•
35. Avec votre indulgence, j'aimerais donner encore un dernier exemple, étant donné son
importance dans ce litige. Il s'agit d'une analyse réaliséeau moyen de bouchons auriculaires. Une
•nJCRM 10, 2008, annexe 0, p. 350 (onglet n° 53).
94
SC/59/0 10, disponible à 1'adresse http://www. icrwhale.org/pdi7SC-59-0 1O.pdf'"
95
Konishi, K., Tamura, T., Zenitani, R., Bando, T., Kato, Il., ct Walloc. L. «Decline in encrgy storage in the
Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean», 2008, Polar Bio/ogy, p. 1518.
90SC/59/REP1, disponible à 1'adresse http://iwc.int/indcx.php?ciD"565&cType=document&download =1.
'7JCRM 10,2008, annexe 0, p. 349 (onglet n° 53).
98SC/64/IA4, disponible à l'adresse http://iwc. int/sc64docs.
CJJCRM 10 (Suppl.), 2008. annexe KI, p. 299.
100 SC Report 2013, annexe K1, disponible à l'adresse
iwc.int/indcx.php'lcl D=3308&cTypc =documcnt&dnlaod~1.
101SC Report 2012, p. 35. - 41 -
question de compatibilité des données commerciales et des données JARPA concernant l'âge des
baleines a été soulevée lors de l'examen de 2006; c'est le point 2 des «paramètres
biologiques (BP)» sur la mêmeliste des recommandations qui figure dans votre dossier. [Débutde
la projection n° IlLes résultats des expériences menées par la suite ont étécommuniqués aux
scientifiques, quielcomes this study as an important advance» et en conclusion «no further
experiments or analysis on age reading errors are needed to resolve ageing related problems raised
102
in JARPA review» • Cette année, d'autres travaux de compatibilité des données JARPA Il
103
concernant l'âge des baleines avec celles de la chasse commerciale et JAont étéprésentés
au comité scientifique, qui estouveau convenu que «the approach and results provide useable
~:..~ '--'G..k'-' 104
input data fo-6catdtat Age Analysis» • Grâce à ces données, le comité scientifique disp)c'
d'estimations fiables sur le taux de mortalité naturelle et le ratio de rendement maximum de
renouvellement. Pour ce qui est de l'utilité de ces analyses pour le comité scientifique,
permettez-moi de vous renvoyerà l'explication donnée par M. le professeur Wallee. [Fin de la
projectionno Il.]
36. Ces exemples montrent que le Japon a pris en compte les recommandations formulées
afin d'observer l'écosystème antarctique d'élucider les changements temporels et spatiaux
intervenus dansla structure des stocks de petits rorquals antarctiques, et que ces efforts ont été
105
hautement appréciésparle comitéscientifiqu•
37. Enfin, l'engagement de bonne foi du Japon se traduit également par son ouverture à la
participation de scientifiques d'autres paysecherche, dans le cadre du paragraphe 30 c) et par
l'accessibilité des données obtenues. Adifférence d'un autre programme de chasse scientifique
dans le Pacifique Nord, JARPN et JARPN Il, auquel des scientifiques coréens et russes ont
participé0,dans l'océanAntarctique, aucun scientifique autre que ceux de JARPA et JARPA Il
10JCRM 12(Suppl.) 2011, p. 26.
IOKitakado, T., Lockyer, C. ct Punt, A.E., «A statistical modcl for quantifying age-reading crrors and its
application the Antarctic minkc whales», SC/65a!IA04, p. 18 (in revicw in the JCRM), disponible à l'adresse
http://cvcnts.iwc.int//indcx.php/scicntitic/SC65a!papcr/vicw/283/274.
104
SC Report 2013, p. 39, disponible àt/piwc..sein?t/~i3nd8exe=Toyccnmt&dow =l.oad
10Pour l'épaisseur de graisse, voir SC Report 2011, annexe KI (JCRM 13, 2012), p. 259 ; pour la structure de
stocks, voirReport 2012 (JCRM 14, 2013), p. 26.
10SC/55/07 ; SC/56/013 ; SC/5SC/58/08 ; SC/60105, dispàl'adresse http://www.icrwhale.org/
CruiscRcportJN.html. -42-
n'a accompagné la mission de recherche, alors que le Japon a lancéla mêmeinvitation ouverte aux
107
participants extérieurs, comme le dit le projet de JARPA 11 • Malgré l'absence de scientifiques
extérieurs, les données ont étérendues accessibles en vertu de l'accord sur la disponibilité des
donnéesdu comitéscientifique 108et ont étéutiliséespar des scientifiques non japonais 109•
Conclusion
38. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour. En conclusion, [débutde la
projection n° 12] je voudrais appeler votre attention sur le tableau illustrant le grand nombre de
documents scientifiques présentéspar des scientifiques engagés dans JARPA. La contribution du
Japon est marquéeen bleu foncé,celle de l'Australie en jaune, et celle des autres pays en bleu clair.
Ces scientifiques participent aussi à différents sous-comités chargés d'études approfondies sur des
thèmes spécifiques, pour lesquelles les résultats de JARPA ont étéparticulièrement importants 11•
C'est là une indication du rôle de premier plan que joue le Japon dans la recherche sur les cétacés
et de sa contribution considérable à la conduite et au financement de grands projets de recherche.
[Fin de la projection no 12.]
39. Le comité scientifique a rappelé à maintes reprises que «seules les questions
scientifiques, et non les questions d'éthique, devaient êtreexaminées» en vue de la délivrance des
permis scientifiques'". Mais la tâche du comitéest ardue face à des déclarations comme celle qu'a
faite, par exemple, la Nouvelle-Zélande devant lui en 1997 :
"Under our Convention science is rightly the province of the Scientific
Committee but there are occasions when it is proper for this body [Commission] to
give guidance to the Committee on its scope and that is particularly true where
112
scientific research programmes raise moral and ethical questions."
40. La controverse politique autour de la méthode létalea souvent affaibli le rôle du comité
au sein de la CBI. A la différence du comité scientifique, la CBI est clairement un organisme
107
JARPA Il research plan (SC/57/01), p. 20 (JCM, annexe 150).
108
JCRM 6 (Suppl.), 2004, annexe T, p. 406-408 (CMJ, annexe 99).
109
La liste de recherches scientifiques utilisant les données de JARPA/JARPA Il est disponible à l'adresse
http://icrwhale.org/pdllScientificContributionJ.pdf.
110
ln particular, subcommittees on Stock Structure, ln-depth Assessment, Southem Hemisphere Ecosystem
Modeling, Stock Definition, BRG (bowhead, right and grey whales) and Standing working group on environmental
concems.
111
SC Report 2005 (JCRM 8 (Suppl.), 2006), p. 48. Procès-verbal de la CBI, 1997, Nouvelle-Zélande, p. 133.
112
Procès-verbal de la CBI, 1997, p. 133. -43-
politique 113• Ainsi, malgréle tàit que la convention exige que les décisions de l'organisation soient
baséessur des connaissances scientifiques, certains Etats membres s'en désintéressenten faveur de
résolutions politisées114• [Début de la projection n° 13.] Le comité scientifique n'est jamais
parvenu à un consensus pour dénoncer JARPA et JARPA Il. Les résolutions de la CBI sur
lesquelles l'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande s'appuient tant sont éloignéesde toute considération
scientifique. Elles ne reflètent certainement pas les vues du comitéscientifique dans son ensemble.
Elles ne reflètent pas non plus celles d'un grand nombre d'Etats qui ne sont pas catégoriquement
opposés à la chasse à la baleine. Ces résolutions ne sauraient manifestement pas êtreassimilées à
«l'expression claire des attentes des gouvernements contractants», comme le laissent entendre
115
l'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande • [Fin de la projection n° 13.]
41. Monsieur le président, l'on ne saurait raisonnablement interpréter le processus d'examen
et de commentaires prévu par le paragraphe 30 comme équivalant à une obligation d'accepter
inconditionnellement les vues des autres gouvernements contractants. Selon l'Australie et la
Nouvelle-Zélande, si le Japon ne modifie pas ses propositions de recherche pour tenir compte des
vues exprimées par certains membres du comité scientifique qui correspondent à leur politique
d'opposition systématique à la chasse à la baleine, le Japon agit au méprisdu comité. Ceci est fort
116
éloignéde ce qu'envisage le paragraphe 30 •
42. Il ne peut y avoir de doute que le Japon respecte pleinement le paragraphe 30 et qu'il est
allé bien au-delà des exigences minimales de cette disposition, pour contribuer de manière
importante à un dialogue scientifique continu. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les
juges, je vous remercie très sincèrement de votre attention. Mr. President, may 1 ask you to give
the floor to Professor Boyle or maybe you would prefer to have a break now.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. 1 think it is time for a pause of 15 minutes.
