Corrigé
Corrected
CR2013/22
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
LAHAYE THE HAGUE
YEAR2013
Public sitting
lteld on Monday 15 July 2013, at 3 p.m., at tlle Peace Palace,
President Tomka presiding,
ill tite case concemWhaling in the Antarctic (Australiv.Japan:
New Zealand intervening)
VERBATIM RECORD
ANNÉE2013
Audience publique
tenue le lundi 15juillet 2013, à 15 fleures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidencedeM. Tomka, président,
en l'affaire relative Chasse à la baleine dans l'Antarctique
(Australie. 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 -
Présenls: M. Tomka, président
M. Sepulveda-Amor, vice-président
MM. Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Mmes Xue
Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
M. Bhandari, juges
Mme Charlesworth, juge ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier -4-
Tite Govemme11t of Australia Ï!lrepreseltletl hy:
The Honourable Mark Dreyfus Q.C., M.P., Attorney-General of Australia,
as Counsel and Advocate;
Mr. Bill Campbell, Q.C., General Counsel (International Law), Attorney-General's Department,
as Agent, Counsel 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 Counsel and Advocates;
Ms Kate Cook, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London,
Dr. Makane Mbengue, Associate Professor, University ofGeneva,
as Counsel;
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, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Nicole Lyas, Acting Senior Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Erin Maher, Legal Officer, Attorney-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 Gouvemement ciel'Australie est représentépar:
L'honorable Mark Dreyfus, Q.C., M.P., Attorney-General d'Australie,
comme conseil et avocat;
M. Bill Campbell Q.C., General Counsel (droit international), services de l'Attorney-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 Counse/, 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,
cmmne 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 1'Attorney-General,
M. Michael Johnson, juriste principal, services de l'Attorney-Genera/,
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-Genera/,
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 Oftïcer, 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.
Tite Government of Japan is represented 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, Professor at 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 of the Human Rights Committee,
Mr. Payam Akhavan, LL.M., S.J.D. (Harvard), Professor of International Law, McGill University,
member of the 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 Counse/ 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-General,
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,
conune assistant.
Le Gouvemement du Japon est représenté par:
M. Koji Tsuruoka, ministre adjoint des affaires étrangères,
comme a}{ent;
S. Exc. M. Yasumasa Nagamine, ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire du Japon auprès du
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 1'Institut de droit international,
M. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., membre du barreau d'Angleterre, professeur émérite de droit
international à 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 chargée de 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 Counse/;
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'Universitéde Kyoto,
Mme Atsuko Kanehara, professeur de droit international à l'UniversitéSophia (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 pêcheriesen eaux
lointaines,
M. Akima Umezawa, Ph.D., directeur à la division des pêcheries,ministère des affaires étrangères,
Mme Yoko Yanagisawa, directeur à la division chargéede 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 HéloïseBajer-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 lnstitute of Far Seas Fisheries,
Mr. Luis Alberto Pastene Perez, Ph.D., Director, Survey and Research Division, lnstitute of
Cetacean Research,
as Scientific Advisers and Experts;
Mr. Martin Pratt, Professor, Department ofGeography, Durham University,
as Expert Advisqr;
Mr. James Harrison, Ph.D., Lecturer in International Law, University of Edinburgh,
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.
Tite Government of New Zealand is represented hy:
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, - Il -
Mme Risa Saijo, LL.M., chercheur à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme HéloïseBajer-Pellet, membre du barreau de Paris,
cmmne conseillers ;
M. Douglas Butterworth, professeur éméritede l'Universitéde Cape Town,
Mme Judith E. Zeh, Ph.D., chercheur, professeur émérite del'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'Universitéd'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 conseil/ers juridiques.
Le Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Zélande 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
étrangères et du commerce,
comme agent, conseil et avocat ;
S. Exc. M. George Troup, ambassadeur de Nouvelle-Zélande auprèsdu 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 in the 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 afternoon, the sitting is open, 1give the tloor to
Professor Boyle, who is going to continue presentation of Japan's arguments. Vou have the tloor,
Sir.
Mr. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. President.
JARPA II IS A PROGRAMME OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (PART 1)
A. JARP A II is a programme of scientific research
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this is not a case about good or bad science.
Australia is not inviting you to identifY scientific weaknesses in JARPA Il so that you might
comment on how those weaknesses could be remedied. Australia's case is that JARPA Il is not
scientific research at ali. lt wants Japan to stop lethal research on whales. And that is the sole
reason for its critiqueof JARPA Il. If it cannat persuade you that Japan is not doing real scientific
research in the Antarctic its case fails.
2. ln responding to that case, Japan does not have to show that its science is perfect, or
beyond criticism. No science is beyond criticism, even Newtonian physics and Darwinian biology
are not unassailable and that is how science progresses. Sorne of the criticism directed at JARPA Il
is politically motivated, and JARPA Il is plainly controversial. But political objections and
controversy do not make research any less scientific in character. Nor do scientists always agree
on whether research is necessary or useful. So much is common sense.
3. ls JARPA Il scientific research? If that question is one for experts to answer then
Professor Walloe gave you an unambiguous answer: "JARPA Il is definitely a scientific research
1
program." Does it matter that sorne Australian scientists disagree? ln our view, no, it does not.
4. Australia and New Zealand maintain that what is scientific research can be determined by
objective criteria. For that purpose they continue to offer you Professor Mange!, with his clearly
defined hypotheses, his preference for non-lethal methods and for peer-reviewed publications.
CR 2013114, p.22 (Walluc). - 15-
5. But in contrast to Professor Mange), here is how 72 Nobel Prize wmners and other
scientists have defined science in a case before the United States Supreme Court (Edwards v.
Agui/lard). [Tab 15-1/slide 1on] According to them:
"Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for
natural phenomena. lt is a process for systematically collecting and recording data
about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort
to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena." 2
6. Now this definition bears only sorne resemblance to Professor Mangel's account. And
even Professor Mangel has admitted that scientists differ on what they regard as science 3• That is
obvious. [Siide 1off]
7. ln Japan's view, when a treaty refers to "scientific research" or "scientific evidence" or
"scientific findings", the question what these terms mean cannot be answered by asking scientists
what they understand by science. lt is a question of treaty interpretation. The answer will depend
on the object and purpose of the treaty and the terms in which it is expressed.
8. Sorne treaties, to take for example the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, seek to
facilitate scientific research in broad terms. Article 246 (5) of that Convention implicitly
distinguishes between applied research involving amongst other things exploration or exploitation
4
of natural resources, such as whales , and "pure research", which is defined by Article 246 (3) as
research carried out "in order to increase scientific knowledge of the marine environment for the
benefit of ali mankind". An oceanographie scientist writing about the Convention's articles on
marine scientific research in 1987 notes that: "The value of data per se is referred to in severa!
articlesof UNCLOS." 5
9. Again you will notice how little resonance any ofthis has with those philosophical debates
on the nature of science to which you were treated in the opening week ofthese proceedings.
1O.ln most cases, the science relevant to treaties concemed with environmental protection or
the sustainable use of living resources typically involves monitoring and data analysis of things
2Amieus Curiac Brier of 72 Nobel Laureates et al.in Edwards v. AKllillard, 18 August 1986, 1986 WL 727658,
p. 23.
JCR 2013/9, p. 59 (Mangcl).
4R. Churchill and A.Y. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (Manchester University Press, 3rd cd. 1999), pp. 405-406.
sN. Flemming. lnstitute of Oceanographie Sciences. '·The Exchange of Scicntific Information and Data", in Law
of the Sca lnstitute, The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Impact and Implementation (1987, Hawaii), p. 398. Sec
UNCLOS, Arts. 200; 244 (2); 249 (1)(c~-( d7);(e)-(f). - 16-
such as tish stocks or other biological resources, or pollution levels in air and water, or global
warming and so on. Long-term monitoring provides the "scientitic evidence", the "scientitic
findings", the "scientific research" that underpin the effectiveness and evolution of ali of these
multilateral environmental agreements and also regional fisheries treaties among others. So, if
seeking this essential data is not science then we have no legal basis for collecting it or for basing
decisions upon it.
Il. Continuous monitoring programmes form the backbone of ali scientific research
programmes which have the aim of providing advice on sustainable levels of catch for marine or
terrestrialliving resources. The reason is obvious. Population dynamics, and hence the size of the
sustainable yield, can change in a manner that may not be predictable. lt has to be monitored. That
is true for whales. lt's as true for whales as it is for any other animal. Factors indexing these
dynamics must therefore be monitored so that changes can be detected and adjustments made.
12. And in fisheries throughout the world, bath national and international, monitoring of that
>< kind involves measuring "age, length and breeding conditi ao ask~ which requires lethal
sampling. The International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES), a scientific organization
responsible for giving advice of that kind in the North Atlantic, describes such data as "crucial"6•
T
"1( And you will see its view of what fisheries scientists do at tab 16 in your folder.~his is the
kind of data that the RMP Implementation process requires, as Professor Hamamoto explained in
7
his first round speech•
13. So JARPA Il is in essence doing exactly the same monitoring that fisheries scientific
programmes perform, with "age, length and breeding condition" information requiring lethal
research. If JARPA Il is not a programme of scientific research, then neither are the primary
research activities of institutions providing advice on sustainable catch levels for fisheries
worldwide.
14. So, Mr. President, the Court's decision in this case could have broad systemic
implications across the whole field of international environmental law. Do we really want to say
6lntemational Council for the Exploration of the Sea, "Fish Stocks: Counting the Uncountable?" (Copenhagen,
Denmark, ICES, 2004-2005), p. 3.
7CR 2013/13, pp. 25-29 (Hamamoto) . - 17-
that governments and environmental treaty bodies cannot take any decisions about scientific
matters unless they are based on peer-reviewed academie publications, and supported by multiple
hypotheses, and posing questions that would secure research funding in Southern California? That
is the absurd position that Australia invites the Court to take. Truly absurd.
15. lt is also wrong to conclude that monitoring and data analyses lack hypotheses- the
essential hypothesis is to see whether things are changing or staying the same. ls the fish
population going up or clown? How much effluent can we put in the sea before it becomes
polluted? Are the oceans more or less acidic now than 50 years ago? Are the whales getting
bigger or smaller? On any reasonable common sense view these are questions that entail scientific
research and they are exactly the kind of questions that JARPA Il is designed to address, if
necessary, using lethal methods and non-lethal methods.
16. JARPA Il is based on the fundamental hypothesis that large whale species once severely
depleted are now recovering, and that abundant species- the minke whale- have ~ to x
compete for food and have reached a natural ceiling. That is the essence of the krill surplus
hypothesis. lt was remarkable that you heard almost nothing about the krill surplus hypothesis last
week, or from Australia at ali. The larger whales- blue whales and fin and humpback whales-
are efficient at consuming krill. Minke whales are not so efficient. Fin and humpback recovery is
strong- about 10 percent per annum for sorne of the humpback \Spogio-. So the krill surplus )(
hypothesis is important- what happens when there is no longer a surplus? But it is not the only
hypothesis for whale population dynamics in Antarctica.
17. Professor Wallee expressly pointed out, and 1 will quote his words: the krill surplus
hypothesis, he said "is definitely not the only clearly identifiable hypothesis in JARPA or
JARPA Il" and he gave the example of a further, independent hypothesis in his lwriKeFIevidence. x.
If 1 quote from that, he said: "The hypothesis of the constant overall carrying capacity is not
9
related to the krill surplus hypothesis. That could be related to climate change, for instance."
8
IWC website, "status of whales" <http://iwc.int/status> accessed 13 July 2013; sec also MA, App. 1, para. 5.18,
p.309.
CR 2013114, p.38 (Walloe). - 18-
Assessing the possible effect on whale stocks of changes in the Antarctic marine ecosystem Js
precisely what differentiates JARPA Il from JARPA.
18. So how then can the Court assess whether Japan acted lawfully in concluding that
JARPA Il constitutes scientific research for the purposes of Article VIII? We have made our view
very clear. But there are two elements that will help the Court come to the conclusion that Japan
has acted reasonably in this regard.
.
19. First, you must look at the context: the object and purpose of the Whaling Convention
which, as you have seen this morning, is to secure conservation and development of whale stocks
and their optimum utilization. Scientific research pursuant to Article VIII can serve any of those
interrelated purposes. lt is not simply a limited exception to an almost complete elimination of
sustainable whaling. lt can, at the very least, serve the purpose offacilitating legitimate sustainable
whaling pursuant to the RMP- and the RMP is a very conservative procedure which provides an
agreed precautionary basis for sustainable catch of abundant stocks such as the Antarctic minke
whale. This is a reality which cannot be ignored when assessing the legality of JARPA Il.
20. Secondly, Annex P, about which you heard more this morning, gives the only agreed
guidance on what the Whaling Commission and the Scientific Committee expect to see in a
programme of special permit research. It is not for Australia or New Zealand to add additional
criteria unilaterally. The criteria covered by Annex P have evolved over time and Ms Takashiba
has explained its genesis and its relationship to Annex Y, and earlier IWC Resolutions.
21. Yes, Annex P is based on IWC Resolutions, but it also reformulates them so that ali
Scientific Committee members could agree on the text, including Japanese and Norwegian
scientists carrying out research programmes such as JARPA Il. And the International Whaling
Commission endorsed Annex P and therefore it endorsed whatever changes it makes to their earlier
10
understandings •
22. None ofthese resolutions or annexes is binding on the parties. They offer only guidance
and they should not be read as if there were treaty texts. They are applied by scientists. But the
10
"Revised Chair's Report of the 60th Annual Meeting", Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission,2008, p26. - 19-
guidance given in Annex P is obviously important in telling us what the IWC regards as
appropriate for a scientific research programme that uses lethal methods.
23. Australia would prefer you to ignore Annex P and it has said almost nothing about it.
And there is good reason for its silence- because of ali the guidance given by the Scientific
Committee, Annex P is the most liberal in its treatment of research that is not immediately related
to the management of whale stocks.
24. Let me remind you what Annex P envisages- 1 hope the siide is coming up any
moment now: Annex P envisages that a special permit for lethal whaling may be issued for
research within any of the following objectives: [tab 15-2: slide 2 on]
(i) improving conservation and the management of whale stocks;
(ii) improving the conservation and management of other living marine resources or the
ecosystem ofwhich the whale stocks are an integral part; and
(iii) testing hypotheses not directly related to the management of living marine resources.
11
25. ft remains central to Japan' s case, as we explained to the Court in the first round ,that
JARPA Il falls within ali of these categories and that it is therefore scientific research for the
purposes of the Whaling Convention. [Siide 2 off]
26. Australia cannot get round Annex P. Even if it does not replace Annex Y and the older
IWC Resolutions, as Australia claims, Annex P plainly adds to them, among other things, by
setting out more clearly than before that research not related to conservation and management of
whale stocks nevertheless falls legitimately within Article VIII 1•
27. N&JN Ptofessor Wallee gave an excellent example in his oral testimony: he referred to X
Norwegian research on whale stocks that was directed not at the conservation and management of
13
whales, but at the conservation and management of fish stocks eaten by the whales • And it was to
make the acceptability ofthat kind of programme transparently clear that Annex P was adopted.
28. ln our view, the consistency of JARPA Il with Article VIII should be reviewed according
to today's standards. As we argued in the first round, those standards are set out in Annex P, and
1CR 2013/15, pp. 58-59, paras. 52-56 (Boyle).
1CR 2013115,p. 56, para. 44 (Boyle).
ueR 2013/14, p. 22 (Wallue);Lars Walloe, "Scientific review of issues raised by the Memorial of Australia
includingits two Appendices", 9 April 2013, p. 13. [Herealler "WallŒ, Expert Statement"] -20-
JARPA Il meets those standards. lt would, we submit, be pointless to assess JARPA Il on any
other basis than the one on which it will be reviewed by the Scientific Committee in 2014. And
Australia has not responded to that very obvious point.
29. But even if we are wrong in inviting you to disregard Annex Y and the earlier IWC
Resolutions, we say that you could easily conclude on the evidence before you that JARPA Il also
meets the Annex Y Guidelines. For this purpose, the 2005 JARPA Il Research Plan, in our
submission, more than adequately defines the research to be undertaken, identifies the questions to
be asked and explains the methodology. Our argument on those issues was set out in the first
round and 1do not need to repeat it.
30. Nor do 1need to say any more about the impact on whale stocks. Australia has offered
no evidence of any adverse effect resulting from JARPA Il on the whale stocks and its own expert,
Professor Mange!, agreed "that very small take of whales will not in any way endanger this
31. Basing his reading of Annex Y on IWC Resolution 1995-9 1, Professor Sands argued that
you must ask the following questions with respect to the objectives of JARPA Il.
32. First, he says,s it "for purposes of scientific research"? Weil, for ali the reasons already
given, we say it is and 1will not say more about that.
16
33. Second, is the proposai being made m "exceptional circumstances" ? But,
Mr. President, Members of the Court, there is no reference to exceptional circumstances in
Annex Y. We have already made the point this moming and earlier that it is wrong to take
elements from highly contentious IWC Resolutions, adopted only by majority vote, against the
opposition of Japan, that are not even referred to in Annex Y -and there may be a good reason
why they are not referred to in Annex Y- and elements that are plainly inconsistent not only with
Annex P but also with the text of Article VIII of the Convention.
14
CR 2013/9,p.63 (Mange!).
~CR 2013110, p. 35 (Sands).
1/bid., p. 36 (Sands). -2 1-
34. Third, Professor Sands says the questions asked must address "critically important
17
issues" • 1will show shortly that our evidence, supported by Professor Wallee, is that JARPA Il
does indeed meet critically important research needs. But that is not the point at the moment. If
counsel had taken the trouble to read Annex Y he would see that addressing "critically important
research needs" is merely one among severa( possible justifications for issuing a special permit
under Article VIII. To suggest that it is the only one misrepresents the guidance given to the
Scientific Committee.
35. Fourth, counsel for Australia says you must ask whether the questions that are being
18
asked "can be answered by analysis of existing data" • You will search the record in vain for any
evidence from Australia proving that JARPA Il can be addressed using existing data. The very
nature of the objectives shows that it cannat rely on existing data alone, although it certainly does
19
make use of the earlier JARPA data • But, by its very nature existing data can only tell us what
happened in the past. It cannat tell us what is happening now.
36. The final question, according to counsel for Australia, is whether the questions asked can
20
be answered by non-lethal techniques • 1will return ta that shortly.
37. But these are not the only questions that could be asked under Annex Y. lt is worth
looking at the others, because there are other matters Iisted in the text of the Annex. We could, for
example, ask:
(a) Whether the research has any connection with "research needs identified by the Scientific
Committee".
(b) Whether it is intended or structured to "contribute information essential for rational
management of the stock".
(c:) Whether it is "required for the purposes of management of the species or stock being
researched".
17CR 2013/10, p.36 (Sands).
18/bid.
1
1)CR2013/15, pp.50-52 (Boyle).
2
°CR 2013/19, p.38 (Sands). -22-
38. What is obvious here is that lethal research does not have to be "exceptional" nor does it
have to address critically important research needs. lt can do other things. You will notice the
difference between Annex Y and Annex P, but whichever Annex is relevant, there are
self-evidently various potential justifications for special permit research, and they are not
cumulative.
39. lt would try the patience of the Court to take you through ali of them. You will recall,
however, that when the JARPA Il research plan was reviewed by the Scientific Committee there
was no suggestion that it did not fa li within any of the parameters identified in Annex Y. Rightly
so, because the Australian arguments in this respect are nonsense. Let me deal with a few of them
brietly.
40. First, Japan rejects entirely the allegation that JARPA Il is not required for the purposes
of management of the species or stock being researched. Professor Sands stated last Wednesday
21
that "killing whales and obtaining lethal datais not required for the RMP" • The Solicitor-General
argued that "any suggestion that JARPA is designed to obtain information to 'implement' the RMP
22
Jacks justification" ,he said. But neither counsel made any reference to the relevant Scientific
23
Committee documents that had been cited extensively by Professor Hamamoto in the first round •
There is, for example, the document entitled "Requirements and Guidelines for Implementations
under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP)" that you can find in volume 13of the Journal of
24
Cetacean Research and Management published in 2012 and you will find that in the records of
><- the firstround,( 1tta~
41. This document clearly indicates that biological data are to be used in the RMP 25•
Moreover, such data are in fact used in the RMP implementation process with regard to minke
26
whales in the Northwest Pacific • Age data collected under special permit played a critical rote in
21
CR 2013/19, p. 49, para. 65 (Sands).
22
CR 2013/19, p. 22, para. 31 (Gieeson).
23
CR 2013/13, pp. 25-29, paras. 47-51 (llamamoto).
24Japan, judges' folder, lirst round, tab 25-16.
25"Requirements and Guidelines lor Implementations under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP)",
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 13 (Suppl.), 2012, p. 497, p. 504, App. 2, judges' lolder of Japan, lirst round, tab 25-16;
CR 2013/13, p. 28, para. 51 (Hamamoto).
26"Report of the Working Group on the Pre-Implementation Assessment of Western North Pacifie Common
Minke Whales", J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (Suppl.), 2011, p. 117, p. 118, p. 133 (App. 2). -23-
this process for Northwest Pacifie Bryde's whales 27• ln this respect Professor Wal10e agrees with
Japan: he said "both JARPA and JARPA Il have given valuable information for the possible
implementation of the current version of the RMP and for possible future improvements of the
28
RMP" •
42. Secondly, we maintain that JARPA Il directly addresses "research needs identified by the
Scientific Committee" and "other critically important research needs". 1made that point last week
in reply to Judge Bhandari's very pertinent question. 1 can explain it more fully now. This is
where research into the Antarctic ecosystem and multispecies modelling becomes critically
important. You will recall Professor Wal10e giving evidence that, for him, "even more important
[he said], is that the programs [i.e. JARPA and JARPA Il] are giving critical information about
29
on-going changes in the Antarctic ecosystem" • Those were his words.
43. The need to mode! competition between whale species for food is a broader part of the
research aim of JARPA Il to monitor the ecosystem in order to understand the impact of
environ mental changes on whales, on krill and on other species. The necessity of that objective is
fully explained in the JARPA II research plan which points out, in a very short paragraph, it says:
"Little can be achieved by using a single species management system for
monitoring the whole ecosystem and identifying measures for the recovery of depleted
cetaceans, in the context of changing cetacean population balance." 30
44. The Solicitor-General for Australia suggested to the Court that: "Objective Two, which
had aimed to build the grand overarching mode! of inter-species competition, is [he said] ... rather
illusory" 31• "IIIusory". 1have four comments to make on this illusory attempt to dismiss that part
ofthe research plan.
45. First, the importance of taking an ecosystem approach in monitoring it is identified by
the IWC itself in consensus Resolution 2001-9, in which it acknowledges that:
27J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, pp. 407-423 (sce particularly pp. 413-414) and JCetacean Res.
.Ianage, /() (Suppl.)2008, pp. 449-510 (sec particularly p. 452).
28CR 2013/14, p. 22 (Walloc).
29CR 2013/14, p. 22 (Walloc); cmphasis added.
J0Govcmmcnt of Japan, "Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Rcscarch, Program under Special
Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA Il) - Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Dcvclopmcnt of New Management
Objectives for Whalc Rcsources", 2005, IWC SC/57/01; CMJ, Ann. 150, p. Il: hcrcallcr ''JARPA Il Rescarch Plan
(2005) IWC SC/57/01''.
1
J CR 2013/19, p. 18,para. 15(Giceson). -24-
"a better understanding of marine ecosystems, including interactions between whales
and fish stocks, would contribute to the conservation and management of living
marine resources and is of interest to nations as weil as to regional fisheri32
management organizations and international research organizations" •
The IWC itself has identified ecosystem research as a research need. Vou will find that resolution
at tab 18 in your folder.
46. When considering the JARPA Il proposai, several members of the Scientific Committee
made the same point, they highlighted the importance of this objective:
"Some members [the report says] stressed the importance of continued
monitoring of biological parameters of Antarctic minke whales, not least in light of
global environmental changes, but also to supplement other ongoing research into
Antarctic ecosystem dynamics ... [they went on to say that] JARPA Il would provide
a framework for multi-species modelling of the Antarctic ecosystem dynamics. Other
members also stressed the need to develop an ecosystem-based approach to managing
the Antarctic marine environment and commended the objectives of JARPA Il in this
33
respect."
47. The objective is obviously a critically important one and it accords with the aim of
achieving Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management, an approach endorsed by FA0 34 and by the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 35• Vou will also find positive
references to it in various other international instruments, 1can mention only the 1995 FAO Code
36 37
ofConduct on Responsible Fisheries ,and the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of lmplementation •
48. Secondly, when JARPA Il is reviewed in 2014 in accordance with Annex P, one of the
explicit criteria to be evaluated will be "the relationship of the research to relevant IWC resolutions
and discussions, including those dealing with the respective marine ecosystem, environmental
changes and their impacts on cetaceans" 38•
32
"Proposed Resolution on Interactions between whales and fish stocks", Resolution 2001-9, Ann. C, Chair's
Report of the 53rd Annuai Meeting, Annua/ Report of the lntemational Whaling Commission 2001, p. 58.
33
"Report orthe Scientific Committee", J. Cetacean Res. ,'-fanage.8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 50.
34
Reykjavik Declaration on Responsiblc Fisheries in the Marine Environment (200 1), noting the importance of
advancing ''the scientific basis for devcloping and implementing management strategies thal incorporate ecosystem
considerations and which will ensure sustainable yields while conserving stocks and maintaining the integrity of
ecosystems and habitats on which they depend".
35Decision V/6: Ecosystem Approach, Fillh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Nairobi, Kenya (2000), para. 12.
36
FAO Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries (1995), paras. 12.4 and 12.5.
37
United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on
Sustainable Devclopment (2002), paras. 30 (d) and 3(c.~
38
"Revised Annex P, Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposais and Research Rcsults from Existing and
Completed Permits", attached to the Circular Communication to Members of the Scientilic Committee IWC.SC.169,
Il Oct. 2012; hercaller"Reviscd Anncx P (2012)". -25-
49. Thirdly, Australia says this model is "illusory". This entirely misses the point of
objective two, which is to "cons/rue/ a model that will show the dynamics of competitive whale
39
species to better allow the sustainable use of resources in the future" • ln other words, the madel
is the outcome of the process, not the starting-point. There is no point criticizing the madel and
describing it as "illusory" when we have not got there yet. The JARPA Il research plan describes
the concept and the hypotheses to be addressed by ecosystem modelling work and how that madel
40
will be developed • An updated and more detailed proposai for the madel was submitted to the
41
Scientific Committee at its 2013 meeting •
50. Similar work is being carried out in the context of JARPN Il research programme in the
North Pacifie that has already been submitted to a review panel established by the Scientific
Committee in accordance with Annex P. That review panel has "welcomed" the work, while
42
noting that the madel is still at an "exploratory stage" • Weil it would be; it is still being
developed. lt is clear that developing such a madel is ambitious and will take time, it is
challenging, but it is simply offensive to those scientists involved in this process to describe their
work as "illusory".
51. Finally, the fact that no humpback whales and only 18 fin whales have been taken under
special permit since the commencement of JARPA Il does not at ali render the multispecies madel
or the ecosystem research "illusory" in any way. The under-take to date of these two species does
not preclude existing ecosystem models- one of those referred to in the research is the
Mori-Butterworth model- does not preclude them from being improved by use of data that
JARPA Il has collected in respect of these species by non-lethal means, and that is retlected in
Japanese plans as advised to the Scientific Committee 43•
39JARPA Il Rescarch Plan (2005) IWC SC/57/01, p. Il ; cmphasis addcd.
40JARPA Il Rcscarch Plan(2005) IWC SC/57/01 , p. 16.
41
"Rcport of the IWC Scientilic Committcc Annual Meeting 2013", p. 60, http://iwc.int/cachc/
downloadslllwj9m9schus40kswskggk8cw/20 13%201WC%20SC%20rcport.pdf acccsscd 14 Jul) 2013.
42"Rcport of the Scientific Committcc", Cetacean Res. Manage. Il (Suppl. 2),2010, p. 74.
43
Kitakado, T., Murase,1-1.,amura, T. and Yonczaki, S, '·Plan tor ccosystcm modcling tor spccics in Arca IV in
the Antarctic Ocean using JARI'A and JARPA Il data", doc. SC/65a/EM02 prcsentcd to the Scicntilic Committce,
June 2013, p. 3, availablc at: http://cvents.iwc.int/indcx .php/scicntitic/SC65a/papcr/vicwFilc/427 /408/SC-65a-EM02,
accesscd 14 July 2013. -26-
52. That point was confirmed by Professor Wallee in his oral evidence when he said that: "1
think it is possible, even without sampling humpbacks, to get the information about changes in the
ecosystem and perhaps about competition.'"' 4
53. But, white it is not essential for developing a multi-species model to catch either fin or
humpback whales at this stage of the research, data from such catches significantly improves the
reliability of the model and is crucially important for the research objective 45•
54. And the reasons for not catching the target sample of either species are simple to explain:
as you heard this morning, in order to facilitate negotiations on the future of the IWC Japan decided
46
to suspend catches of humpback whales • The activities of Sea Shepherd have forced Japan to
prioritize the taking of enough minke whales instead of taking fin whales. Bath decisions will be
reviewed in the 2014 Scientific Committee Review.
55. These points leave us in no doubt that the objectives pursued by JARPA Il are essential
for critically important research needs and the only illusion is the attempt by Australia to argue
otherwise.
B. Lethal methods
56. That brings me to the use of lethal methods. Australia also continues to question the
continued need for lethal methods in JARPA Il. lt does so in the face of ali the evidence. The
2009 JARPN review report of the North Pacifie program notes "at present, certain data, primarily
47
stomach content data, are only available via lethal sampling" •
48
57. Far from confirming that "alternatives exist" ,as counsel alleged, Professor Wallee gave
clear evidence that he considered lethal take to be necessary, as he said:
"Age [data] is important for at least three different types of investigations. The
first is catch at age, which will show [why] abundance has changed ... [And] [t]he
second ... is that it tells the age at sexual maturity, which gives important information
about changes in the food availability for minke whales . . . [And] [t]he third use of
44
CR 2013/14, p. 47 (Walloc).