Afterwards 1will give the floor to Professor Boyle. Thank you very much.
113 CMJ, par. 4.31. Propos de la France dans le procès-verbal de la CRI (12-16juin 1989), p. 116 (CMJ,
annexe 36).
114 Voir, par exemple, résolutions CBI 1987-4 (MA, annexe 10) ; 1989-3 (MA, annexe 16) ; 1990-2 (MA,
annexe 18); 1991-2 (MA, annexe 19) ; 1994-10 (MA, annexe 25) ; 1996-7 (MA, annexe 28); 1997-5 (MA, annexe 29) ;
2003-3 (MA, annexe 39).
115OEN, par. 31, 98.
116OEJ, par. 42. -44-
The hearing is suspended for 15 minutes.
The Court isacljourned 1.f5ia.a.~tn11.40 a.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The hearing is resumed and 1 give the tloor to
Professor Boyle. You have the tloor, Sir.
Mr. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. President.
JARPA IIIS CONDUCTED "FOR PURPOSES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH"
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, my task today is to explain to the Court why
JARPA Il is a program of scientific research carried out under Article VIII of the Whaling
Convention. Australia's arguments to the contrary,n our view, Jack substance and they are not
founded in the applicable law or in common sense. They are also wrong in certain respects. 1will
address five matters.
2. Firstly, 1ll deal with the question what is meant by scientific research. 1will explain to
the Court that thiss not a matter to be answered by reference to expert scientific evidence from
eminent scientists.lt can only be answered by looking at the specifie context of the Whaling
Convention and at the guidelines for special permits laid dawn by that Convention.
3. Secondly, 1 will explain why, contrary to Australia's insistence last week, JARPA II is
indeed a program of scientific research. For that purpose 1 will take the Court through the
2005 JARPA Il research plan submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee by the Govemment of
Japan. In doing so, 1 will underline the point made by Professor Hamamoto that JARPA Il has
legitimate research objectives that are relevant to the conservation and managementAntarctic
whale stocks, to the implementation of the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), and to the
future development and improvement of the RMP. These objectives are materially different from
the previous program JARPA, and they explain the difference in sample sizes between the two
programs. lt is not right, as 1 think 1 will demonstrate, to characterize JARPA Il as simply a
seamless continuationof the earlier program.
4. Perhaps 1 might seize this moment to point out that the 2005 research plan is the key
document in these proceedings, not the special permit issued by the government and to which -45-
Australia drew your attention last week. The permit merely authorizes what is in the plan, nothing
more.
5. Thirdly, 1 will take you to the applicable guidelines in order to show you the basis on
which the Scientific Committee reviews and comments on proposais for special permits.
Ms Takashiba has already explained (Ïlat procedure, but 1 need to look at the details of the
guidelines . The JARPA Il research plan was reviewed by the Scientific Committee in 2005.
Contrary to Australia's assertions it met ali of the agreed guidelines at that point and, in our view, it
continues to do so. For that purpose it will be necessary to look in particular at Annex P, adopted
117
by consensus in the Scientific Committee and endorsed by the Commission in 2008 • And it is
here, in Annex P, that the parties to the Convention have set out what information they agree
should be provided when special permit proposais are reviewed by the Committee. And it replaces
ali of the highly controversial resolutions and guidelines adopted in the 1980s and 1990s and on
which Australia has rather pointlessly sought to rely. ln our view these resolutions are no longer
relevant.
6. Fourthly, 1will explain why sorne lethal research is a necessary component of JARPA II
and why Japan concluded that no harmful effects on whale stocks were likely to result from a very
modest catch level far below the many thousands ofminke whales and other whales taken annually
by commercial whaling operations more than 30 years ago.
7. Fifthly, 1 will also explain how the sample sizes were determined. lt is probably worth
saying at this point that sample size was not determined by the capacity of the ship as suggested by
Professor Sands last week. While it is true that the capacity of the Nisshin-Maru is indeed
3,200 cubic metres, that does not translate into 3,200 tonnes of whale meat. Once the meat is
packed in containers and placed in freezers with appropriate space between the containers, the
actual capacity is closer to 1,650 tonnes- which is equivalent to approximately 400 minke
11"Revised Annex P, Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposais and Research Results from Existing
and Completed Permits", attachcd to the Circular Communication to Members of the Scientitic Committee IWC.SC.I69 ,
Il Oct. 2012 (hereafter "Revised Annex P (2012)"). This latest version is the one up-dated by the Secretariat. -46-
118
whales • To transport 850 minke whales would require two ships or two voyages. So the
inference drawn by Professor Sands about the sample size is very neat - and very wrong 119•
8. Finally, 1 will draw your attention to a few of the favourable comments made by the
Scientific Committee on the utility of JARPA and JARPA Il, in arder to demonstrate that Australia
has in this respect painted a misleading picture of Japanese research. Far from constituting a
program to accumulate body parts over 26 years, JARPA and JARPA Il have contributed
significant scientific data that has informed, and will continue to inform, Antarctic research over
many years.
1should say that 1have also been asked to respond to Judge Donoghue's two questions and
to one of Judge Bhandari's questions and 1will do that, with your permission, Mr. President, at the
end.
9. You have also heard a lot about peer review, 1will come back to that, but in our view the
only peer review that matters in the context of the Whaling Convention is review by the Scientific
Committee. lt is the body empowered to review and comment on special permit research and it
,c will conduct its first review of the results of JARPA Il next year. Until thent iR gur vj~" 't4s
frankly premature even to be considering the utility of JARPA Il. lt is that process which
Australia, for reasons best known to itself, seeks to circumventin these proceedings.
1O.1hope the conclusion at the end of my speech will be obvious: however controversial it
may be, and clearly it has been controversial, JARPA Il is a legitimate program of scientific
research according to the guidelines for such programs agreed by the Scientific Committee. As
such, JARPA II cannat be regarded as commercial whaling in violation of the Southem Ocean
Sanctuary, the factory ship moratorium, or the moratorium on commercial whaling. And ifyou are
still in need of further persuasion by the time 1 finish, Professor Iwasawa will show you this
aftemoon what a genuine programme of commercial whaling would look like. lt bears little
resemblance to JARPA Il.
11Written responsc from the President ofKyodo Senpaku, Ltd. to an enquiry by the Agent ofJapan, 1July 2013.
11
"CR 2013/8, p. 59, parJO(Sands). No authority is given for the carrying capacity of3,200 tonnes of'"edible
product" laken from the whales. -47-
1.Scientific research
11. Turning first to scientific research, let me begin by recalling the question the Court has to
decide is whether JARPA Il is, as Japan argues, a program conducted in accordance with
Article VIII for "purposes of scientific research", or whether, as Australia argued last week, it is
simply commercial whaling disguised as science.
12. The Whaling Convention does not define what is meant by "scientific research". This is
a question to which both Parties have clearly given very rather different answers. Australia's view
is academie, involving testable hypotheses, independent peer review, and appropriate
120 121
methodology • lt was evident from Professor Mangel's testimony that- not surprisingly-
he answered the question from the perspective of a university professor who has edited
peer-reviewed academie journals and is used to making grant applications to academie research
funding bodies. He did not actually mention winning Nobel prizes, but listening to him one might
easily have concluded that that was the level at which he was accustomed to considering what it
means to do worthwhile science. And rightly so: he is a university professor.
13. Professor Mange) also admitted that he has never been a member of the IWC Scientific
Committee. He very properly accepted that "[he] certainly did not think of the legal interpretation
ofwhat [he] was trying to do as a scientist ... " 12• He was not asked by Australia to consider what
"scientific research" might mean in the context of the Whaling Convention. So his seminar on the
meaning of science was a very interesting diversion, but is it relevant? The question the Court has
to answer is whether JARPA Il constitutes "scientific research" for the purposes of the Whaling
Convention, not whether it might win Nobel prizes or research grants from major research funding
bodies. That is a question the good professor has never thought about. He could give you a
hypothesis, but he couldn't give you an answer.