45JARPA Il Rcsearch Plan (2005) IWC SC/57/01, pp. 13-14.
46CMJ, para. 5.11.
47Sce "Report of the Scicntilic Committcc",Cetacean Res. Manage. Il (Suppl. 2),2010, p. 426.
48
CR 2013/19, p. 53, para. 76 (Sands). -27-
the age data is that [it] makes it possible to [collect] information about cohort
productivity and ... mortality.'"'9
Ali ofthese items are relevant to Objectives 1and 4 of JARPA Il. Australia has no answer to that
evidence. [Tab 15-31slide 3 on]
58. And, you can see on the screen nowa table which shows the data which can and cannot
be collected by non-lethal means- and that is at tab 15-3 in your folder. 1should perhaps say at
this point that Professor Hamamoto will answer Judge Cançado Trindade's question about the
extent to which the use of non-lethal methods would affect the objectives of the JARPA Il
programme, but 1think this illustration fairly clearly indicates what can and cannot be done using
non-lethal means. [Siide 3 off]
59. No doubt sensing the weakness of his case on non-lethal methods, counsel for Australia
50
also asserted that Japan "has offered no scientific justification for killing any whales" • He
repeated what Dr. Gales told you in his testimony about the utility of age data in estimating natural
mortality: that the matter was considered at the 2006 JARPA review meeting, and he then
concluded "and this is a direct quote from the report, [he said] - that the 'parameter remains
effectively unknown "'51•
60. But what did Dr. Gales and Professor Sands omit to tell you when they quoted that
sentence? Weil, they admitted to tell you that this quotation reflected the results of only one
method of age data estimation. The other method considered in the 2006 JARPA review- which
is called "ADAPT-VPA"- successfully estimated natural mortality rates with an error of only
sorne 15 percent. The only reason for not accepting this at the time was that there were concerns
about age readings from the commercial whaling period.
61. But, as 1explained in our first round, and following a major study, the IWC Scientific
Committee concluded in 2011 that ali of these ageing issues had been resolved 52• And the
conclusion from that is that JARPA has indeed resulted in a successful and precise estimation of
53
natural mortality •
49
CR 2013/14, p.19 (Walloc).
5°CR 2013119, p.45,para. 55(Sands).
5CR 2013/10, p.19(Gales); ibid., pp38-39 (Sands).
5"Rcport ofthc Scicntilic Committec". J. Cetacean Res. ManaKe. 12 (Supp/.), 2011, p. 26.
53
CMJ, para'>..118-4.124. -28-
62. This is probably the point at which to answer Judge Cançado Trindade's question
whether "a programme that utilizes lethal methods [can] be considered 'scientific research', in line
with the object and purpose of the ICRW" 54•
63. The short answer is yes, the use of lethal methods can be considered as scientific
55
research, and even Australia takes that view • Article VIII specifically allows the issue of a
special permit to "take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research"- translating that into
plain English, you canuse lethal methods for the purooses ofthat research. The object and purpose
of the Convention expressly includes both conservation and development of whale stocks and their
optimum utilization- again, translated into plain English, that means killing whales. Scientific
research, including lethal research, facilitates ali ofthose objectives.
64. Mr. President, Members of the Court, with your indulgence 1 would like also take you
back to Judge Donoghue's questions about our analysis of the feasibility of non-lethal methods
when setting sample sizes and how that analysis bore on those samples. ln my previous answer 1
drew the Court's attention to the analysis carried out in 1997 and referred to in the JARPA Il
56
research plan • Australia says Japan has conducted no analysis of the feasibility of non-lethal
57
methods since then, since 1997 in effect •
65. Weil, firstly, let me remind you that JARPA and JARPA Il have routinely involved
non-lethal methods. The results of non-lethal sampling have been reported annually through cruise
reports submitted to the Scientific Committee. You will see extracts of those at tab 19 in your
folder, and they show how many non-lethal samples have been taken by JARPA and by JARPA Il.
So, you can see quite clearly that Japanese scientists involved in these two programmes have made
use of non-lethal methods and are open to further discussion of those methods in the Scientific
Committee.
66. However, my second point, is that a further analysis of the use of lethal and non-lethal
methods was carried out in 2007. ln it, the authors compared the characteristics of those methods
~CR 2013117, pp. 49-50
5
~CR 2013/19, p.54, para. 79 (Sands).
5
bCR2013/15, pp. 69-70, para. 96 (Boyle).
57
CR 2013/19, p. 46, par56 (Sands). -29-
and they concluded that a combination of both lethal and non-lethal methods was necessary when
conducting effective population research on large whales. The full Scientific Committee
document 58- it is seven pages long-is at tab 20 in your folder.
67. This analysis was presented to the Scientific Committee at the same time as an
Evaluation of the 2-year Feasibility Study for JARPA Il which ended in 2007. lt would have been
available to any member of the Scientific Committee at that time. And it is clear to us, therefore,
that a full and up-to-date assessment of the use of lethal and non-lethal methods was conducted by
Japanese scientists prior to the commencement of the full-scale JARPA Il research programme in
2008, and that it was made available to the Scientific Committee for comment and review during
the feasibility stage.
C. Sample size
68. Mr. President, Members of the Court, 1can now take you to sample sizes. Australia says
that Japan "offered no scientifically justified rationale for why it needs to take and kill so many
whales" 59• None. This is completely unsubstantiated by the evidentiary record in this case. 1
asked our team of experts to come up with a better explanation of sample sizes, but they tried to
give me more mathematical equations. ~ 1might be tempted to take up mathematics when 1 x
retire, but now is not the moment.
69. However, Australia made much of my apparent inability to explain the mathematics, but
you will have noticed, as 1couldn't help noticing, that they made no effort to explain the equation
that 1 put on the screen, nor did they say it was wrong, nor did they offer you any alternative
mathematics. They could talk about the messenger, but they couldn't talk about the message. ln
reality, they don't challenge the mathematical calculation, it follows a very well-established
algorithm for the calculation of sample sizes: what they challenge is merely the assumptions on
which that calculation was based, and 1will come to those assumptions in a moment.
58
0hsumi, S., Goto, M., and Otani, S., "Necessity of combining lethal and non-lethal methods
for whale population rescarch and thcir application in JARPA", doc. SC/59/02 (2007), availablc at:
http://www.icrwhalc.org/pdflSC-59-02.pdt: accessed 14July 2013.
;qCR 2013/19, p. 45, pa55.(Sands). - 30-
70. But they could not challenge the mathematics and they did not because the mathematics
were right, and we have got confirmation of this from Professor Walloe. He didn't say that our
calculation was wrong, he only said that at the time he did not understand it either. But when he
did the calculation himself he came up with a figure almost the same as ours. And 1quote from his
evidence: "a catch of the arder of 800-900 whales per year does not seem to be unreasonable, on
the clear condition that there is absolutely no chance that this will result in overexploiting the
minke whale stocks" 60•
71. As 1said in the first round, the final sample size was a compromise. [Tab 15-4/slide 4
on] And you can see on the screen the table which clearly shows that. lt lists the required
minimum sample sizes to detect trends in each biological parameter, using the statistical method set
out in the Research Plan. The calculations are ali performed by the same statistical methods based
on the same principles.
72. Now, because those various biological and other parameters for minke whales required
minimum sample numbers typically in the range between 800 and 1,000, the sample size chosen
for minke whales was 850. That number also took account of other considerations of practicality,
including the maximum duration of cruises which precluded very large sample sizes. [Siide 4 off]
73. But the key issue in bath cases is not the statistical calculation, it is the different
assumptions on which the calculations were based: six years and 1.5 per cent yearly change rate
for minke whales, 12 years and 3 per cent yearly change rate for fin and humpback whales.
Australia, in its pleadings, effectively accused Japan of manipulating the two calculations in arder
to allow it to take more minke whales, and you will have remembered the illustration when they did
so. But they were wrong.
74. Let me first deal with the choice of timeframe over which changes were to be detected.
The simple explanation for choosing six years for minkes is that it coïncides with the review period
61
for the RMP • 1 inadvertently referred, in the first round, to the JARPA II review period, rather
than the RMP Implementation review period, but that is what 1 should have said 62• And it is of
60Walloe, Expert Statcmcnt, p. JO; sec also CR 2013/14, pp. 41-42.
61
CR 2013/14, p. 46 (Walloc); "The Reviscd Management Procedure (RMP) for Balccn Whalcs", 2012,
J. Cetacean Res. t'vlanage. 13 (Suppl.), 2012, p. 489.
62
CR 2013/15, p. 64, para. 74 (Boyle). -31 -
course the latter which is most relevant in this context given that one of the objectives of JARPA Il
63
is to "[improve] the management procedure for the Antarctic minke whale stocks" •
75. ln contrast, the 12-year time frame for humpback and fin whales was chosen because
Japan was not, and is not, thinking about the Implementation of the RMP with respect to either of
these species. So there was no reason to link those numbers to the review period for the RMP.
76. But there was also a need for more caution with regard to fin and humpback whales,
given that the six-year time frame leads to quite large sample sizes. Their populations are much
smaller, although growing rapidly. ln his evidence Professor Wallae did not have a scientific
explanation for the different period, but that was only because he had not considered it, as he told
64
counsel for Australia in his cross-examination •
77. Secondly, there are the figures for biological change to be detected during the JARPA II
Programme. Again, Australia suggested that the figures had been chosen in order to manipulate the
sample size. And, once again, there is a simple explanation. The figure of 1.5 percent change in
the case of minke whales was based on previous data obtained from JARPA and commercial
whaling prior to the moratorium. Our scientists consider this to be a reasonable assumption and it
is fully explained in the JARPA Il research plan 65•
Similarly, the higher figure of 3 percent change selected for humpback and fin whales, ts
66
also supported by existing data relating to changes in stock size, as 1explained in the first round •
These species are growing strongly. But once again the need for caution with regard to these two
species dictated a very conservative datum that was simply unnecessary for minke whales.
[Tab 15-5/slide 5 on] And the table now showing explains how the final sample size for humpback
and fin whales was chosen, based on those figures. As you can see, 3 per cent gives the smallest
figure. Perhaps the 2005 Research Plan did not explain this very weil, but 1rather doubt whether
any explanation would have satisfied Australia. [Siide 5 off]
61
JARPA Il Rcscarch Plan (2005); IWe Se/57/01, p. 12.
04
eR 2013/14, p. 46 (WallŒ).
65
JARPA II Rcscarch Plan (2005) IWe se/57/01, p. 17.
66
eR 2013/15, p. 63, para. 72 (Boyle). - 32-
78. Judge Greenwood asked a question that 1have been asked to answer. He asked about the
reason for the higher sample size for minke whales JARPA Il when compared to JARPA. The
answer to that is again quite easy: JARPA Il is not simply an extension of JARPA. lt has new
objectives- notably ecosystem research- and the monitoring of changes in the research
~1l "l ',~;-
'1( parameters requires a larger sample size. And the reasons for the higher number- · is a little
Go.f\ ycJ~
'){ complicated but.it is at tab 15.6 in your fold\n:t(,fshows the differences in the research
objectives and compares the two programmes. [Tab 15-6/slide 6 on]
79. You will see first thatARPA Il is for six year research terms, while JARPA was for
18years. This obviously affects the sample size. Secondly, you will see that JARPA was focused
on a one-time estimation of different biological parameters for minke whales, but JARPA Il is a
much more ambitious programme which tries to model competition among whale species and to
detect changes in various biological parameters and the ecosystem. [Siide 6 off]
67
80. Professor Wallee explained that in his view the JARPA sample size was too small; m
contrast, as you have heard, he endorsed theARPA Il figure for minke whales 68• Vou will also
notice that theRPA programme did not include the taking offin or humpback whales since it did
not cover multi-speciesodelling, so there is no comparison therefore between the sample sizes
for those species from one programme to the other.
81. Let me conclude on sample size by reiterating that its not true to say, as alleged by
Australia, that theres no evidence to show how the figure of an annual sample size of 850 minke
69
x whales was arrived at • As 1hope 1have demonstrated t1ese figures were not plucked from thin
air. To the contrary, the sample sizes were calculated on the basisrefully selected parameters,
using a standard scientific formula, whilst also taking into account the potential effectsch
C.>t("•c)ocd
on whale populations; in effect taking a precautionary approach, as Japan was\f6l'JYiFeitto do by
Annex P. ~Il of this is set out in the 2005 JARPA Il Research Plan and its appendices.
67Walloe, Expert Statcment, p. 9; CR 2013114, p. 46.
68
Walloc, Expert Statemcnt, p. 9; CR 2013/14, pp. 41-42.
6
QCR2013/19, p. 56, para. 82 (Sands). -33-
D. 2013 Scientific Committec Report
82. Mr. President, Members of the Court, 1am within sight of the end, but first it may be
helpful to take you back to the 2013 Scientific Committee Report. Australia relied last week on
selected excerpts and creative interpretation of this document, so let me set the record straight. ln
•
several key respects it bears out much ofwhat 1have been saying this aftemoon and it may be a far
simpler way of understanding what 1 have been saying this afternoon . The first six pages- the
onty relevant ones- of Annex G of this report are at tab 21 in your bundle.
83. Now, if you were to turn to pages 5 and 6 of that Annex, you will see that there is
discussion of a paper reporting results of non-lethal experiments on Antarctic minke whales. The
discussion considers the merits of lethal and non-lethal sampling for those whales in the Antarctic.
The author of the paper speaks first, then Japan's scientists give their view, then Australians
,..
respond. ll>lew,the report gives an excellent summary of their differing views- they include x
those of Dr. Pastene, who is a member of Japan's delegation in this case, and Dr. Gales, the
Australian Government scientist.
84. Vou will note that Japan's scientists welcomed, and were interested in, the new
information about non-lethal techniques, but they did suggest that the best way to contribute to the
assessment of Antarctic minke whales was a combination of lethal and non-lethal techniques. But
if you read the report, you can see that these are not scientists who refuse to listen or engage in
dialogue. And Dr. Gales is also open-minded. He acknowledges "sorne of the issues raised, such
70
as difficult weather conditions, are of course limitations" • He does not agree that lethal
techniques are complementary to non-lethal techniques, as described in the paper, and at the end he
says non-lethal techniques "offer a new and exciting opportunity" 71•
85. Of course, if the techniques are "new" it is hard to see how they could have been the
subject of assessment in 2005. If they are "new", presumably in the best scientific tradition the
experiments should be replicated by other scientists before they are accepted as tried and trusted. If
they are new, they might even have to be independently peer-reviewed. Too soon, perhaps, to leap
to conclusions.
70
"Report of the IWC Scientific Committee Annual Meeting 2013", Ann. G: Sub-Committce on In-depth
Assessments, p. 6.
11
/bid.; emphasis addcd. -34-
86. lndeed, in explaining the findings of the study, the author of the paper admits "the use of
small boats [he says], operating close to the ice edge on groups that were feeding or seemed
relaxed, had been a crucial factor; trying to deploy tags [he carries on] on solitary animais in the
72 •
high seas would likely result in a low success rate" •
87. lt requires quite a lot of imagination to see this as justifying the conclusion of Dr. Gales,
or the argument of Australia's counsel, that alternative, equally effective, non-lethal techniques
exist. To say that the Scientific Committee has commended the work of Dr. Gales 73- as counsel
did - does not mean that they consider it widely applicable in practice. 1can easily commend
Professor Sands for his skill as an advocate. But it does not mean 1thereby express agreement with
his techniques.
88. Something else is quite striking if you read the report carefully. lt refers to JARPA Il as
"scientific whaling", contrasting it expressly with earlier Japanese commercial whaling:
pre-JARPA, pre-moratorium. You can see that towards the bottom of page one.
89. lt is also striking that the report notes the utility of data obtained from JARPA and
JARPA Il, at least four times on the first two pages. Now it is striking only because, if you
believed Australia, the information would be utterly worthless. Surely the more persuasive
conclusion is that JARPA and JARPA Il are taken seriously as research programmes of direct
relevance to the mandate of the IWC?
90. Finally, Mr. President, Members of the Court- at least finally on this point- we
should have another look at one of Australia's more memorable illustrations -1 am sure you have
not forgotten this one [tab 15-7: slide 7 On] -the Statistical Catch at Age table. lt was referred to
this morning but 1have undertaken to go through this in a little more detail. That table is shawn at
)< the bottom of page 2 of the 2013 Scientific Committee Report, Annex G_;it is the report of the
Sub-Committee on ln-Depth Assessments 74• No doubt that illustration with its yellow highlighting
was meant to be striking. But it is only striking if you misrepresent what it illustrates. The
Statistical Catch at Age Analysis is not part of JARPA; it is not part of JARPA Il. lt is a Scientific
12
/bid.,p.5.
7JCR 2013/19,p. 53,para.77 (Sands).
7CR 2013/19, p. 48,para.62 (Sands). - 35-
Committee-funded programme that uses data from JARPA and JARPA Il. The Statistical Catch at
Age Analysis is a technique or madel used by the Scientific Committee to analyse minke whale
population dynamics, obtained through lethal research methods. And it is run by Professor Punt of
•
the University of Washington.
91. The table shawn by Professor Sands is taken from page 2 of that report. But what it
illustrates is not any deficiency in the JARPA or JARPA Il data on which Professor Punt relies.
What it is, is an honest assessment- presumably by Professor Punt- of the current state of his
own statistical catch at age analysis. lt says nothing about JARPA or JARPA Il. The report does
indicate that the solution to those deficiencies may weil be more research, using JARPA and
JARPA Il data. [Siide 7 off]
92. That ali becomes really quite clear if you actually read the accompanying text on
page two. As the report says, "the SCAA has received extensive scrutiny and improvement over
75
the years of its development ... and [it] appears to have stood up well." • And when it cames to
the table shawn by Professor Sands, the report comments at the bottom of page two "Overall, sorne
conclusions appear to be quite robustly supported, white others are more sensitive to details of the
76
madel formulation or data selection." He sounds like a good scientist, Professor Punt; nice to
meet him, perhaps. Consequently, an lnter-sessional Steering Group to handle this issue was
77
established • Now, if this analysis is as useless as Professor Sands claims, why then did the
Scientific Committee establish an lnter-sessional Group to take the analysis forward? Why did it
provide funding from its budgee ? Ms Takashiba drew your attention to that point this morning.
93. So, far from showing, as Professor Sands so memorably claimed, that JARPA and
JARPA Il material is unreliable, this part of the report shows, on the contrary, that JARPA and
JARPA Il material is indispensable to this Scientific Committee analysis.
94. And to pick up another of his many distortions, Japan's counsel have never asserted that
"the Scientific Committee has confirmed that ali of the technical problems regarding age data have
7'·Report of the Sub-Committee on ln-Depth Assessments'', Ann. G, Report of the Scientilic Committee,
IWC/65a/Rep 1 (2013), p. 2, <http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/dtk3x3g3hyOckww8k4ogwOkgo/AnnexG.odt> accessed
14 July 2013.
16/bid.
7/bid.,p. 3
18
/bid., "Report of the Scientilic Committee", IWC/65a!Rcpl (2013), pp. 88-92. -36-
been resolved" 79• The Scientific Committee has made that assertion. They do so in their reports 80•
But 1 do appreciate the difficulty of keeping track of so many reports and documents. lt is a
challenge.
•
E. Periodic independent review
95. That brings me to - 1 have only got two points to go- let me say something about
periodic independent review. Australia continues to argue strongly in favour of independent
review of special permit proposais. But what it did not tell the Court is that such a process already
exists. Again if you read Annex P, part 2 describes the process for periodic and final review of
research results. When Annex P was being elaborated, it was accepted that the process should
include "outside experts" and that is ali explained in Annex P. And it was accepted that the role of
scientists associated with the proposai should be restricted to presenting the proposai and
answering points of clarification81•
T b .1.
)C 96.t~J thnr;, have een reports of two specta tst workshops where Annex P has been
applied, the JARPN II workshop on the North Pacifie and also a review of lceland's special permit
research. And these reviews make it clear that Annex P provides a thorough peer review process.
Japan's view of the JARPN II specialist workshop- which is the one it has experience of- is
82
that it was objective and generally positive, despite criticism of aspects of the programme • And
you would expect criticism of sorne aspects of that programme, or any programme. That is what
scientists are for. ln his testimony on 27 June, Dr. Gales said he would prefer "a truly separate and
independent process" 83•
97. Japan has no reason to be dissatisfied with the independent process we already have and
it was not dissatisfied when the IWC Scientific Committee did appoint independent experts to
qCR2013/19, p. 49, para. 63 (Sands).
8"Report of the Scientilic Committee", J. Cetacean !?es.Manal{e. 14 (Suppl.}, 2012, p. 29.
81
"Process lor the Review of Special Permit Proposais and Research Resulls from Existing and Completed
Permits", Ann. P, Report of the Scientilic Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manal{e. Il (Suppl.), 2009, p. 399.
8Pastene, L.A., Hatanaka, Il.,Fujise, Y.,Kanda, N., MuraI~ l.,eTamura T., Mori, M.. Yasunaga, G.,
Watanabe, Il. and Miyashita, T. "Response to the 'Report of the Expert Workshop to Reviev. the JARPN Il
Programme"' 2009. SC/61/JRI, pp. 1-21 presented to the Scientilic Committee (May-June 2009)
<http://www.icrwhale.org/pdli'SC-61-JRI.pdt> accessed 14July 2013.
·CR 2013/10, pp. 32-33 (Gales). -37 -
conduct the first ten-year review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in 2004. You will see their
conclusions on the screen [Tab 15-8- slide 8 on] -1 will not read ali of it out but you will notice
the conclusion they came to: The Southem Ocean Sanctuary- IWC Sanctuaries in general- are:
"not ecologicallyjustified"; they are "based on vague goals", "objectives thal are difficult to
measure"; there is a Jack of "a rigorous approach to . . . design and operation"; do not "have an
effective monitoring framework", "little apparent rationale for the boundary selection and
managementprescnptwns • . ...4
98. 1 could go on. lt is clear they are not impressed with the ecological or conservation
reasons for adopting the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. But, Mr. President, my point is simply this:
the report shows the value of using genuinely independent outside experts to review the
consistency of IWC conservation measures with Article V 2 of the Convention. lt shows that an
independent process exists. [Slide 8 off]
F. Errors in Australia's case
99. Let me then come to my final section- which is very brief- which is to deal with a
number, a selected number of the more blatant errors in Australia's case. Our scientists- the
same ones whose professional work has attracted such scorn from Australia- are particularly
keen that 1should do this.
100. Australia claimed last week that JARPA II~JAR haPiAnv,olved little collaboration x
with the National Research lnstitute of Far Seas Fisheries and that JARPA II put little effort into
5
the krillstudl • Australia made this claim when commenting on, 1think, Judge Keith's question to
Professor Wall0e 86• lt is not true.
101. The lnstitute of Cetacean Research which carries out the JARPA Il programme has
been collaborating in a krill study with Japanese krill scientists in the National Research lnstitute of
Far Seas Fisheries for more than 20 years, and the results ofthat collaboration have been submitted
8Zacharia s, M.A., Gerber, L.R. and Hyrcnbach , K.O. "lncorporating the science of marine reserves into IWC
Sanctuaries: The Southcm Ocean Sanctuary" , 2004, SC/56/SOSS prcscntcd to the ScicntilicCommittcc
(Junc-July 2004), p. 2; CMJ, Ann. 100; cmphasis addcd._
8CR 2013/20, p. 19(Crawford).
8bCR 2013/14, pp. 57-58. -38-
87
to the IWC's Scientific Committee and published in scientific journals - you can see the record
in the footnote. JARPA Il conducted a krill survey in the Antarctic Ocean for four years, between
2005 and 2009, and the results ofthese surveys were submitted to the Scientific Committee through
88
the cruise reports • Because of sabotage activities by Sea Shepherd, the lnstitute was not able to
conduct a krill survey from the 2009/2010 season.
102. Again, in relation to Judge Keith's question to Professer Wal10e about the linkage of
JARPA and JARPA Il to other projects concerning the Antarctic ecosystem, 1should perhaps tell
you that, in pursuing JARPA and JARPA Il, the lnstitute of Cetacean Research has also
collaborated, again with the National Research lnstitute of Polar Research, the National Research
lnstitute of Far Seas Fisheries, the University of Tokyo and with other domestic institutions 89•
Information obtained from JARPA has been submitted to the CCAMLR secretariat to contribute to
discussions there on the Antarctic ecosystem 90•
103. We ali remember that Australia placed special emphasis on biopsy sampling to allege
that lethal methods used in JARPA Il can be entirely replaced with non-lethal methods. ln the
second round, the Solicitor-General referred to a study on biopsy conducted by Japanese scientists
91
from the lnstitute for Cetacean Research more than 20 years ago • 1am extremely grateful to the
87
1chii, T. and Kato, H. (1991) Food and daily food-consumption of Southcm minke whales in the Antarctic.
Polar Biol. Il, pp. 479-487; Naganobu, M., Nishiwaki, S., Yasuma, H., Matsukura, R., Takao, Y., Taki, K., Hayashi, T.,
Watanabe, Y., Yabuki, T., Yoda, Y., Noiri, Y., Kuga, M., Yoshikawa, K., Kokubun, N., Murase, H., Matsuoka, K. and
lto, K. (2006); Tamura, T., Konishi, K., Nishiwaki, S., Taki, K., Haya'>hi,T. and Naganobu, M. (2006) "Comparison
between stomach contents of Antarctic minke whale and krill sampled by RMT net in the Ross Sea and its adjacent
waters", Paper SC/D06/J20 presented to the JARPA Review MeetinK. Dec. 2006. Available at:
http://www.icrwhale.org/pdli'SC-D06-J20.pdtAccessed 14 July 2013.
88Cruise reports of JARPA II from 2005/06 to 2008/09. Papers SC/58107, SC/5910./, SC/6010./, SC/61103
presented to the /WC Scientijic Committee. Available at: http://www.icrwhale.org/CruiseReportJARPA.hAccessed
14 Juh 2013.
8
"Naganobu, M., Nishiwaki, S., Yasuma, H., Matsukura, R., Takao, Y., Taki, K., llayashi, T., Watanabe, Y.,
Yabuki, T., Yoda, Y., Noiri, Y., Kuga, M., Yoshikawa, K., Kokubun, N., Murase, H., Matsuoka, K. and lto, K. (2006)
"Interactions between oceanography, krill and balcen whales in the Ross Sea and Adjacent Waters: An overview of
Kaiyo Maru-JARPA joint survey in 2004/2005", Paper SCID06/J23 presented to the JARPA Review Meeting, Dec. 2006.
Available at: http://www.icrwhale.org/pdt i'SC-D06-J23.pdt: Accessed 14 July 2013.
9
~agano Mb.,N,ishiwaki, S., Ya'iuma, H., Matsukura, R., Takao, Y., Taki, K., Hayashi, T., Watanabe, Y.,
Yabuki, T., Yoda, Y., Noiri, Y., Kuga, M., Yoshikawa, K., Kokubun, N.• Mura'ie, H.. Matsuoka, K. and Ito, K. (2007)
"Interactions between oceanography, krill and baleen whales in the Ross Sea and adjacent waters, Antarctica in
2004/2005", /3th CCAMLRIWG-/~, m\e4tng, WG-EMM-0717.; Leaper, R., Bannister, J.L., Branch, T., Clapham, P..
Donovan, G., Matsuoka, K., Reilly, S. and Zerbini, A. (2008) ''Areview ofabundance, trends and foraging parameters of
baleen whales in the Southem Hemisphere", CCAMLR 1 /WC Workshop to review input data for Antarctic marine
ecosystem models,CCAMLR-/WC-WS-08104; the lollowing published paper used information from JARPA: Mori, M.
and Butterworth, D.S. (2006) "A tirst step towards modelling the krill- predator dynamics of the Antarctic ecOS)stem'',
CCAMLRScience 13,217-277.
91
CR 2013/19, p. 22, para. 31 (Gieeson). -39-
Solicitor-General for emphasizing that Japan has been carrying out work on biopsy for more than
20 years. So much for Professor Crawford's allegation that "Japan has ignored the development of
non-lethal methods ... including ... biopsy" 92•
104. However, it seems that the Solicitor-General has not read the paper to which he was
referring. This paper was delivered by a group headed by a Japanese scientist at the lnstitute of
Cetacean Research, and it reports as follows:
"this was an effective test of the limitations of the sampling system because of the
difficulties in approaching minke whales to within the effective firing range of the
biopsy darts, especially in Antarctic conditions and from large platforms [1think they
mean big ships] . . . This [they go on] suggests that the larger, slow moving species
such as right and humpback whale93could be sampled more easily and efficiently than
this sampling of minke whale."
105. The Solicitor-General was actually quoting a paper that supports Japan's position that
biopsy sampling on minke whales on the high seas is impracticable. And, as 1 have explained,
Japan has continued its research on non-lethal methods. lt has not come to a different conclusion.
106. The last blunder is perhaps more amusing. On Tuesday the Attorney-General told the
Court that "Japan issues an annual statement at each IWC meeting refusing to participate in
discussions on whale-watching" 9• lt is not obvious tome that there is anybody in Antarctica who
could go whale-watching, but never mind. Had he read the documents, the Attorney-General
would have known that a Japanese delegate not only attends the meetings of the sub-committee on
whale-watching, but an eminent Japanese whale scientist, Professor Hidehiro Kato, served as the
95
Chair of this body from its foundation in 1997 until 2010 • And he has continued to serve as a
member since then. This is hardly the "unco-operative approach" portrayed by the
'CR 2013/10 p. 46, para. 18(Crawford).