14. Japan 's interpretation of "scientific research" takes a more practical approach, it is
focused on applied research of the kind that would be familiar to the Food and Agriculture
04'.
Organization or a regional fisheries commission. Biological dataiclearly indispensable to the x
long-term management of whales, or indeed the management of fish stocks, or any other living
120
eR 2013/9, p. 15, paras. 4-7 (Sands).
121
eR 2013/9, pp. 38-71.
12eR 2013/9, p. 54 (Mangcl). -48-
species. Australia says that JARPA Il is simply a program of data collection. But data collection is
important when estimating the sustainable yield of whale stocks or modelling an ecosystem. lt is
important when taking any decisions about the management of natural resources.
15. You will recall my references yesterday to the raie of "best scientific evidence" in other
conservation treaties, including the Law of the Sea Convention. You will also recall what IUCN's
commentary on the Biological Diversity Convention said about scientific research- and 1 am
hoping that is going to come up on the screen [SIide 1]. 1will not read it again but you will recall
123
the points that 1 made there [Tab 54-1] • That is one reason why Japan continues to carry out
special permit whaling for scientific researches pending an end to the moratorium on commercial
whaling. Vou heard Professor Wallee testify yesterday that JARPA Il is "definitely a scientific
research program" 124•
16. Mr. President, commercial whaling as practised for much of the twentieth century was
obviously unsustainable, partly for Jack of adequate data. The Jack of data was a key reason for
adopting the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982, as Japan has explained in Chapter 3 of
its Counter-Memorial. It was also a reason for starting JARPA. The Revised Management
Procedure adopted by the Whaling Commission in 1994 is intended to ensure that any future
commercial whaling will be sustainable, but it can work effectively only if it is supported by
adequate data, and that data must be kept up-to-date in accordance with Article VIII of the
Convention.
17. Does this kind of scientific research need hypotheses? 1hope that is the last time that we
talk about hypotheses. What kind of hypothesis does a conservation scientist need to have in arder
to give advice on catch limits, maximum sustainable yield, or the recovery of stocks? This is not
2
science at the grand level of Professor Mangel. lt is nuts and bolts, it is not E=mc • At most, the
only testable hypothesis required is that catching X fish, Y whales or Z rabbits for W years is
sustainable given the data we have now. Of course, with more data we might conclude that it is
1J"[a]ccuratc information is the foundation upon which dccision-making is premiThcrcforc, as a
pre-condition to adopting appropriatc sustainablc useea..~u Prrcis, necd gcncrally to gather
information on specics and ccosystcms, thcir relationships, thcir uses and the social, cultural and
economie làctors affccting thcir use.(L.Glowka ct aL A Guide ta the Convention on Biological
Diversity, IUCN Environmcntal Policy and Law Papcr No. 30 (IUCN, 1994), p. 58
<http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/cdocs/EPLP-no.030.pdacccsscd 1July 2013.
12CR 2013/14, p. 22. -49-
Jess than could have been sustained, that we could take more rabbits. But without the data, we can
conclude nothing, however many hypotheses we invent.
18. You will also recall the questions putto Professor Mangel, including his discussion with
Judge Donoghue about the human genome. Even Professor Mangel accepted that there is at least
125
one hypothesis in JARPA Il, together with eight sub-hypotheses. How many hypotheses and
sub-hypotheses does a scientific research program require? Even Galileo only had one hypothesis
about the Earth and the Sun. And what is wrong with the krill surplus hypothesis? Given the
availability of more krill, do we have more minke whales or fewer minke whales? Does the
population go up or go dawn?
19. Mr. President, Members of the Court, 1think 1have probably said enough about science.
As 1 indicated at the beginning, this is a question that can only be answered in the specifie context
of the Whaling Convention by reference to the Guidelines for Special Permits laid dawn by the
Scientific Committee. 1 will come to those Guidelines in a moment but, before we do, it is now
time, 1 think, to have a closer look at the 2005 JARPA Il research plan 126• You will find this
document, with its accompanying appendices at tabs 4 to 13 in your bundles; the research plan is
itself at tab 4. lt is also Annex 150 in the Counter-Memorial. 1am certainly not going to take you
through ali of it, but we can look at sorne of the highlights. 1would suggest the full document does
repay careful attention.
II. 2005 JARP A II Research Plan
20. Japan established JARPA Il because its four research objectives and the data which will
be gathered are directly relevant to the rational management and conservation of whales, to the
implementation of the Revised Management Procedure, to the future development and
improvement of the RMP, and to other related research needs. The details are ali set out in the
research plan, and that is the plan that was reviewed by the Scientific Committee, and commented
upon, in 2005. This 99-page document including nine appendices gives a comprehensive account
meR 2013/9, p. 61 (Mangel).
11Government of Japan, "Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research, Program under Special
Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) - Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management
Objectives for Whale Resources" (2005) IWC SC/57/01, and Appendices 1-9 (hereafter "JARPA II Research Plan
(2005) IWC SC/57/01") (CMJ, Ann. 150). -50-
of JARPA ll's research objectives and methodology, sample size, and an assessment of the effect
on whale stocks.
21. Section Il of the plan begins by outlining the results of the previous research program,
JARPA, and it summarizes the interim review conducted by the Scientific Committee in 1997.
Vou will see excerpts from the Committee's report at pages 7 and 8 of the JARPA research plan.
The key point here is the Committee's recognition that the science of JARPA was valuable and that
more research was needed. Here are sorne ofthose comments: [Tab 54-2/Siide 2]
(i) "JARPA has already made a major contribution to understanding... biological
parameters."
(ii) "Data on the status of minke whale stocks "are likely to be useful in testing various
hypotheses ... the 'krill surplus' madel."
(iii) "More effort is needed to develop meso-scale studies to integrate physical and biological
oceanography and prey distribution with minke whale studies."127
22. At page 8 the plan then explains why it was thought desirable to embark on a new study
of the impact of global environmental changes on the Antarctic. That is one of the new features of
JARPA Il. It notes that "major environmental changes such as global warming may greatly affect
krill reproduction in the Antarctic Ocean and thus change the carrying capacity of cetacean
species". lt also addresses the need to improve management procedures for minke whales,
including multi-species management. There are research questions here, possibly even latent
hypotheses. The most obvious point is the underlying hypothesis that the research is relevant to
conservation and management of whales. That relevance is disputed by Australia and its experts.
But Australia's experts ait; very clearly contradicted by Professor Walloe in his Written Statement
and in his testimony yesterday 128•
23. The four research objectives have been outlined for you by Professor Hamamoto and
they are set out in Section III-and 1will not go through those again in any detail- and you can
see those on the screen at tab 54-3. [Siide 3]
12JARPA II Research Plan (2005) IWC SC/57/01, pp. 7-8.
12Lars Walloe, "Scientific review of issues raised by the Memorial of Australia including its two Appendices",
9 April 2013, pp. 11-12, (herealler "Wallue, Expert Statement"); CR 2013/14, pp. 18-19. -51 -
24. Section IV of the research plan then describes the research methods and other
parameters. Australia told you that the research plan had no end date. ln reality the plan explains
at page 13 under the heading "Research period" that JARPA Il will start in the 2005/2006; that the
first two years are a feasibility study; that full-scale research will commence from 2007/2008; and
that "a period of six years... has been established as the research phase ". So it will last for six
years and, at the end of that period, "a review will be held and revisions [will be] made to the
program ifrequired". That review, as 1have indicated, has been scheduled to take place in 2014.
25. That does not mean that JARPA Il will not be extended thereafter, but it is plainly wrong
to say thatit will inevitably go on indefinitely or that it was designed to do so.
26. You will also see in Section IV of the plan how the four research objectives are to be
addressed. There is particular emphasis on whale abundance trends and biological parameters, krill
abundance and the feeding ecology ofwhales, the effects of contaminants on cetaceans, a madel of
competition among whales, restoration of the cetacean ecosystem and other new management
objectives. Australia says these are ali too broad and poorly defined to constitute real science, but
pages 14-17 ofthe plan cannat be dismissed in that way. lfthe criticism had any validity it would
surely be apparent in the Scientific Committee's review of the JARPA Il proposai in 2005. No
such critique was offered.