9Nishiwaki, S., Jo) cc, G., Ensor, 1'.,Mennoz. J., Sanpcrra, C. and Kasamatsu, F., "Report on the biopS) dart
sampling fcasibility study during the 12th IWC/IDCR Southcrn Hemisphere Minkc Whale Asscssment Cruisc0",
doc. SC/42/SHMi21, pp. 5-6.
"CR 2013118,p. 19,para. 16(Dreyfus).
9l'rof Kasoshoscontinucd to participatc in meetings since he steppcd down as the Chair in 201O. For
reference, sec RIWC 48, 1998,p. 249:JCRM 1 (Suppl.), 1999, p. 22JCRM 2 (Suppl.), 2000, p. 2JCRA-13
(Suppl.). 2001, p. 2JC'RM4 (Suppl.), 2002, p. 3JCRM 5 (Suppl.), 2003, p. 3JCRM 6 (Suppl.), 2004, p. 335;
JCRM 7 (Suppl.), 2005, p. 32JCRM 8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 24JCRM 9 (Suppl.), 2007, p. 3JCRM JO(Suppl.),
2008, p. 322;JCRM Il (Suppl.). 2010, p. 33JCRM Il (Suppl. 2). 2010, p. 3JCRM 12 (Suppl.), 2011, p. 296;
JCRM 13 (Suppl.), 2012, p. 2JCRiH14 (Suppl.), 2013, p. 318; IWC/65NRcp 1,Ann. M, p.J. -40-
A ttorney-Genera 19. Quite the reverse. But it does speak volumes about the reliability of
Australia's pleadings.
G. Conclusions
107. Mr. President, Members of the Court, thankfully that brings me to my conclusions. lt is
for Australia to prove that JARPA Il is not a programme of scientific research. That is its case. lt
must prove it clearly and convincingly 97• lt has not done so. Ali it has proved is that the scientists
disagree about the value of JARPA Il, about the methodology, or about the results. Much the same
could be said about any scientific research.
108. Japan, on the contrary, has shown that JARPA Il meets critically important research
needs, that it is required for the management of whale stocks, that it does address research needs
identified by the Scientific Committee. lt has shown that age data is essential to an understanding
of the structure of whale stocks and population dynamics, and it has shown that such data can only
be obtained through the use of lethal means. lt has shown how the sample size were determined
and that they represent a reasonable and proportionate figure in the context of the research which
JARPA llundertakes.
109. Mr. President, Members of the Court, if JARPA Il is not scientific research then the
implications are far-reaching, for Japan, for ali States that do marine scientific research, for ali
States that do research on global environmental change. This Court should pause long and hard
before itjoins the ranks of those who seek to limit the freedom of scientific research on matters of
this kind. Mr. President, thank you, that is ali 1have to say. 1ask you to invite- we may wish to
take a break at this point? Alternatively 1think you could invite Professor Hamamoto to address
you. Thank you.
9CR 2013118,p. 19,para. 16(Dreyfus).
9/'zt/Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports(/),89, para. 225;
p. 90, para. 228; pp. 97-98, para. 254; p. 99, para. 259; p. 100,para. 262; p. 101,paras. 264 and 265. - 4 1-
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor Boyle. lt seems like this might really be a good
moment for a coffee break. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes and then 1 will cali on
Monsieur Hamamoto. The meeting is suspended.
TheCour/ adjournedfrom -1.10p.m. to -1.3 0p.m.
Le PRESIDENT: Veuillez vous asse01r. Je donne maintenant la parole au
professeur Hamamoto. Vous avez la parole, Monsieur.
M. HAMAMOTO : Merci, Monsieur le président.
JARP A II EST UN PROGRAMME DE RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE
(DEUXIÈME PARTIE)
Introduction
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, ma plaidoirie d'aujourd'hui se
compose de deux parties. Dans un premier temps, je soumettrai à la Cour les réponsesdu Japon
aux questions posées par les juges Greenwood, Cançado Trindade et Donoghue. Dans un
deuxième temps, je répondrai à deux problèmes soulevés par le conseil de l'Australie, s'agissant
des trajectoires prédéterminées que suivent les navires de recherche et des captures commerciales
japonaises avant le débutde JARPA en 1987.
1.Réponsesdu Japon aux questions relatives aux activitésde recherche
A. Transition de JARPA à JARPA II: question poséepar le juge Greenwood
2. Lejuge Greenwood a posédeux questions au Japon lejeudi 4juillet. Le professeur Boyle
vient de soumettre notre réponseà la question relative à la taille des échantillons. Je vais, pour ma
part, répondreà la question suivante: «Why did Japan proceed with the higher JARPA Il sample
size for Antarctic minke whales before the Scientific Committee had had the opportunity to study
98
the final results fromARPA?»
3. Pour répondre à cette question du juge Greenwood, je tiens d'abord à donner une
précision. Le texte de la question parle du «higher JARPA Il sample size». Grande ou petite, la
98
CR 2013116.p.62 Uugc Grccnwood). -42-
taille des échantillons est déterminéepar les objectifs de recherche. Or, les objectifs de recherche
de JARPA Il sont différentset plus sophistiqués par rapport à ceux de JARPA. Il est inutile que je
m'attarde sur la question de savoir comment la taille des échantillons est fixée dans JARPA Il,
puisque le professeur Boyle a fourni des explications détailléesà cet effet.
4. La question du juge Greenwood nous amène à appréhender les questions relatives à
JARPA Il dans son contexte historique. [Projection n° 1: onglet n° 15-9 du dossier des juges.]
Voici la chronologie des événementsimportants avant et après le débutdu JARPA Il en 2005.
5. L'ère d'avant-JARPA Il. En 2004, le comité scientifique a convenu que l'évaluation
finale de JARPA aurait lieu lorsque les résultatscomplets seraient rendus disponibles, c'est-à-dire
après la réunionannuelle du comitéde 2005 99• Cela signifiait que, si l'on souhaitait qu'un nouveau
programme de recherche suive immédiatement JARPA, qui se terminerait dans la saison
de 2004/2005, il faudrait élaborer le nouveau programme, qui devrait commencer donc dans la
saison de 2005/2006, avant l'évaluation finale de JARPA par le comité scientifique. Le Japon a
donc annoncé qu'il organiserait au début de 2005 une réunion pour examiner les résultats de
JARPA, dont les recommandations seraient prises en compte pour préparerle nouveau programme,
qui deviendrait JARPA 11 100• Il a étéégalement annoncé que cette réunion serait ouverte aux
chercheurs de tous les pays 10•
6. La réunion d'examen s'est tenue en janvier 2005. Y ont participé 40 chercheurs qui
102
venaient de huit pays, y compris le vice-président du comité scientifique • A la suite de cette
réunion,le projet du programme de recherche JARPA Il a étérédigésur la base des résultatsde la
103 104
réunion d'examen et présentéau comitéscientifique en mars 2005 • Il est à noter que le projet
de JARPA Il précisait que les deux premières saisons, c'est-à-dire celles de 2005/2006 et
2006/2007, seraient consacréesà des étudesde faisabilité 105• Je reviendrai sur ce point.
<j(<<Reportof the Seientilic Committee» (2004), J. Cetacean Res. Manag., vol. 7, 2005, p. 45.
100«Report of the Scientilic Committee» (2004),J.Cetacean Res. Manag., vol. 7, 2005, p. 45-46.
101«Chair's Report of the 56th Annual Meeting», Rep. /nt. Whaling Comm. 2004, p. 39.
102CMJ, par. 4.99-4.101.
103The 2005 JARPA Il Plan, p. 7-8.
104The 2005 JARPA Il l'lan (CMJ, annexe 150).
105The 2005 JARPA Il Plan, p. 13. -43-
7. A la réunion annuelle qui s'est tenue aux mois de mai et de juin 2005, le comité
106
scientifique a examiné le projet de JARPA Il conformément aux lignes directrices applicables •
C'est àcette réunionque 63 membres du comitéscientifique ont refuséde participer à l'examen du
projet de JARPA Il en disant qu'ils ne pouvaient pas examiner le projet de JARPA Il avant
107
d'obtenir les résultatsde l'évaluationde JARPA par le comitéscientifique • Si l'on met de côtéla
108
question de savoir si cette désertion étaitopportune , on constate que les autres 122 membres qui
n'ont pas abandonné leur poste ont calmement procédéà l'examen du projet. Durant le premier
tour de plaidoiries, et encore ce matin, Mme Takashiba a fait remarquer que le projet de JARPA II
avait dûment fait l'objet d'examen et de commentaires par le comitéscientifique.
8. Plusieurs semaines après, en juin 2005, s'est tenue la réunion annuelle de la commission
baleinière internationale. A la réunion, le Japon a souligné la nécessitéd'un suivi continu des
changements dans l'écosystèmede l' Antarctique 10• La CBI a ensuite adopté le rapport du comité
scientifique, qui comprenait l'examen du projet de JARPA II 110•
9. En novembre 2005, la première saison des études de faisabilité de JARPA II a été
lancée 11• A la suite de son achèvement et donc en 2006, le Japon a présentéau comitéscientifique
112
le rapport de mission de la première saison de recherche • Le rapport du comitéscientifique de
113
cette annéefait remarquer que les débatsont surtout portésur la représentativitédes échantillons ,
mais on n'y trouve aucune référencecritique au fait que JARPA II a étélancé avant que les
résultatsde JARPA ne fussent examinés par le comitéscientifique. En outre, le comitéa examiné
Jil«Report of the Scientilic Committee» (2005), J. Cetacean Res. Manage., vol. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 48-52;
CR 2013/15, p. 32-34, par. 16-19(Taka~hiba).
107
«Comments on the Govemment of Japan's propo:>ulfor a second phao~ fepecial permit whaling in Antarctica
(JARPA Il)», Appendix 2, «Report of the Standing Working Group on Scientilic Permits», Annex 01, «Report of the
Scientilic Committee» (2005), J. Cetacean Res. Manage., vol. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, p. 260-261.
10CR 2013115, p. 33, par. 18(Takashiba); CR 2013116, p. 49, par. 30 (Pellet).
1Q «Opening Statement ofJapan 57th Annual Meeting, International Whaling Commission», IWC/57/0S Japan.
110 «Chair's Report of the 57th Annual Meeting», p. 61. <http://iwc.int/cache/downloads
/8xit4w2bpa-;cwowwwokc0kgw8/CHAI RS%20REPO RT"/o202005.pd t>.
11The 2005 Plan, p. 13.
112Nishiwaki, S. et al. «Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA Il) in 2005/2006- Feasibility Study», SC/58/07, p. 1-21, presented to the
Scientilic Committee (mai-juin 2006).
113
«Report of the Scientilic Committee» (2006), J. Cetacean Res. Manage., vol. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, p. 59. -44-
le rapport de croisière de JARPA Il sous le point de l'ordre du jour «Permis scientifiques» 11• Il
s'ensuit que le comité considérait que JARPA Il était un programme de recherche scientifique
conduit sur la base de l'article VIII de la convention baleinière.
1O. En décembre 2006 s'est tenu le groupe de travail chargé de l'évaluation finale de
115
JARPA • Le rapport du groupe de travail a étéadopté par le comité scientifique, lors de sa
116
réunion annuelle de 2007 • A cette réunion, le comité a examiné deux rapports présentéspar le
Japon, c'est-à-dire l'évaluation des deux saisons d'étudesde faisabilité de JARPA Il (2005/2006 et
117 18
2006/2007) ainsi que le rapport de mission de la saison 2006/2007' • Le groupe de travail sur
les permis scientifiques a discuté les résultatsdes étudesde faisabilité de JARPA II à la lumière de
119
l'évaluation finale de JARPA • Certains membres du groupe de travail ont critiqué les étudesde
faisabilité de JARPA Il et suggéréque le programme de recherche JARPA Il devrait êtremodifié
120
en tenant compte de l'évaluation finale de JARPA • Pourtant, aucune revision ou modification
121
n'a étérecommandée par le comité lui-même •
122
Il. En décembre 2007, la recherche «à pleine échelle» de JARPA Il a étélancée • Le
rapport de mission de cette saison a étédiscuté à la réunion annuelle du comité scientifique
de 2008, toujours sous le point de l'ordre du jour «Permis scientifiques». Sans surprise, certains
commentaires critiques ont étéadressés à certaines méthodes de recherche ou analyses de
114
«Report of the Scientific Committee» (2006), J. Cetacean Res. Manage., vol. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, p. 57-59.
115
«Report of the lnterscssional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Rescarch on Minke
Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006», J. Cetacean Res. Manage., vol. 10(Suppl.), 2008, p. 411.
116«Report orthe Scientific Committee» (2007), J. Cetacean Res. Manage., vol. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, p. 57.
117 Govemment of Japan. «Evaluation of 2005/06 and 2006/07 Feasibility Study of the Second Phao ~fethe
Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA Il)», SC/59/03, mai 2007 (CMJ,
annexe 153).
118
Shigetoshi NishÏ\\aki et al., «Cruise report of the Second Ph~fthe Japanese Whale Research Program
under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA Il) in 2006/2007 - Fe~aibi yliStudy», SC/59/04, mai 2007,
<http://www.icrwhale.or g/pdflSC-59-03.pdt>.
11"«Report of the Standing Working Group on Scientilic Permits», «Report of the Scientilic Committee» (2007),
Annex 0 , J. Cetacean Res. Manage., voJO (Suppl.), 2008, p. 343-345.
120
«Report of the Standing Working Group on Scientilic Permits», «Report of the Scientific Committee» (2007),
Annex 0, J. Cetacean Res. ,\-fanage., JOl(Suppl.), 2008, p. 344-345.
121«Report of the Scientilic Committee» (2007), J. Cetacean Res. Manage., vol. 10 (Suppl.), 2008. p. 59-60;
«Report of the Standing Working Group on Scientific Permits», «Report of the Scientific Committee» (2007), Annex 0,
J. Cetacean Res. Manage., volJO(Suppl.), 2008, p. 343-345.
122
lshikawa, 1-1et al. «Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program undcr
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA Il) in 2007/2008», SC/60/04 presentcd to the Scientitic Committee Uuin 2008). -45-
données 12• Depuis lors, JARPA Il est toujours placé sous le point de l'ordre du jour «Permis
124
scientifiques» à chaque réunionannuelle du comitéscientifique •
12. Monsieur le président, au terme de cette brève analyse de la chronologie, certains
constats émergentau sujet du timing du lancement de JARPA Il. Ils sont au nombre de cinq.
1) En 2005, le projet de JARPA Il a dûment fait l'objet d'examen et de commentaires par le
comitéscientifique. Si 63 membres se sont retirés,les autres 122 y sont restéset ont examiné le
projet de JARPA Il.
2) Depuis 2006, le comité scientifique n'a jamais critiqué le fait que JARPA Il a étélancéavant
l'évaluationfinale de JARPA par le comité.
3) A la suite de l'adoption par le comité scientifique du rapport du groupe de travail chargé de
l'évaluationfinale de JARPA, le comitéa discutéla question de savoir si et comment JARPA Il
prenait en considération les résultatsde l'évaluationfinale de JARPA.
4) Certains membres du comité considéraient que les résultats de l'évaluation finale de JARPA
n'avaient pas étésuffisamment pris en considération, tandis que d'autres ne partageaient pas
cette manière de voir. Aucune recommandation de reviser ou modifier le projet de JARPA Il
n'a étéadoptéepar le comité.
5) Le comitéplace toujours JARPA Il sous le point de l'ordre du jour «Permis scientifiques».
13. Sur la base de cette analyse de la chronologie, on peut entrer dans le vif de la question
poséepar le juge Greenwood. Si un nouveau programme de recherche, JARPA Il, a dû êtrelancé
en 2005, c'était pour assurer la cohérence et la continuité des données obtenues dans la zone de
recherche, comme l'a fait remarquer le Japon lors de la réunionannuelle de la CBI de 2005. Le
contre-mémoire du Japon souligne également que si l'on avait attendu l'évaluation finale de
125
JARPA, aucune recherche n'aurait étéconduite pendant un ou deux ans • JARPA avait déjàfait
l'objet d'un examen à mi-parcours en 1997 par le comité scientifique, qui avait constaté des
123«Report ofthe Scientilic Commiltee» (2008)J.Cetaean Res. Manage., vol. Il (Suppl.), 2009, p. 62-63.
124«Report of the Scientilic Commillee» (2009), J.Cetaean Res. Manage., vol. Il (Suppl. 2), 2010, p. 78 ;
«Report of the Scicntilic Committee» (2010)J.Cetaean Res. Manage., vol. 12 (Suppl.), 2011. p. 57; «"Report of the
Scientilic Commillec» (2011).J. Cetaean Res. Manage., vol. 13 (Suppl.), 2012, p. 54-55 ; «Report of the Scienlilic
Committce» (2012), J.Cetaean Res. Manage., vol. 14 (Suppl. 2), 2013, p. 67; «Report of the Scientilic Committee»
(2013), p. 79 <http://iwc.inllscientifc-committee-reports >.
125
CMJ, p. 230, note 623. -46-
contributions considérables de JARPA à la gestion des ressources baleinières 12l'Les contributions
de JARPA ont étéconfirmées par la réunion d'évaluation de 2005. Il s'est ainsi avérénécessaire
d'assurer la cohérence et la continuitédes données,en lançant un nouveau programme de recherche
qui suivrait JARPA sans interruption.
14. Le Japon était certes conscient que le nouveau programme de recherche JARPA Il
débuterait avant que le comitéscientifique ne conduise l'évaluationfinale de JARPA. Le Japon a
donc organiséen 2005 ladite réuniond'évaluation de JARPA, à laquelle tout scientifique intéressé
pouvait participer, pour que les résultatsde JARPA puissent êtrepris en compte dans le processus
de l'élaboration du nouveau programme JARPA Il. Le projet de JARPA Il indique explicitement
que les résultatsde la réuniond'évaluation de 2005 ont étédûment pris en considération. De plus,
le projet de JARPA Il prévoyait deux années d'études de faisabilité. Cela signifiait que les
résultats de l'évaluation finale de JARPA par le comitéscientifique seraient pris en considération
avant la fin des études de faisabilité. Le terme mêmede «faisabilité» montre que la possibilité
d'une modification éventuelle du projet de JARPA Il étaitenvisagée par les auteurs du projet. Le
Japon a présentéen 2007 les résultats des études de faisabilité au comité scientifique, qui n'a
recommandé aucune modification du projet de JARPA Il. Et pourtant, comme nous l'avons fait
remarquer à plusieurs reprises, le Japon est prêtà modifier JARPA Il si les considérations
scientifiques l'y amènent, et on sait très bien que le comité scientifique va organiser la première
réunion d'évaluation périodique de JARPA Il l'année prochaine 127• Comme le montre ma brève
analyse de la chronologie, le Japon collabore toujours et pleinement avec le comitéscientifique, qui
examine d'ailleurs le rapport de mission de JARPA Il chaque annéesous le point de l'ordre du jour
«Permis scientifiques».
15. Monsieur le président, ceci termine la réponse du Japon à la question posée par le
juge Greenwood.
126CMJ, par. 4.158-4.159; CR 2013/13, p. 31-34, par. 56-59 (llamamoto).
127CMJ, par. 5.44 ; CR 2013113, p. 17, par. 16(Hamamoto). -47-
B. Et si les méthodes létales sont remplacées par celles non létales ? -Question posée par
le juge Cançado Trindade
16. Ensuite, je voudrais soumettre à la Cour la réponsedu Japon à deux des questions posées
par le juge Cançado Trindade. La première est celle que le juge a posée le lundi 8juillet: «To
what extent would the use of alternative non-lethal methods affect the objectives of the JARPA-11
128
programme?))
17. Comme le contre-mémoire l'explique, ce sont les objectifs de recherche qui dictent les
129
méthodes, et non pas l'inverse • En outre, il n'existe pas de méthode non létale«alternative))
puisque certaines données indispensables ne peuvent êtreobtenues que par des méthodes létales.
130
C'est ce qu'a fait remarquer le professeur Boyle •
18. L'objectif no 1de JARPA Il est le suivi de l'écosystèmede l'Antarctique. Pour atteindre
cet objectif, on observe et examine un éventaild'élémentscomme le taux de conception, l'âge de la
maturité sexuelle, les changements annuels de la quantitédes proies consommées, l'épaisseurde
graisse ou l'accumulation des polluants. Les donnéesrelatives à ces élémentsne peuvent pas être
obtenues au moyen des méthodes non létales, comme le professeur Boyle vient de le faire
remarquer. L'observation visuelle ne donne que les informations relatives à l'abondance. La
biopsie ne donne que des informations extrêmement limitées et biaisées pour des raisons déjà
131
indiquéespar le professeur Boyle et par moi-mêmeau premier tour de plaidoiries • Il en résulte
que, st les méthodes létales sont remplacées par des méthodes non létales, cet
objectif-l'objectifn° 1 de JARPA Il- sera affectédans une telle mesure que la recherche serait
alors de peu de valeur.
19. L'objectif n° 2 de JARPA Il est la modélisation de la compétition entre les espèces
baleinières et l'élaborationde nouveaux objectifs de gestion. Le contre-mémoire montre que les
données relatives aux tendances des contenus stomacaux, en particulier de leurs quantités, sont
indispensables pour atteindre cet objectif et ne peuvent êtreobtenues qu'au moyen de méthodes
128
CR 2013/ 17, p. 49 Uuge Cançado Trindade).
129CMJ, par. 4.56.
uo CR 2013/15, p. 61, par. 65 (Boyle); CMJ, par. 4.61-4.65.
111
CR 2013/15, p. 61, par. 65 (Boyle); CR 2013/13, p. 18-20, par. 24-27 (Harnamoto). -48-
132
létales • Il s'ensuit que si les méthodes létalessont remplacées par des méthodes non létales,le
deuxième objectif sera affectédans une telle mesure que la recherche serait alors de peu de valeur.
20. L'objectif no3 de JARPA Il est de permettre une meilleure compréhension de l'évolution
spatio-temporelle de la structure des stocks. Les données génétiqueset morphométriques sont
indispensables pour atteindre ce troisième objectif, comme le montre le contre-mémoire du
Japon 13• Certes, la biopsie pourrait donner des données génétiqueset on pourrait obtenir, par
\&. ..,.
x A marquage M balise pour le suivi satellite, des informations utiles pour interpréter la structure des
stocks. Cependant, pour répéterce qui a étédit dans le contre-mémoire par le professeur Boyle et
par moi-même 134,ces méthodes non létales ne sont pas applicables dans des zones offshore, ne
donnent pas toutes les données nécessaires, ne fournissent pas la quantitéde données requise pour
des analyses statistiques utiles et ne reposent pas sur des échantillons prélevésde manière
suffisamment aléatoirepour effectuer des analyses statistiques fiables. L'objectif no3 de JARPA Il
sera donc affectédans une telle mesure que les analyses effectuées ne seraient ni utiles, ni fiables
x pour la mise en Œuvre de la RMP.
j~.-.
21. L'objectif n°4 de JARPA Il est l'amélioration de la procédurede gestion des populations
de petits rorquals de l'Antarctique. Si l'on n'accomplit pas les objectifs nos1,2 et 3, on ne peut pas
atteindre l'objectifn° 4. Par exemple, le projet de JARPA Il de 2005 indique que des données
biologiques, y compris celles relatives à l'âge, sont nécessaires pour améliorer les estimations du
135
taux de rendement maximum de renouvellement, qui est essentiel à la mise en Œuvrede la RMP •
Il s'ensuit que l'objectif n° 4 de JARPA Il sera affecté dans une telle mesure que toute analyse
effectuéeserait de peu de valeur, si les méthodes létalessont remplacées par celles non létales.
22. Monsieur président, ceci termine la réponse du Japon à la question posé par le juge
Cançado Trindade sur la remplaçabilité des méthodeslétales.
132
CMJ, par. 4.71-4.76, 5.48.
11CMJ, par. 4.82.
134CMJ, par. 4.55-4.81, 5.45-5.52; CR 2013/15, p. 61, par. 65 (Boyle); CR 2013/13, p. 18-20, par. 24-27
(llamamoto).
115The 2005 JARl'A Il Plan, p. 8-9, 12. -49-
C. Et si de nombreux Etats parties procèdent à la chasse à la baleine au titre de permis
spéciaux ? -Question poséepar le juge Cançado Trindade
23. Ensuite, je voudrais donner la réponse du Japon à une autre question poséepar le juge
Cançado Trindade : «What would happen to whale stocks if many, or even ali States Parties to the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, decide to undertake «scientific research»
136
using lethal methods, upon their own initiative, similarly to the modus operandi of JARPA-11?»
24. Si de nombreux ou tous les Etats parties à la convention procèdent à la chasse à la
baleine au titre de permis spéciaux, tous les programmes de recherche devraient se soumettre aux
conditions que le Japon a explicitées dans son contre-mémoire et au cours des audiences. La plus
significative de ces conditions dans ce contexte est celle selon laquelle chaque Etat doit déterminer
la taille des échantillons pour que le total n'en produise pas d'effets préjudiciables sur les
populations de baleines.
25. Dans une situation où sont conduits plusieurs programmes de recherche au titre de
permis spéciaux, la coopération entre les programmes devra êtreenvisagée. Selon l'annexe P,
chaque Etat qui soumet un projet de recherche au titre de permis spécialest invitéàrendre publique
une évaluation de la question de savoir pourquoi les analyses existantes des données, y compris
celles obtenues dans la chasse commerciale ou dans d'autres programmes de recherche au titre de
permts spectaux, ne sont pas su tsantes · . 1J7 Il s'ensuit que chaque Etat, en procédant à un
programme de recherche en vertu d'un permis spécial, est censé prendre en considération des
donnéesqui sont obtenues et qui seront obtenues dans d'autres programmes de recherche conduits
de manière parallèle.
26. Monsieur président, ceci termine la réponse du Japon à la question posée par le juge
Cançado Trindade.
D. Les captures commerciales japonaises avant JARPA- Question posée par la juge
Donoghue
27. Maintenant, je voudrais donner la réponse du Japon à la question posée par la juge
Donoghue le mardi 4juillet : «For the ten years before the commercial moratorium took effect for
13CR 2013/17, p. 49 (juge Cançado Trindadc).
m «Reviscd Annex P, Proccss for the Revic\\ of Special Permit Proposais and Rcsearch Rcsults fi·omExisting
and Complctcd Permits», 2012, (2)(a)(iii), http://iwc.int/cachc/downloads/u25vr6ymdaso0o8w404oc4go/
anncx%20P%20updatcd.pdf>. -50-
Japan, what was the annual commercial catch of each of the three JARPA Il target species (minke
whales, fin whales and humpback whales) by Japanese vessels in the JARPA and JARPA Il
research areas ?))138
139
28. La question se réfèreau graphique que le Japon a présentélors du premier tour
[projection no2 : onglet n° 15-10 du dossier des juges.] Ce graphique montre les captures
japonaises dans l'hémisphère Sud depuis 1945.
29. [Projection n°3 : onglet n° 15-11 du dossier des juges.) Le graphique qui est projetéà
l'écran maintenant montre le nombre des petits rorquals de l'Antarctique capturés après 1977,
c'est-à-dire dix ans avant l'entréeen vigueur pour le Japon du moratoire sur la chasse commerciale.
Pendant la périodeen question, entre 1977/1978 et 1986/1987, aucun rorqual commun ni baleine à
bosse n'a étécapturé.
30. La question est donc combien de ces petits rorquals de l'Antarctique ont étécapturés
dans les zones de recherche JARPA et JARPA Il. Le secrétariat de la CBI nous a fourni les
informations relatives aux positions de capture. Si l'on dresse un tableau à partir de ces
informations, cela donne ce que vous avez à l'onglet n° 22 du dossier des juges. Pour faciliter la
comparaison, je me permets de tracer trois lignes sur le graphique projeté à l'écran. [Projection
n° 4 : onglet n° 15-12 du dossier des juges.) Pour répondre à la question de la juge Donoghue, il
faut se concentrer sur les captures effectuées pendant les dix ans qui précèdentJARPA.
31. Comme le fait remarquer le contre-mémoire, la zone de recherche de JARPA s'est
élargieà partir de la saison 1995/1996. En d'autres termes, JARPA avait deux zones de recherche,
une plus petite jusqu'à la saison 1994/1995 et une plus grande à partir de la saison 1995/1996. Les
captures annuelles des petits rorquals de l'Antarctique par les navires japonais dans la zone de
JARPA, la petite, sont indiquées en rose, celles dans la zone élargieen bleu clair et celles dans la
zone de recherche de JARPA II en vert.
32. Monsieur le président, ceci termine la réponsedu Japon à la question poséepar la juge
Donoghue.
138
CR 2013/16,p. 62 Uugc Donoghuc).
13CR 2013/16, p. 28, par. 40 (Iwasawa). -51 -
Il. Problèmes soulevéspar l'Australie au cours de la plaidoirie orale
33. Maintenant, il me faut encore répondre à deux questions, ou plutôt il faut dissiper deux
malentendus. Ces malentendus ont étémanifestés par l'autre côtéde la barre au deuxième tour des
plaidoiries. Le premier concerne les trajectoires prédéterminéesque suivent les navires de
recherche, et le second porte sur le niveau des captures commerciales japonaises avant le débutde
JARPA en 1987.
A. Trajectoires prédéterminées
34. Je commence avec le malentendu manifesté par le conseil de l'Australie à l'égard des
trajectoires prédéterminées. JARPA Il est conçu et conduit pour obtenir des données et des
informations utiles au point de vue scientifique. Les activités de recherche sont donc conduites
conformément aux règles strictes et précises établies sur la base des considérations scientifiques.
J'ai expliqué, lors du premier tour, comment les activités de recherche sont conduites dans le cadre
140
de JARPA 11 • Un des élémentsimportants est la trajectoire prédéterminéepour les navires de
141
recherche • Cette image projetée à l'écran, montrée par le professeur Iwasawa au premier tour
des plaidoiries, offre une illustration schématique. [Projection n° 5 : onglet n° 15-13 du dossier des
juges.] Comme l'a fait remarquer le professeur Iwasawa, les navires de recherche ne se dirigent
pas directement vers les zones de haute densité, où on trouve beaucoup de baleines, mais suivent
fidèlement la trajectoire prédéterminée,que l'on trouve des baleines ou non autour de la trajectoire.