27. 1will discuss sample sizes and the effects on the whale stock in more detail later, but 1
will simply draw to your attention that at pages 17 and 19 of the plan you will see the methodology
explained. Both matters are more fully dealt with in Appendices 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. You will find
those beginning at tab 8 in your folder. But 1will come back to those issues shortly.
28. Moving on, however, it is also worth, 1think, pausing just to look briefly at the subjects
that are covered in the appendices.
(i) Appendix 1 at tab 5: Deals with the composition of baleen whale species in the JARPA
research area. The appendix explains sorne of the findings of JARPA and gives
distribution and abundance estimates for minke, humpback, blue and fin whales in the
Antarctic.
(ii) Appendix 2 at tab 6: Deals with what has happened to the Antarctic minke whale stocks.
It gives a further interpretation of results from JARPA and the summary notes that the -52-
paper "rearranges the results retlecting possible changes in the Antarctic minke whale
stocks, examines what has happened to these stocks, and predicts possible future changes"
(p. 37). To my reading it sets out a series of hypotheses about the stock. Appendix 3 at
tab 7 pursues the same line of enquiry.
(iii) Appendix 4 at tab 8: Covers the monitoring of environmental pollutants in cetaceans and
in the marine ecosystem. lt also deals with organochlorine compounds, heavy metals and
chemicals. This part of the research also links in with the JARPAN Il program in the
North Pacifie.
(iv) Appendix 5 at tab 9: There, hypotheses on abundance changes of krill predators in the
Antarctic ecosystem.
(v) Appendix 6 at tab 10: Deals with sample sizes for trends in biological parameters.
Appendices 7 and 8 at tabs Il and 12 do the same for the monitoring of blubber thickness
and genetic marking. And, finally,
(vi) Appendix 9 at tab 13: This provides an analysis ofeffects on the whale stock of catches
during JARPA Il. At the bottom of page 82 you will see that for minke whales, "it can be
concluded that there would be no negative effect on the minke whale stocks of these
future catches". Vou will recall that Professor Mange! agreed in his oral evidence 12•
Over the page the same conclusion is reached for humpback whales.
29. Now 1will come back to sorne ofthose issues but, Mr. President, Members of the Court,
1 have probably tried your patience by taking you through ali this material that is not immediately
appealing to lawyers. But it is important to show you that JARPA Il was not a
back-of-the-envelope, ill-conceived, exercise in mere data collection. This is a serious research
plan, which builds on JARPA's incomplete results, but extends that research into new dimensions
involving broader questions about global environmental change and ecosystem modelling. Of
necessity this requires consistent, reasonably long term, data collection and analysis.
30. ln concluding this part, let me draw your attention once again to the quotation that 1
referred you to yesterday from the Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries, and you will find
12CR 2013/9,p.63 (Mange!). -53-
130
that at tab 54-4, and hopefully it is about to come up on the screen • The JARPA Il plan does not
do everything that this commentary refers to, but it seems to do quite a lot. 1will simply leave that
on the screen. [Tab/slide 54-4]
III. Preliminary review by the Scientific Committee
31. Let me now come to the preliminary review of the JARPA Il research plan by the
Scientific Committee . lt is clear from what Ms Takashiba said this morning that that review did
indeed take place, but 1 also need to say something about the applicable guidelines used by the
Committee.
32. First, let us recall that point. The JARPA Il research plan was submitted to the Scientific
Committee for preliminary review as required by paragraph 30 and Ms Takashiba has dealt with
that.
33. Second, the applicable guidelines in 2005, when Japan submitted the JARPA Il research
plan to the Scientific Committee, are set out in Annex Y. Let me invite you to take a quick look at
this document. You will find it at tab 55. lt is very short; it is just one page. You will see that
Annex Y is simply a compendium of non-binding Whaling Commission resolutions on special
permits cornpiled by one author. Sorne ofthose resolutions were, of course, opposed by Japan.
34. Third, it is clear that the Scientific Committee did indeed review the research plan as
submitted by Japan. And if you can look at their report, which you will find at tab 56 in your
folder: this is the Report of the Scientific Committee , a meeting at which the JARPA Il plan was
131
reviewed • The review starts at paragraph 16.2. Now, if you read it, obviously there was dissent
in the Committee about whether to proceed with the review. There were 63 scientists who took the
view that it should not go ahead and you have heard from Ms Takashiba the outcome of that
dispute. Nevertheless, without 63 scientists, the remainder of the Committee, still a lot of
scientists, undertook the review. The review went ahead, and you will see the comments made by
110 "States should recognizc lhat responsiblc lishcrics n:quirc the availability of a sound scicntilic
basis to assist lisherics managers and othcr intcrcstcd parties in making decisiThercfore, States
should ensurc that appropriale researchis conductcd into ali aspects of lishcries including biology,
ecology. technology, cnvironmcntal science, economies, social science, aquaculture and nulritional
science." (Paragraph 12.1, FAO, Code of Conduct for Responsiblc Fisherics, Rome, FAO, 1995
<ftp://ftp.fao.orgldocrcp/fao/005/v9878c/v9878cOO.pdf> acccssed 1 2013.)
111
"Rcport of the Scicntilic Committce", J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.) 2006, pp. 48-52. -54-
those members at page 50. They include the following comments; hopefully those are coming up
on the screen [tab 54-5/slide 5]:
(i) "They stressed the importance of preserving the continuity of the research
programme ... "
(ii) "Some other members stressed the importance of JARPA Il as an approach towards
ecosystem management of the Antarctic."
(iii) "One member also expressed the view that ... large parts of the proposed JARPA Il have
objectives that are virtually independent ofthe JARPA objectives and results." 132
35. Weil, those seem fairly positive comments. Clearly it was discussed. You will also see
if you read the document that, after discussion, the Committee offered its comments on the
proposai and that was ali. As far as we can tell they were satisfied that Annex Y had been
complied with.
IV. Annex P
36. 1 now come to Annex P. Annex P is the currently applicable set of guidelines. It was
adopted in 2008 by the Scientific Committee and it was revised in 2012. Vou will see that there is
an extensive list of matters set out there that have to be considered by the Committee during its
review of special permit proposals 13• The fact that Annex P was agreed by consensus in the
34
Scientific Committee and then endorsed by the IWC itself is a significant indication of
agreement on what a scientific research program submitted pursuant to the Schedule must address.
Unlike earlier resolutions, and unlike Annex Y, that agreement includes Japan, Australia and New
Zealand. Vou will find a copy of Annex Pat tab 3 in your folder.
37. Now, in so far as it sets out the matters to be addressed in a special permit proposai
pursuant to paragraph 30 of the Schedule, Annex P replaces the more controversial elements of the
Commission resolutions adopted in the 1980s and 1990s, on which Australia relied in its Memorial
132
/bid.p. 50.
13Revised Annex P (2012).
13"Chair's Report of the 60th Annuai Meeting", Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2008,
p.26. -55-
135
and in its oral arguments • These non-binding resolutions were opposed at the time and
consistently thereafter by Japan and a number ofother States 136•
38. The equally non-binding Annex P thus represents a deliberate and considered attempt by
the Scientific Committee to move beyond the disagreements that had surrounded earlier
IWC recommendations by finding a formulation that commanded support from ali member States,
including Japan and Australia. Once Annex P was adopted by consensus and endorsed by the
IWC, the older resolutions and guidelines ceased to be relevant.
39. Japan's position is that it is for the Scientific Committee to review and comment on
whether JARPA Il complies with Annex P in 2014, and that it is inappropriate for Australia to
bring its allegations of non-compliance before this Court. Nevertheless, Japan sees no difficulty in
demonstrating that JARPA Il is indeed consistent with the letter and spirit of Annex P.
40. Let me therefore spend a little bit of time focusing on that Annex because it gives a good
sense of what the Scientific Committee currently expects to see in a programme of scientific
research under Article VIII. ln its Written Observations, 1should perhaps point out, New Zealand
quotes a summary of Annex P taken from the IWC websitem, but 1think we should probably refer
to the actual terms of the Annexas adopted by the Scientific Committee.
41. Annex P stipulates that research objectives- and you will see them coming up there-
are to be "quantified to the extent possible" and should brietly indicate how far the research will,
and it sets out there the various objectives [tab 54-6/slide 6]:
(i) "improve the conservation and management ofwhale stocks,"
(ii) "improve the conservation and management of other living marine resources or the
ecosystem ofwhich the whale stocks are an integral part or",
(iii) "test hypotheses not directly related to the management of living marine resources". [End
slide 6]
13Resolution 1987-1, Resolution 1995-9 and Resolution 1999-2.
13bResolution 1987-1 was adopted by 19 votes in favour, 6 against, 7 abstentions (Rep. int. Whal. C'ommn.38,
998, p. 26); Resolution 1995-9 was adopted by 23 votes in favour, 5 against, 2 abstentions (Rep. Whal. Conmm. 46,
1996, p. 30) and Resolution 199-2 was adopted without vote "by a majority, noting the views expressed" (Annua/ Report
of the International Whaling Commission 199p.28).
13New Zealand Written Observations (WON), para. 59. -56-
Obvious point there, it does not have to be ali concerned with conservation and management of
whales.
42. Research plans should also indicate how far they will contribute to- and you can see
that coming up on the screen [tab 54-7/slide 7]:
(i)"past recommendations ofthe Scientific Committee",
(ii) "completion of the Comprehensive Assessment or in-depth assessments in progress or
expected to occur in the future",
(iii) "the carrying out of Implementations or Implementation Reviews of the RMP",
(iv) "improved understanding of other priority issues identified by the Scientific Committee",
(v) "recommendations of other intergovernmental organisations". [End slide 7]
[Revert to tab 54-6/slide 6]
43. Mr. President, there are, 1think, five important points 1would like to make with respect
to Annex P. First, there is no requirement to specicy research objectives in great detail- they
need be, as it says, quantified only "to the extent possible". Japan's submission is that the
JARPA Il research plan does exactly that.
44. Second, as you can see from this list, improving conservation and the management of
whales is an important possible objective, but not the only one. Japan's submission therefore is
that white JARPA Il research is relevant to conservation and management of whales it need not be
necessmy for that purpose, and it need not ali be directed at that purpose.
45. Third, research can include other marine living resources or the marine ecosystem with
which the whales interact. As you will have seen from JARPA Il, the plan plainly does include
research ofthat kind.
46. Fourth, the research may be related to the work of the Scientific Committee or of other
intergovernmental organizations, but it could also cover other general scientific issues. That was a
point that Professor Wallee emphasized yesterday. Again, it will be apparent from the research
plan thatJARPA Il does ali ofthose things.
47. Fifth, the research can be related to the resumption of commercial whaling: because
carrying out Implementations or Implementation Reviews of the RMP cannot be understood in any
other way. The RMP's sole purpose is to allow sustainable catch limits to be calculated. -57-
Professor Hamamoto and Professor Wallee have both shown that JARPA Il is directly related to
this objective and to the further objective of refining and improving the RMP by improving the
infonnation on which it is based. [End slide 6]
48. Nowhere is it suggested in Annex P that any research programme must address ali of
these objectives or that it may only be for a limited period. Nowhere is it suggested in Annex P
that the research must be publishable or must address sorne academically interesting hypothesis.
Rather the context and wording suggests applied research, focused inter a/ia on improved
management or assessment of whale stocks, or other relevant scientific issues- serving in other
words the objects and purposes of the Convention.
49. The Whaling Commission has endorsed Annex P and those are the criteria by which
JARPA Il will be evaluated in 2014. Now Professor Mangel and Professor Gales have given the
Court their own views on what constitutes scientific research for the purposes of Article VIII but,
with ali due respect to these eminent scientists, the "essential characteristics" they advocate go
beyond the paragraph 30 of the Schedule and of Annex P.
50. To give you a few examples, nowhere in Annex P is it necessary to show that "the
objectives of the research cannot be achieved by other means"- and 1 will come back to lethal
138
means in a moment. New Zealand makes the same erroneous assertion • Professer Mangel says
that sample sizes must be set using "accepted statistical methodology", but ifyou look at Section 1,
paragraph (2), of Annex P, it refers only to the need to include a "sampling protocol for lethal
aspects of the proposai"- something slightly different. The methods used by JARPA II must, in
Professor Mangel's words, be "designed to avoid adverse effects on the stocks being studied", but
ifyou look again at Annex P, Section 1, paragraph (3), this requires instead that there should be an
"assessment of potential effects of catches on the stocks involved"- not quite the same. So there
are sorne subtle differences here, and they are rather important, but they are obviously not
something Professor Mangel was ever asked to consider by Australia 139•
51. In Japan's submission JARPA II is consistent with Article VIII of the Convention, with
paragraph 30 of the Schedule, and with Annex P. These texts provide the only relevant criteria
138
WON, para.79.
1qCR 2013/9, p. 52 (Mangcl). -58-
when determining whether a special permit 1s for the "purposes of scientific research" in
accordance with Article VIll.
V. JARPA II research objectives comply with Annex P
52. Let me then say something very briefly about JARPA Il research objectives, and their
compliance with Annex P. The research objectives that are set out in JARPA Il, in Japan's
submission, conform to the guidance given in Annex P. 1will not go through ali of them, 1will
simply highlight the main points.
53. JARPA Il is obviously relevant to improving the conservation and management of
whales, of other living resources or ecosystems, in the various ways that are set out at pages 10to
17of the research plan.
54. JARPA Il contributes to past recommendations ofthe Scientific Committee, in particular
through Objective 1: for example the Scientific Committee has also sponsored catch-at-age based
140
analyses, and has actually recommended the use of age data from JARPA 11 . That analysis has
been done and it has been presented to the Scientific Committee and you can read details of that in
this year's Scientific Committee report.
55. Professor Wallae's evidence is that JARPA Il is relevant to the carrying out of
141
Implementations or Implementation Reviews of the RMP . The explanation for that is actually set
out in the research plan. Again you will see this coming up on the screen. lt says
[tab 54-8/slide 8]:
"The RMP, which has been developed as a management procedure, is based on
a single species management model, although it is supposedly applicable even when
carrying capacity increases twofold or declines to half. However, [it goes on to say]
the need to allow for such a wide range of uncertainty renders the RMP overly
conservative in its utilization of whale resources, and this could be improved if good
multi-whale-species models were developed as a basis on which to create a better
RMP."I42
140
''Report of the Scientific CommiJ.Cetacean Res. Manage. 1+(Supp/.), 2013, p. 29.
14Walloc, Expert Statcment, pp. 11-12.
142/b id . -59-
56. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that is probably ali 1want to say about the review
of Annex P. We can now turn our attention to the need for lethal whaling and the setting ofsample
sizes.
VI. Why lethal research is necessary
57. Why then is it necessary to conduct lethal research? The primary reason is to facilitate
an understanding of minke whale population dynamics, in the same way that fisheries scientists use
such information to improve the advice they give on sustainable catch levels. Lethal research
supplements and strengthens the collection of biological data that was previously collected through
commercial whaling. Vou heard Professor Wallee explain yesterday that it is a necessary element
of the JARPA Il program because much of the information it provides cannot be obtained in any
other way, or because it is impractical to use non-lethal methods. Even Professor Mange! accepted
143
in his evidence that: "There will be cases in which lethal methods are necessary."
58. When the JARPA Il research plan was first reviewed by the Scientific Committee, the
members- and 1will quote the report verbatim- "agreed that while sorne biological data couId
be collected using non-lethal methods, the overall objectives would require lethal sampling" 14•
Vou will find that document at tab 56 in your folder. Dr. Gales gave evidence to the contrary, but
that is not the point. What matters is that this issue was discussed by the Scientific Committee and
you can now see their view. Japan cannot be criticized for doing what the appropriate expert
body- the IWC Scientific Committee- regards as necessary.
59. More recently the report of the 2009 expert workshop on special permit whaling in the
North Pacifie- known as JARPN Il- concludes: "The Panel recognises that at present, certain
data, primarily stomach content data, are only available via lethal sampling." 145 As
Professor Wallee testified, stomach content datais essential for building ecosystem models 146•
143
CR 2013/9, p. 65.
14"Rcport of the Scicntific Committcc", J. Cetacean Res. lllanage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 51.