Mon collègue a indiqué également que les navires de recherche passent approximativement 20 %
du temps dans les zones de haute densitéqui seraient convenables pour la chasse commerciale 14•
35. Le professeur Crawford s'est plaint du fait que le professeur Iwasawa n'avait pas indiqué
la source d'informations ou le document sur la base duquel mon collègue avait établi le chiffre de
20 % 14• Je suis très reconnaissant au professeur Crawford de m'avoir ainsi donné l'occasion
d'expliquer en détailcomment le Japon a établice chiffre de 20 %. En fait, le Japon a bien indiqué
la source d'informations à l'index du dossier du juge [projection n° 6: onglet n° 15-14 du dossier
1° CR 2013/13, p. 15-23, par. 9-40 (llamamoto ).
141CR 2013/13, p. 17-18, par. 18-20 (Hamamoto).
142CR 2013116. p. 26, par. 34 (Iwasawa).
141
CR 2013/20, p. 25, par. 62 (Crawford). -52-
des juges.] A la page 2 de l'index [projection n" 7: onglet n" 15-15 du dossier des juges] sous
1
)< «58-7. Trackline», on trouve l'URL ou plus banalement, l'adresse du site Internet de l1i1stitut de
recherche des cétacés 144.
36. Que peut-on trouver à cette adresse Internet ? [Projection n" 8 : onglet n"s 15-16 du
dossier des juges.] Ce que vous voyez à l'écranest le tableau du taux de l'observation visuelle de
petits rorquals de l'Antarctique. Il montre le nombre des petits rorquals observés par chaque mille
marin. Si l'on établit un graphique à partir de ces données, cela donne ce qui apparaît à l'écran.
[Projection no9 : onglet nos15-17 du dossier des juges.]
37. Ce graphique montre le taux quotidien de l'observation et indique sur l'axe des abscisses
le nombre des petits rorquals observés par 10milles marins et la proportion des jours sur l'axe des
ordonnées. Par exemple, pendant presque 50% de la période de recherche, moins de 0,5 rorqual
sont repérésà partir d'un navire d'observation et d'échantillonnage par 10milles marins. Selon un
document publiédans la revue de la CBI -et donc facilement accessible-, les données obtenues
dans la chasse commerciale de l'avant-JARPA indiquent qu'un navire de capture avait besoin de
capturer huit petits rorquals de 1'Antarctique chaque jour, afin de mener des opérations rentables 145•
D'après le mêmedocument, le bateau de capture parcourait approximativement 30 milles marins
146
chaque jour pour chercher des petits rorquals pendant la saison de la chasse baleinière • Il en
résulte que le navire de capture avait besoin de naviguer dans une zone où on pouvait trouver
2,5 petits rorquals ou encore plus par 10milles marins. Si l'on applique ces informations à ce
graphique projeté à l'écran, on peut tracer le seuil de rentabilité ici. [Projection n° 10:
5
onglet n° 15-17 du dossier des juges.] En fait, c'est excessivement conservateur. Comme le
professeur Iwasawa l'a fait remarquer, les navires de capture engagés dans les opérations de la
147
chasse commerciale ne capturaient pas de petits rorquals de petite taille • Il s'ensuit qu'ils avaient
besoin de trouver encore plus de petits rorquals dans la mer. Mais, pour prendre le risque de pêcher
par excès de prudence, je trace le seuil de rentabilité ici. Pour combien de jours les navires de
144
http://\\ ww.icrwhalc.org/DataSct.html.
145
Ohsumi, S., «Population asscssmcnt of the Antarctic minkc whalc», 29 Rep. /nt'/ Whal. Comm 'n (1979),
p. 407.
14
bOhsumi, S., «Population asscssmcnt of the Antarctic minkc whalc», 29 Rep. /nt'/ Whal. Comm 'n (1979),
p. 407, voir tableau 3.
147
CR 2013/16, p. 26, par. 36 (1\\asawa); CMJ, par. 5.134. -53-
recherche restent-ils dans les zones dans lesquelles on trouve suffisamment de petits rorquals pour
mener des opérations commerciales ? Il faut faire la somme des colonnes rouges et cela donne
23 %. Voici le fondement empirique sur lequel le professeur Iwasawa a affirméque les navires de
recherche de JARPA et de JARPA Il passent à peu près 20% du temps dans les zones de haute
densité,dans lesquelles on pourrait mener des opérationscommerciales de manière rentable.
B. Captures commerciales avant 1987
38. Monsieur le président, ma dernière tâche porte sur les commentaires délivréspar le
professeur Crawford au sujet des captures commerciales japonaises à l'époquede l'avant-JARPA,
donc avant 1987 14• Ses commentaires ne sont pas corrects mais trompeurs. Deux choses àdire.
39. D'abord, je relève une erreur ou un malentendu de la part du professeur Crawford.
[Projection n" Il : onglet n"s15-18 du dossier des juges.] En se référantà ce graphique qu'avait
montré le professeur Iwasawa, le conseil de l'Australie a déclaréque «the graphie [Prof. Iwasawa]
showed you ali pre-moratorium commercial whaling for the whole world» et que «[t]he
presentation of graphies which are as misleading as this one do not assist the Court in reaching the
correct decisiom> 14• Ce n'est pas exact. Je viens de dire que ce graphique représente le nombre
des petits rorquals de l'Antarctique capturés dans l'hémisphère Sud et non pas sur la planète
entière. Le professeur Iwasawa, lorsqu'il a montré ce graphique au premier tour, n'a pas oublié
d'indiquer la source des informations. La déclaration du professeur Crawford donne à penser que
l'équipeaustralienne n'avait pas vérifiéou examiné la source des informations, pourtant indiquée
par le professeur Iwasawa et facilement accessible. Et c'est sur la base de ces informations
erronéesou plutôt d'un manque d'informations que le professeur Crawford a critiquéle Japon pour
avoir montré un graphique trompeur. C'est difficilement acceptable.
40. Le deuxième problème est encore plus grave et porte sur le graphique qu'a montré le
professeur Crawford mercredi dernier. Immédiatement à la suite de l'accusation non fondéedont
150
je viens de parler, il a dit que «[l]et me show you something more credible» et ce graphique est
alors apparu à l'écran. [Projection n" 12 : onglet n"s15-19 du dossier des juges.]
148
CR 2013/20, p. 23-24, par. 59-61.
14CR 2013/20, p. 24, par. 60 (Crawford).
1°CR 2013/20, p. 24, par. 61 (Crawford). -54-
41. Ce graphique est purement et simplement erroné. Il est en plus trompeur. Ce graphique
en colonnes représente les captures commerciales japonaises dans la zone de recherche de
JARPA Il d'aujourd'hui pendant les dix années qui précédaientJARPA. Très bien. Pas de
problème. Mais je vois un problème grave à la ligne horizontale tracéeau niveau de capture 935.
On peut accepter le chiffre 935, c'est-à-dire 850, la taille des échantillons de JARPA Il, plus 10%
de marge. Le problème est que dans JARPA Il, des petits rorquals de l'Antarctique sont en fait
capturés chaque année dans une de ces deux zones, définies par l'Australie comme «Area A and
Area B» et «Area B and Area C>>.Donc, à la saison au cours de laquelle les activitésde recherche
sont menéesdans la première zone, il n'y a aucun petit rorqual capturédans la seconde. Il s'ensuit
que, si l'on reprend le graphique du professeur Crawford, la ligne horizontale doit êtretracée
comme ceci. [Projection n° 13 : onglet n° 15-20 du dossier des juges.]
42. Par exemple, si l'on applique le chiffre 935 à la zone désignéepar l'Australie comme
«Area A and Area B» pour la saison 1977/1978, c'est le chiffre 0, la taille des échantillons 0 qui
doit êtreattribué aux «Area B and Area C» pour la mêmesaison. Dans la saison suivante, c'est
l'inverse. Pas de capture dans «Area A and Area B».
43. On voit facilement que ce n'est pas facile à comprendre. Il y a deux moyens pour
montrer ces informations de manière à la fois correcte et compréhensible. Le premier consiste à
faire la somme des captures commerciales réaliséesdans la zone entière dans laquelle les activités
de recherche de JARPA II sont conduites aujourd'hui. Pour prendre la terminologie australienne, il
faut combiner les «Areas» A, B, et C. Voici le résultat. [Projection n° 14 : onglet nos15-21 du
dossier des juges.] Ce graphique représente le nombre des captures commerciales réaliséespar les
navires japonais dans l'ère d'avant-JARPA dans la zone dans laquelle les activités de recherche
sont conduites aujourd'hui dans le cadre de JARPA Il. On peut tracer la ligne horizontale au
niveau de 850, la taille des échantillons adoptée par JARPA 11,ou, si vous voulez, au niveau de
935. [Projection n° 15 : onglet nos15-21 du dossier des juges.] Ceci représente la réalitéde
manière fidèle. Vous voyez que le niveau des échantillons de JARPA Il est bien au-dessous de
celui des captures commerciales de l'époquede l'avant-JARPA.
44. Il y a une autre méthode pour représenter les données de manière correcte et
compréhensible. Voici, encore une fois, le graphique du professeur Crawford. [Projection n° 16 : -55-
onglet n'" 15-22 du dossier des juges.] J'ai dit que les captures sont réaliséesdans une des deux
zones chaque année. Dans «Area A and Area B» pour une année, dans «Area B and Area C>>pour
l'année suivante. Donc, le chiffre 935 n'a pas de sens dans ce graphique, et il faut prendre la
5
moyenne annuelle pour chaque zone. [Projection n° 17 : onglet n° 15-23 du dossier des juges.] La
ligne horizontale doit donc êtreplacéeici.
45. Le professeur Crawford a soutenu, sur la base d'un graphique erroné et trompeur, que le
niveau de captures dans la chasse scientifique n'était pas très différent de celui dans la chasse
151
commerciale • Ce n'est pas correct. L'écart entre le niveau des captures commerciales et celui
des captures scientifiques est considérable, comme le montre ce graphique rectifié.
46. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, ceci termine ma plaidoirie et je
vous remercie pour votre écoute attentive. Monsieur le président, je vous prie de bien vouloir
donner la parole au professeur Vaughan Lowe.
The PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur le professeur. 1now cali on Professor Vaughan Lowe.
You have the tloor, Sir.
Mr. LOWE:
STANDARD OF REVIEW
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, my task this aftemoon is to make Japan's
submissions on the question of the standard of review and the allegations of bad faith. And after
sorne preliminary remarks on the role of expert evidence and on the standard of review in this case,
1shall address Australia's central arguments. Australia asserts that Japan violated its duties under
international law by issuing special permits for JARPA II and- first- that Japan cannot justify
its conduct under Article VIII of the Whaling Convention as properly interpreted, and -second-
that even if the issue ofthe special permits is superficially consistent with Article VIII, Japan acted
in bad faith or in abuse of right and so cannot benefit from the right that it has under Article VIII.
And 1shall deal with each in tum.
15CR 2013/20,p.24,~ 61 (Crawford). x -56-
The role of the standard of review
2. First, my preliminary remarks on expert evidence. You have heard a great deal, Sir, on
the facts from Australia and from Japan; and Australia made considerable play of the fact that
Japan put up a solitary expert witness, whose report contained no footnotes 152•
3. Weil, you will recall that Australia used a "solitary" expert in the written phase of this
case, only doubling the number after it had seen that Japan was calling Professor Wallee; and that
Japan made clear, in its letter to the Court dated 26 December 2012, that in its view scientific
evidence was not of primary importance in this case.
4. Professor Wallee was asked to draft a report addressed to non-scientists. lt may be that
Members of the Court looked up the footnote references in the reports of Professor Mange! and
Dr. Gales to see if they supported what was said in the text; it may be that they did not. But in any
event Japan has consistently taken the position that their reports, along with that of
Professor Wallee, are of interest as the considered views of distinguished scientists with expert
knowledge of various aspects of the factual and scientific background to this case. And we would
have thought no less of Professor Mange! or Dr. Gales if they had used fewer footnotes.
5. The expert witnesses were presented so that you could judge if they held their views
>< honestly and that their views were considered. And)(we think that it is evident that they did give
honest statements of their considered views. What comes across clearly from their reports is that
they have different views on some of the scientific questions. But that is hardly a startling
revelation in this case. Japan's basic point is that the central question in this case is not, which
scientist is correct, but rather, what does one do when scientists disagree?
6. Weil, Australia said that we did not ask as many questions as we could have done in
cross-examination 15• That is because we had the answers that we thought necessary.
Professor Mange! confirmed that his reports were providing "a general assessment ofwhat 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
154
operational for the context of conservation and management of whales" • He had not focused on
15For cxample, CR 2013/9, p. 19, para. 23 (Sands).
1JCR 2013119, p. 14, para. 2 (Gleeson) and p. 39, para. 39 (Sands).
15eR 2013/9, p. 53 (Mangcl). -57-
the question of the meaning of the words "for purposes of scientific research" in Article VIII of the
155
Whaling Convention • He also confirmed that his view on the need for a hypothesis was Jess
fetishistic than might have been thought: it is enough that research addresses an identified set of
questions developed within a conceptual framework 15•
7. We could have asked them to confirm other facts; but Japan thinks that the key facts in
this case are already evident from the documents.
8. The question before you is, did Japan violate its duties under international law by issuing
special permits for JARPA Il? ls that a question for expert evidence, as for example the meaning
of a term such as "best available technology" in a specifie context, or the determination of the
actual "optimum sustainable yield" of a fish stock at a particular time might be? If so, is the Court
simply to choose which expert evidence it prefers, or should it try to identify which (if either)
represents the scientific mainstream, or whether each of them enjoys a measure of support in the
scientific community? Or is it for the Court to decide itself what is the correct meaning of the
term? Or should the Court ask whether or not Japan's view is reasonable, or whether it is a view
that no reasonable State couId hold- and then hope that no one on the bench dissents and
qualifies for the label of irrationality?
9. We pointed out, in paragraphs 9.6 and 9.7 of our Counter-Memorial, the importance of
this issue and the fact that Australia's written pleadings had not addressed it. We made the same
157
point again in our first round pleadings • We had expected sorne legal argument on the point
from Australia or New Zealand. But Australia and New Zealand seem not to regard this as a
problem on which they needed to address the Court. They say that the Court can approach it as a
158
straightforward question of treaty interpretation • Weil that sits rather awkwardly with the time
that we spent on the discussion of the expert evidence in this case; but so be it.
10. Australia and New Zealand seem to think that it is Japan's responsibility to set out the
law on this aspect of their case. With respect, it is not. Japan did not seek this case. Australia,
t.5CR 2013/9, pp. 53-54 (Mangcl).
116
CR 2013/9, pp. 58-59 (Mange!) and CR 2013/9, p. 70, responding to the question from Judge Keith.
117
CR 2013115, p. 17, paras. 16-17 (Lowe).