14'"Rcport of the Expert Workshop to Revicw the Ongoing JARPN Il Programme", J. C'etaceanRes. ,\lanage. Il,
(Suppl. 2), 2010, p. 426, available at: http://www.icrwhale.org/pdl/ workshop2.pdl: accesscd 1July 2013.
1bWallnc, Expert Statcmcnt, p. 7. - 60-
60. The IWC Scientific Committee's own reports 147 show that understanding population
148
dynamics is fundamental to implementation and improvement of the RMP • Sighting surveys
atone will not provide sufficient data for this purpose. They merely measure the abundance of
whales at a particular time and in a particular place. They tell us nothing about the existence of
different whale stocks, or the age structure of each stock, or future population dynamics. Minke
whale natural mortality rates and detailed population trends over an extended period of time can
only be estimated if age data are also used. Again, Professor Wallae gave evidence on that.
61. At its most recent meeting, held only last month, the Scientific Committee unanimously
recommended using age data from JARPA Il for the minke whale population dynamics model it is
investigating 149• This data is derived from analysis of minke whale earplugs, and you have heard
about that. The only way to obtain earplugs from whales is by lethal sampling. Even Professor
Mangel concedes that "there are still no effective non-lethal means of aging whales, so if age
information is absolutely required, then lethal take is also required" 150• And the Scientific
Committee has confirmed that ali of the technical problems previously suggested regarding this age
151
data has been resolved • Australia's references to 7,000 allegedly failed earplugs have to be seen
152
in that context •
62. Once again Australia is trying to condemn Japan for using methods which the Scientific
Committee itself evidently found appropriate and reliable. And Japan is supposed to listen to the
Scientific Committee.
63. Australia and New Zealand both take the view that lethal methods are permissible only
where the research could not be carried out in any other way 153• They say that ali the necessary
147
For example, "Oran Specification for the Calculation of Catch Limits in a Revised Management Procedure
(RMP) for Baleen Whales", Annex H, Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn.43, 1993, p. 148,
para. 3.2.
148/btd.
14
q"Report of the Scientitic Committee", J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 14 (Suppl.), 2013, p. 26.
150
Mangel, Expert Opinion, MA, App. 2,para. 4.34.
151
"Report of the Scientific Committce", J. Cetacean Res. :'vlanage.1./(Suppl.), 2012, p. 29.
152
CR 2013/10, p. 19.
15lAM, paras. 4.93, 4.102, 4.119, 5.51, 5.65; WON, para. 79. - 61 -
information can be obtained through biopsies and satellite tagging. lt is obviously not the view of
154
the expert reports 1have just cited, and it is clearly contradicted by Profesor Wal•ee's evidence
64. As Professor Wallee explained yesterday, sorne essential data can only be obtained
155
through lethalethods • Other data could be obtained by non-lethal means, in sorne cases, but it
wou Id not be of the same quality or reliability, or it would take an unrealistic amount of time and
expense to collect.Lethal research therefore might not always beessary", but it would in
sorne situations be impractical, as Professor Wallee demonstrated, to use other methods. For that
reason, it seems to Japan that necessityt the right standard here: lethal whaling is appropriate
where it would be impractical to use other methods, so long as catches are within sustainable limits
and hence causeno harm to the stock. And in Japan's view it would be impractical to carry out
JARPA Il without sorne lethal research, used in conjunction, of course, with non-lethal methods
where appropriate and available.
65. And Japan has put much effort into non-lethal research methods. lts scientists have even
had sorne success with biopsy sampling andellite tagging of large, slow-moving whale species
such as thehumpback 15• ~tain iiosygsamples or attaching satellite tags from minke x
whales in theAntar nct mpoissble~ sut the Japanese scientists have found that it)fas a
very low success rate, because the whales are swift and agile and the waters of the Antarctic Ocean
157
are far from calm • And it is even more difficult to attach a sufficient number of tags or obtain
enough biopsy samples to be statistically representativeut, even in the unlikely case of
obtaining a large number of biopsies and tagging many minke whales, that information simply will
not respond toali of the key scientific questions from JARPA Il, and again you have Professor
Walloe'sevidence to support that proposition.
1Walloe, Expert Statement, pp. 10-12.
155
CR 2013/14, pp. 1s- 19.
156
See, e.g., "Cruise Report of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic -
Second Phase (JARPAII) in 2009/2010", SC/62/03 , table 6, p. 9, available at
http://www.icrwhale.org/CruiseReportJARPA.html , accessed 1July, 2013.
1CMJ, para. 4.75; Wallue, Expert Statcment, p. Il.
1For the sample sizc estimated as required to lind signilicant diiTerenccs in mixing proportion, sec App. 3,
JARPA Il Rcsearch Plan (2005), IWC SC/57/01 , p. 55. - 62-
66. Australia may have used these techniques successfully in calmer coastal waters to tag or
biopsy Jess than two dozen whales, and we have seen the pictures, but they do not tell us what the
failure rate is or would be in the far rougher waters of the open ocean. Dr. Gales actually admitted
that the weather matters159• And to show that a technique can work for a limited number ofwhales
when the conditions are just right is not the same as showing that it is a practical or effective way to
carry out a research programme on the scale of JARPA Il.
VII. Sample sizes are determined using established methodology
67. 1now come to sample sizes. When taking whales for research purposes the sample size
obviously has to be large enough to meet the objectives of the research program and to ensure that
the resultsof the analysis are sufficiently accurate. Professor Mange! says that the sample sizes for
lethal research must be set using "accepted statistical methodology" 16• But, as 1 pointed out
earlier, thats not what Annex P, section 1, paragraph (2), actually says. lt only refers to the need
to include a "sampling protocol for lethal aspects of the proposai". The JARPA Il plan does that in
Appendices 6-8 16•
68. Notwithstanding ali this, it is in any event clear, when we look at JARPA Il, at the
research plan, that it does set out in detail how the sample size was calculated using "accepted
statistical methodology", and the evidence is there in black and white in the appendices 16• Perhaps
it could have been explained more clearly, or at greater length, that is possible. But it is there, and
~A~I.l .. lC
)( as Professor Walloe suggested, a standard textb ano 1oa~tually have a copy of the book here. lt
is called Devore and Berk, Modern Mathematical Statistics with Applications, second
163
edition - it's a heavy tome- and is the one that was actually used by the scientists at the
InstitutefCetacean Research when calculating the sample size.
15
q"Report of the Sub-Committee on ln-Depth Assessments", Ann. G, Report of the Scientilic Committee,
IWC/6Sa/Rep1, (2013), pp. S-6 <http:/liwc.intlcache/downloadsldfk3x3g3hy0ckww8k4ogw0kgo/ AnnexG.pdl> accessed
2 July 2013.
16Mangel, Expert Opinion, MA, App. 2, para. 4.39.
161
JARPA Il Research Plan (2005) IWC SC/57/01, Apps. 6-8.
162
/bid., App. 6, App., "Estimation ofsample size", pp.73-74, CMJ, Ann. ISO.
161
J. L. Devore and K. N. Herk, Modern lvlathematica/ Statistics with Applications (Second Edition, Springer
Scienct:+Business Media, LLC 2012). - 63-
69. And here is the formula, reproduced in the Appendix to Appendix VI of the JARPA plan
[Tab 54-9/Siide 9]. Now, Mr. President, 1haven't the foggiest idea what that means, but that is the
2
formula. Mathematics was never my strong point. 1would never have managed E=mc •
70. But let us take this problem a little further. ln his oral evidence Professor Mange! did not
explain why a figure of 850 minke whales is unjustifiable. That was the word he used,
"unjustifiable", but he gave no explanation. And in his written report he merely says the sample
164
sizes are "not based on solid statistical reasoning" • Weil you can judge for yourselves, it is
certainly there in the report, there is solid statistical reasoning. And we have set it out. Yet the
rationale for the sample size can be explained . JARPA II needs to catch whales in order to
measure biological and demographie changes in the relevant whale stocks over time. In order to be
confident that the data collected gives results that are accurate within acceptable limits, we need a
large enough sample. Now, how large is going to depend on three things It's going to depend on:
(i) the leve! of accuracy we're interested in;
(ii) the extentof the biological changes we want to detect; and
(iii) the periodoftime within which we wish to detect those changes.
71. Determining "the extent of the biological and demographie changes that we want to
detect" is a scientific judgment. So is the leve! of accuracy that we are prepared to accept. A larger
sample would give greater accuracy. But if we conduct the research over a longer time or are
willing to accepta lower degree of accuracy then a smaller sample size will also give viable results,
but it might delay the ability to detect potentially important changes in a stock's dynamics.
72. Now when questioning Professor Walloe yesterday, Mr. Gleeson tried to decry as
implausibly large the change of 36 per cent in the pregnancy rate of humpback whales over
12years used by Japanese scientists in calculating a sample size for humpback whales. But, in
fact, as our scientists have shown, these whales have been increasing at about 10 per cent per
annum for sorne time, and last month's IWC Scientific Committee Report shows that the stock that
165
breeds otTWestern Australia is expected to stabilize at its original size very soon • It's reasonable
16Mangel, Expert Opinion, MA, App. 2, para. 5.2.
16"Report of the Sub-Committee on Other Southem Hemisphere Whale Stocks", Ann. Il, Report of the Scientific
Committee, IWC/65A/Repl, p. 4. - 64-
to hypothesize, in those circumstances, that this drop in the growth rate will be accompanied by a
very large percentage change in a biological parameter such as the pregnancy rate. So Japan's
scientists regard their judgement on this question as entirely reasonable and wholly defensible, and
they do not accept Mr. Gleeson's criticisms.
73. The figure of 850 minke whales, and 50 of each of the other species, which was adopted
as the JARPA Il sample size, obviously represents a compromise between the different parameters,
chosen because it satisfies the statistical conditions for most of the research items, and because
catches at that levetwill cause no harm to the stock.
74. Given the range of variables there is inevitably a range of possible sample sizes. What
that range may be was established using the accepted statistical formula referred to above- that
none of us understands- and also the 5 percent levet of accuracy which is the norm employed by
the IWC Scientific Committee, and the 6-year period chosen by the Committee between JARPA Il
reviews. Mr. Gleeson cannot have it both ways: he was arguing yesterday that 6 years is too short
a period over which to calculate sample sizes. But, last week Australia argued that JARPA and
JARPA Il had gone on for far too long.
75. Different scientists could quite reasonably come to different conclusions about any of
these numbers but most importantly in two of the three respects where this is possible, JARPA Il
has adopted the norms used by the Scientific Committee.
76. Mr. President, we are ali lawyers, and 1 am sure that many of you, like me, do not
understand mathematical equations, but the scientists do -y ou do not want to hear me attempting
any further to explain mathematics. But there are fuller accounts of those sampte size calculations
set out, in detail, in the JARPA Il research plan and in its Appendices 3 to 8, and those are what
was submitted to and reviewed by the Scientific Committee in 2005. Professor Mangel obviously
starts from different assumptions about the objectives of the research, so it is not surprising that he
cornes to different conclusions.
77. But let me emphasize this: at no point has the Scientific Committee expressed any
specifie concern about the JARPA Il sample size or its impact on the stock. Once again, it really is
not for Australia or its experts to come to this Court to criticize what the Scientific Committee has
found acceptable. - 65-
78. Moreover, it is worth noticing that New Zealand says nothing about the methodology of
calculating sample sizes. Its main point is that the number of whales taken under a special permit
must be "necessary and proportionate" to the objectives of the research. Japan does not disagree,
but it maintains- for ali the reasons set out, in my speech and in earlier speeches- that the
number ofwhales taken under JARPA II is bath necessary and proportionate.
79. True, as New Zealand observes, more whales are now taken under JARPA II than were
taken under special permits issued before 1985, but of course before the 1982 moratorium came
into force most scientific research could be carried out on carcasses taken during commercial
whaling operations. Special permits were not necessary at that point. They are necessary now,
because there is a moratorium on commercial whaling.
VIII. There are no adverse effects on whale stocks
80. Mr. President, we can now come to the question of adverse effects on whale stocks.
Australia's Memorial claims that "Japan has not properly assessed the possible adverse effects of
its 'research' on the targeted stocks" and it says that "as a result JARPA II was not designed to
avoid such adverse impacts" 16• Vou will note that Australia does not allege actual adverse
impacts. In fact, possible effects on whale stocks of JARPA II catches were analysed in the
167
research plan- and this was submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee in 2005 • I have
already referred you to Appendix 9 of the research plan which evaluates this question in depth, and
to the Scientific Committee's satisfaction.
81. That evaluation shows that capture for research will have no deleterious effect on any
cetacean stock: using extremely conservative sustainable yield assumptions, a minke whale growth
trend would continue, and the stock could be maintained at a levet close to environmental carrying
capacity.
82. In the case of humpback whales, they are included in the research plan but they have, as
you know, never been taken in practice. The assessment summarized in Appendix 9 of the research
166
MA, paras. 5.99-5.104.
)< 16JARPA II Research Plan (2005) IWC SC/57/01, App. 9; CM)Ann. 150. -66-
plan indicates that the humpback whale population has been showing a rapid recovery, and the
impact oftaking 50 whales was studied and showed virtually no effect on that recovery.
83. With regard to fin whales, the abundance estimate referred to in the Memorial of
168 169
Australia does not cover the entire distribution area so it is likely to be an underestimate • The
details of the assessment undertaken by Japan are in the research plan at Appendix 1. The catch
figure of 50 whales taken alternately from the lndian Ocean population and the Pacifie Ocean
population is less than 1 percent of their underestimated abundance. Again, the Appendix
concludes that a reasonable scientific judgment would be that this catch has no adverse effect.
Clearly, possible effects were assessed and avoided.
84. The 2012 IWC Report also contains the following paragraph, which might be interesting
to draw to your attention. lt says:
"ln the 2011 season 174 minke whales were landed in West Greenland and
6 were struck and lost ... Based on a negatively biased estimate of abundance ... and
[the] application of ... [an] interim approach, the Committee repeated its advice of
last year that an annual strike limit of 178 will not harm the stock." 170
Now of course this report is not about Japanese research whaling, but it puts JARPA Il in sorne
perspective.
85. The recently agreed population estimate for Antarctic minke whales in Areas IV and V,
which are only part of the region from which JARPA Il samples whales, is 244,000 171- over
10 times greater than West Greenland. The sample size under JARPA Il is 850: only five times
more than the West Green land catch limit. So that would seem to suggest that a catch limit of 850
in the Antarctic is more than safe.
IX. New Zealand's interpretation of Annex P
86. Now let me come to New Zealand's interpretation of Annex P. 1 am sure we ali look
forward to hearing something from New Zealand next week. New Zealand's reading of Annex P
16MA, App. 1, para. 4.11.
1qJARPA II Research Plan (2005) IWC SC/57/01, App. 1, Fig. 8, p. 34; CMJ Ann. 150.
1°Chair's Report of the 64th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission, 2012,
para. 7.4.1.3.
171
"Report of the Scientific Committee", J. Cetacean Res. .'vlanage.1-1(Suppl.), 2013, table 9, p. 27. - 67-
differs from Australia's, but since it relies on a website summary it is not entirely accurate. Brietly,
New Zealand says that special permit research must 17:
(i) "be specifically defined",
(ii) "be essential for rational management under the Convention",
(iii) "be likely to provide reliable answers",
(iv) "avoid lethal methods where possible",
(v) "have no adverse effect on the stock".
87. As 1 think 1 have shown this morning, Japan has more than adequately defined the
research objectives of JARPA II; whether that research has provided reliable answers will be
reviewed by the Scientific Committee next year; lethal methods are only used where non-lethal
methods are impractical or unavailable; and there has been and will be no adverse effect on the
population of any of the whale species.
88. Japan does not accept that special permit research must necessarily be "essential for
rational management under the Convention"- as 1 have shown, there is no such requirement in
Annex P or in paragraph 30 of the Schedule. On the contrary, Annex P provides expressly that a
special permit may be issued in order to "test hypotheses not directly related to the management of
living marine resources" 17• And as Professor Hamamoto showed in his speech, however,
JARPA II research is directly relevant to the conservation and management of Antarctic whale
stocks and sorne of its data are essential for implementing the RMP. And as Japan pointed out in
its response to New Zealand's Written Observations, "the important question is whether or not the
174
use of lethal methods can enable a better understanding ... " of the relevant whale stocks • In
Japan's view, the evidence shows that it can.
X. Review of JARPA II
89. Mr. President, 1have only two more issues to deal with- 1think we are within sight of
the end. Let me deal now with the review of JARPA Il, you have already heard something on that
but 1want to deal with it in the context of peer review. Australia says that there must be a system
172
WON, para. 60.
17Revised Annex P (2012), para. 1(1)(iii).
17Written Observation of Japan on New Zea1and's Written Observations, para. 64. - 68-
of independent peer review for JARPA Il. But it seems to forget that a system of peer review is
already provided for in paragraph 30 of the Schedule, and Ms Takashiba has dealt with that in
depth this morning. Australia agreed to that system, as did Japan. Australia cannat turn round now
and demand something else. We are not here to debate the merits of that system or the alternatives
you might put in place. The only relevant point for the Court is that JARPA Il has already been
scrutinized once by the Scientific Committee- in 2005- and that it will be reviewed again next
year. Japan has complied with the requirements of paragraph 30 and it will go on complying with
the requirements ofparagraph 30 ofthe Schedule. That, with respect, is ali that needs to be said on
the matter.
90. But in any event, as Professor Hamamoto showed, the Scientific Committee has already
175
recognized the value of data from JARPA Il, especially with regard to the sighting survey ,
176
genetic data and age data derived from lethal whaling • The fact that the Committee is using data
from JARPA and JARPA Il is proof of the scientific value of these programs. JARPA Il is not
only about lethal whaling: much of the research uses other methods, including sighting surveys.
The IWC itself recognizes that "these surveys now provide the only dedicated cetacean sighting
171
data in this region and are extremely valuable to the work ofthe Committee" •
91. But the Scientific Committee also makes use of the genetic and other biological data
derived from lethal whaling for studies on stock structure, age and abundance data for population
178
dynamics models • The Committee, including Dr. Gales, has unanimously agreed on the
importance of evidence of changes in the body condition of minke whales for the Committee's
179
work • Ali ofthese data will allow trends in whale populations to be identified and thus provide a
basis for estimating sustainable yield. As Professor Wallee has testified, bath are important pieces
180
of information for implementation of the RMP •
17
~"Rep ofthe tcicntilic Committee"J.Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (Supp/), 20Il, p. 34.
11/bid., p. 26.
17CMJ, p. 279, para. 5.11.
17See e.g., "Report of the Sub-Committee on ln-depth Assessments", Ann. G. Report of the Scientilic
Committee, IWC/65a!Repl (2013), where there arc various references to the use or data from JARPA and JARPA Il
<http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/dlk3x3g3hy0ckww8k4ogv. Okgo/AnnexG.pdt> accessed 1July 2013.
17"Report of the Scicntific Committec", J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 13 (Suppl.), 2012, p. 40.
18Walloe, Expert Statement, pp. 7 and 12. -69-
92. Professor Mangel had a lotto say about the supposed Jack of peer-reviewed publications
arising out of JARPA. ln his second statement he claims that 12 out of 15 JARPA/JARPA Il
peer-reviewed papers published between 2010 and 2012 are "inaccessible to the scientific
181
community" because they are in Japanese • He accepts that there are at Ieast 15 reviewed papers,
but he misses the obvious point: the IWC Scientific Committee is the most relevant and
appropriate peer group to review this research, not peer-reviewed academie journals.
93. Mr. President, there are several Members on the Bench today- and sorne counsel also
in this room- who have served as special rapporteurs of the International Law Commission and
who in that context have written sorne outstanding and excellent reports for that body. These
reports are not published in academie journals nor are they peer-reviewed in Professor Mangel's
sense. Are they therefore not legal research? Do they have no value? And what would be the
most relevant peer-group in that context? Would it perhaps not be the Sixth Committee of the
General Assembly of the United Nations? There are sometimes better ways of testing the quality
and acceptability of research than sending it to academie journals.
XI. Questions from the Court
94. Now, Mr. President, 1can come to my last section, which is an attempt to respond to the
questions from Judge Donoghue, and one of Judge Bhandari's questions.
95. Judge Donoghue's questions are -1 think her first question)( is: x
(i) What analysis of the feasibility of non-lethal methods did Japan conduct prior to setting
the sample sizes for each year of JARPA Il?
And, her second question,
(ii)How did such analysis bear on those sample sizes?
96. Weil, as best we can, here is the answer to question (i): the feasibility of using non-lethal
methods was first reviewed by a Scientific Committee working group during the 1997 JARPA
interim review. Annex H of their report contains their analysis; and you will find Annex H,
together with the first pageof the report, at tab 57 in your bundle. That review formed the basis of
section IX of the 2005 JARPA Il Research Plan which deals with the use of lethal methods and
18Mangcl, 2nd Statemcnt, paras. 3.37, 3.39. - 70-
which also contains a review of the literature, or at !east a statement of the literature that had been
182
reviewed • Of course, a further review of the use of lethal methods - a further review of ali
aspects of JARPA II- will be due in 2014.
97. The answer to question (ii): our scientists were not quite sure what this question meant.
So, their tentative answer is that the analysis showed that for certain kinds of data lethal methods
were justified for reasonsof necessity or practicality.Sample sizes were then determined in the
manner 1have explained. lt may help, perhaps, if 1try to put it this way. The plan sought various
itemsof data- for example pregnancy rates, blubber thickness, age data and so on. Taken one by
one, the required sample size for each item of data would be different. The final figure- in this
case 850- therefore represented, as 1 explained, a compromise, a figure that would be large
enough to give a reasonable leve!of statistical accuracy overall but small enough to cause no harm
to the stock. You will recall thatrofessor Wallae testified that for some of those questions, even
larger sample sizes would be necessary. Thatis at page 46 ofyesterday's transcript.
98. Judge Bhandari's question, which was: before launching JARPA Il, did Japan establish
that itis carrying out lethal scientific research on such large scale because it is critical and there is
no other available method.
x 99. Weil, here is the answer~ ~t me say first, it is not clear tous that the research can
properly be described as large scale. Compared to the large scalefprevious commercial whaling,
JARPA ll's lethal take is tiny. Professor Wallae indicated in his evidence that the sample size for
the originalJARPA program was too small. He also pointed out that how many whales you have
'IC to kill depends on the questions you are asking. And \1 thi~ myl econd qualification is that the
phrase "critical research need" appears in Annex Y but not in Annex P. lt was one of those
controversial elements of earlier non-binding IWC resolutions that Japan opposed. Annex P refers
to other priority issuesof the Scientific Committee. But as my answer to Judge Donoghue's
question indicates,JARPA Il includes lethal whaling because, for certain critical items of data, no
other method was available or was practicalin the circumstances of Antarctica.
18JARPA II Research Plan (2005) IWC SC/57p.20. - 71-
XII. Conclusions
100. Mr. President, 1 hope the Court will now understand why Japan did not consider it
appropriate to include an expert scientific reportn the Counter-Memorial. The relevant expertise
for the purpose of reviewing and commenting on special permit research proposais is the expertise
of the Scientific Committee. That is the body empowered to do the job by the parties to the
Whaling Convention . And they should be allowed to get on with their planed review in 2014,
without interference from Australia.
101. To sum up: JARPA II is not simply more of the same: it is markedly different from,
and more sophisticated than, JARPA. JARPA Il was reviewed by the Scientific Committee in
2005 without adverse comment. lt met the applicable guidelines at the time, and it meets the
revised consensus guidelines that apply now. The research undertaken in JARPA II is relevant to
the conservation, management and sustainable use of whales in the Antarctic, to the modelling of
the Antarctic ecosystem, and to the implementation and improvement of the RMP and other
relevant research questions. Now, those who are qualified to make this judgment have done so,
and in unambiguous terms. On that basis it cannot plausibly be said that JARPA Il is not for the
purposes of scientific research pursuant to Article VIII.
102. Mr. President, Members of the Court, 1have probably detained you for far too long this
morning. 1thank you for your patience and your courteous attention.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Professor Boyle. This concludes this morning's
hearing. The Court will meet this afternoon between 3.00 and 6.00 p.m. to hear the conclusion of
Japan's first round of oral argument. Thank you, this hearing is adjourned.
The Court rose at 12.50 p.m.
Audience publique tenue le jeudi 4 juillet 2013, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président, en l’affaire relative à la Chasse à la baleine dans l’Antarctique (Australie c. Japon ; Nouvelle-Zélande (intervenant))