158
CR 2013/19 p. 66, para. 25 (Crawford); p. 67, para. 27 (Crawford). CR 2013117, p. 24, para. 31 (Finlayson);
p. 25, para. 34 (Finlayson); p. 26, para. 26 (Finlayson). -58-
and, it seemed last week, also New Zealand, allege that JARPA Il is not a scientific research
program under Article VIII. Japan put in 1,600 pages of written pleadings explaining why it is
scientific research. Australia and New Zealand disagree. But if they think that Japan's evidence is
insufficient to meet the requirements which international law imposes when the Court is asked to
review Japan's exercise of its rights under the Whaling Convention, it is surely for Lhemto explain
what they consider those requirements to be.
The standard of review in this case
Il. Please let me next make sorne remarks on the standard ofreview.
12. ln fact, the positions of the Parties seem not to be very far apart on this question. ln its
heavily-footnoted Counter-Memorial, in footnote 1099 on page 412, Japan quoted a WTO decision
in which the key question was formulated as being not whether a State's decision was "correct",
but whether it was "supported by coherent reasoning and respectable scientific evidence and is, in
159
this sense, objectively justifiable" •
13. Similarly, Australia framed the key question as whether JARPA Il is "demonstrably
160
undertaken on an objectively determined scientific basis" , saying that the Court's task is to
"determine objectively whether JARPA Il is a program for the purpose of scientific research
pursuant to Article V111" 161, and referring frequently to the standard of reasonableness 162•
New Zealand stated that "whether a programme of whaling is 'for purposes of scientific research'
163
is a factual question to be objectively determined by the Court" ,noting that Japan 's "discretion
164
must be exercised reasonably" •
14. Judge Charlesworth asked if it is Japan's view that there are any objective elements in
the phrase "for purposes of scientific research" or whether the definition of scientific research is
;qHormones Case, WTO Doc. WT/DS320/AB/R (16 Oct. 2008), para. 590.
16
°CR 2013/20, p. 44, para. 5 (Drcytùs).
161
CR 2013/18, p. 16, para. 9 (Dreyfus).
102
CR 2013/8, p. 31, para. 19 (Crawford); CR 2013/11, p. 38, para. 43 (Giccson); CR 2013/20, p. 34, para. 3
(Giccson); CR 2013/20, p. 42, para. 33 (Giccson).
10CR 2013/17, p. 27, para. 39 (b) (Finlayson); p. 28, paras. 44-45 (Finlayson).
10CR 2013/17, p. 41 (Ridings). -59-
165
solely a matter for the determination ofContracting Governments • Yes: Japan thinks that there
are objective elements. They are the obvious ones: that the whaling needs to be designed to collect
sampies and data that are necessary to yield, after analysis in accordance with scientific techniques,
knowledge and information about questions or areas of inquiry that are defined within a scientific
conceptual framework .
15. There is no particular magic in that formulation. lt does not seek to list the essential
indicia, in the way that one might list the indicia of legal personality, or the essential characteristics
that distinguish sheep from goats. Australia criticizes Japan for not offering its own formula to
define scientific research 16• But that misses the very point that we are making: there is no
uniquely correct formula. As Professor Mangel said,
"Physicists will look at ali sorts of biology and ecology, and say that it is not
science. Molecular biologists will look at biology often, and say that it is not science.
Within ecology there will be individuals who will someti167 have disputes about
whether something is properly formed or not ... "
16. We have in fact mentioned a number of different formulae, including a number that were
considered for inclusion in the Law of the Sea Convention before the drafters of that treaty wisely
168
decided that it was not necessary to define the term • There are certainly other definitions abroad
in the intellectual universe. But the one thing that is absent from that universe is a single agreed
definition of what constitutes scientific research.
17. Japan's view is that white the definition of scientific research is not so1ely a matter for
the determination of each Contracting Government or State, neither is there one uniquely correct
definition, so that the slightest divergence from that definition means that the characterization of a
program as "scientific" puts the State in violation of international law.
18. There cornes a point where reasonableness must be given a role. ls a hypothesis
essential? Weil JARPA Il clearly has hypotheses; but that is a matter of the drafting, the
phraseology of the research plan. One could say that the objective is to test the hypothesis that
IMCR 2013117, p. 50 (Charlcsworth).
10For cxamplc, CR 2013/19, p. 39, para. 39 (Sands).
167
CR 2013/9, p. 59 (Mange!).
1 8
h Scc George K. Walkcr (cd.),Definitions/orth e Law of the Sea. Terms Not Defined by the 1982 Convention,
Nijhon: 2012, pp. 241-244. Thosc dclinitions wcrc rcfcrrcd to at CR 2013/9, pp. 56-57 (Lo\\c) . -60-
blubber thickness is declining for reasons related to changes in the abundance of krill. Or one
could say that the objective is to look at what is happening to blubber thickness. But surely it
cannat seriously be suggested that the first formulation is scientific research and lawful, and that
the second is not scientific research and is not lawful.
19. Views may differ over the size of the sample that is needed, over whether priority should
be given to the determination of simple abundance numbers or to the detailed understanding of
changes in sexual maturity, pregnancy rates and stock structures. But these are not debates as to
whether the questions are or are not scientific. These are debates about scientific questions. And
Japan's view is that there is no uniquely correct answer to such questions. Uniquely correct
answers to such questions do not exist, so there is no point in the Court looking for them.
20. Yes: the Court can ask, could a reasonable State regard this as a properly-framed
scientific inquiry. But it can no more impose a line separating science from non-science than it
could decide what is and what is not "Art". In Japan's view, the correct question is, could aState
reasonably regard this as scientific research?
21. That is why Japan agrees with Australia and New Zealand in regarding the test as being
whether a State's decision is objectively reasonable, or "supported by coherent reasoning and
respectable scientific evidence and ... , in this sense, objectively justifiable".
22. Australia put the question in very clear terms: is JARPA II a scientific program, oris it
commercial whaling 16? Japan is quite content to accept that approach for the purposes of this case,
although it is of course a matter for the Court, and not for the Parties, to decide what the proper
standard of review is.
Australia's first argument: Article VIII
23. So please let me turn now to the first of Australia's arguments in this case, addressing the
question whether Japan can justizy its conduct under Article VIII of the Whaling Convention as
properly interpreted.
24. Is Japan's view that JARPA II is whaling "for purposes of scientific research" a view that
is "supported by coherent reasoning and respectable scientific evidence", even if it is not in sorne
1QCR2013/18 , p. 21, para. 21 (Dreyfus). - 61 -
metaphysical sense "correct"? Or is it inconsistent with Japan's obligations under international
law?
The evidence
25. Weil, consider the evidence. My colleagues have referred you to many aspects of the
evidence already. And please let me refer tojust three of the indications before you.
26. First, there are the 100 pages of the JARPA Il research plan and its accompanying
appendices, putto the IWC Scientific Committee. lt is in tabs 4 to 13 of Japan's day bundle, given
to the Court two weeks ago. And we would invite you not simply to look at the JARPA Il plan, but
to read it. ln our submission, there are only two views that you could take. Either this is a plan for
a scientific research program, or it is an elaborate hoax. The third possibility, that it is so hopeless,
so misguided and deluded as not to count as science at ali, would not merit a moment's
consideration had it not been brought up in this case.
27. Second, the evidence of Professor Wallae. Yes, he is a solitary expert. Yes, he was
speaking about research that he is himself involved in. But he is not a fantasist pottering away in
his garden shed trying to build a perpetuai motion machine. We invited him to act as our expert
witness because he knew the scientific field, he knew the IWC, and as President of the Academia
Europaea his standing in the international community of scientists is manifest. Of course we knew
that he was critical of aspects of JARPA 1,and even of some aspects of JARPA Il. That is not the
point. He was not put there to put forward Japan's case: that is the role of counsel. He was there
to answer the question, whatever the disagreements within the scientific community, is it
reasonable to regard JARPA Il as a genuine scientific program. And his answer was, yes 170•
28. Third, despite ali of the criticism of the lethal take, in ali the years that the Scientific
Committee has been considering JARPA Il it has never- categorically, never- said that
JARPA Il is not "scientific research". Certain members have criticized its design, questioned the
need for certain data, and in particular opposed the use of lethal rather than non-lethal methods to
obtain the data that is sought. But they have not suggested that it does not even qualify as
"scientific research". By contrast, the Scientific Committee has in the past found that a permit
170
"JARPA II is dclinitcly a scicntilic rcscarch program", CR 2013/14, p. 22 (Walloc). -62-
proposai from another State did not satisfy its criteria, and has adopted a recommendation not to
. 1 d . 1 . 171
1ssuet 1epropose spec1a perm1ts .
29. What is the argument against this evidence? It seems to come down first to the
imaginative use of the distinction between a hypothesis and a topic of scientific inquiry, wielded
like a scalpel to eut JARPA Il from the body of scientific research, despite the fact that
172
Professor Mangel's position was rather more subtle and accommodating ; and second, that there
are strongly-voiced criticisms from sorne scientists of the sample size and the inadequate use of
non-lethal sampling methods.
30. Is there opposition to JARPA Il? Yes. ls there criticism ofthe way in which JARPA II
is framed? Yes. Do sorne scientists take the view that sorne of the objectives of JARPA II could
be substantially achieved by using non-lethal methods? Yes. Do sorne scientists think that sorne of
the questions addressed by JARPA Il are not worth asking? Probably yes.
3 1. But where does that get us? There is a long, deep and sometimes acrimonious debate
within the scientific community about JARPA Il: but it is a scientific debate. lt is a debate over
methodologies, over sample sizes, over the statistical significance of results. These questions are
self-evident!y part of a debate about the scientific merits and demerits of JARPA Il: they do not go
to the question whether it could reasonably be regarded as scientific research at ali- unless (and
this is Australia's point) Japan is acting in bad faith or in abuse of its rights.
32. JARPA Il is not run by charlatans: it is not a program for research into perpetuai motion
machines, or faster-than-light travel, or, sorne might add, cold fusion as a source of energy. It is a
program that involves the collection of biological samples, taken in accordance with established
statistical techniques for the determination of sample sizes, for the abstraction of a range of
biological data that is analysed in accordance with established scientific methodologies by trained
and experienced scientists, including scientists working in universities and publicly-funded
research institutes. Sorne may think it is bad science, or unnecessary science; but in our
submission it is an absurd exaggeration to say that this is not scientific research at ali.
171
Rep. /nt. Whal. Comnm. 37, 1987p.29; Rep. /nt. Whal. Commn. 38, 198p.54.
17CR 2013/9, pp.57-59 (Mangcl). -63-
33. To say that no reasonable person could regard JARPA Il as a program for the plllposes of
scientific research is, at best, hyperbole. That is our answer to Australia's argument based on treaty
interpretation.
Bad faith and abuse of rights
34. Australia's alternative argument is that Japan has been acting in bad faith in operating
JARPA Il. ln the course of a memorable intervention, Professor Crawford counselled strongly
against basing judicial review wholly or "primarily on the basis of such tluctuating and subjective
notions as bad faith" 173• That warning did not, however, wholly deter the Solicitor-General, who
went on to make a submission entitled "Japan's Jack of good faith and abuse of right" 17• lt is not
wholly clear what Australia's position is on this alternative argument. Perhaps, as in the Scientific
Committee, some experts take one view, while others take a different view.
35. Japan vigorously denies that it has acted in bad faith or in a manner that constitutes an
abuse of right. The allegation is untrue as a matter of fact. But before 1remind you of the facts in
the record, please let me brietly address the law in relation to this Australian submission.
36. The usual focus of the Court and other international tribunals is upon the public face of
the actions of a State or of some other actor. If a State's actual conduct is in accordance with
international law, the reason why the State conducts itself as it does- the motive of the State- is
of no concern.
37. ln Barcelona Traction 175the Court looked at the nationalities of the shareholders and the
place ofregistration ofthe companies: it did not ask why the shareholders wanted to hold shares in
a foreign company or why the registration of the company in Canada was permitted. The motives
of those concerned were not relevant, any more than they were in the Constitution of IMC0 176case.
177
Similarly, in Corfu Channe/ , when ruling on the lawfulness of the exercise of the right of
173
CR 2013/19, p. 65, para. 22 (Crawford).
174
CR 2013/20, p. 33 (Glccson).
175
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v.Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports /970, p.3.
m'Constitution of the Maritime Sajèty Committee ofthe lnter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organi=ation,
AdvisOJyOpinion,I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 150.
171
Corjit Channel (United Kingdom v.Albania), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 19-19p. 4. -64-
innocent passage, the Court said that it was the manner, and not the purpose, of the passage that
was the relevant focus. And in Anglo-Norwegian Fisheriesm', when considering the lawfulness of
baselines drawn by Norway, the Court was not concerned with the reasons why Norway drew the
lines where it did.
38. There are many other examples. The exercise of a right of self-defence in a particular
instance, for example, might serve ali sorts of political and military purposes: but as long as the
exercise of the right stays within the limits set by the law, the Court will not say to a State, you
must tell us why you chose to exercise the right when you did and when you could have chosen not
to exercise it.
39. lt is not clear why Australia does not regard the present case as falling within the
approach evident in those cases. lt is not clear why, if JARPA Il on its face meets ali the
requirements of Article VIII, the Court should go further and inquire into the motivation behind
JARPA Il.
40. Australia has referred in rather general terms to "good faith" and "abuse of right". That
suggests a possible starting-point for a legal argument; but no argument came from Australia. lt
just fizzled out. Paragraphs 4.59-4.60, and 5.122-5.128 of Australia's Memorial are devoted to the
tapie; but the legal analysis is practically non-existent- one Latin tag, and a reference to a
dictionary 17• Given the seriousness of the allegation of bad faith, one might have expected
Australia to have made sorne effort to set out its thinking on the law on this point. But it did not.
Nor- perhaps in deference to Professor Crawford's admonition- did it develop the point in its
oral submissions .
41. Perhaps the strongest argument that it might have developed is that Article VIII gives a
right to be exercised for a specifie purpose.
42. Weil, we have explained that Article VIII gives nothing that Japan did not have before it
180
acceded to the Convention • Under customary international law Japan, along with ali other
States, had the right to engage in whaling for scientific purposes, for commercial purposes and for
178Fisheries (United Kingdomv.Norway), Judgment. /.C.J. Reports /95/,p. 116.
17eR 2013/11, p.39 (Glccson).
180
eR 2013/15, p.15,paras.7-8 (Lowe). -65-
any other purposes; and the question is what limitations has Japan accepted upon the exercise of
that right.
43. Australia and New Zealand reject that position. They consider that the effect of
Article VIII is that only exercises of the right to authorize special permit whaling that are sole/y
motivated by scientific research are permissible, and that JARPA Il is tainted by an ancillary
"commercial" motive. The Solicitor-General based his argument upon the proposition that there
was evidence "painting to commerce as a substantial driver for JARPA and JARPA Il", and "the
intrusion into the exercise of the Article VIII power of considerations so extraneous to that Article
and so pervasive asto justifY the conclusion of Jackof good faith" 18•
44. Japan does not accept that the sale of whale meat under JARPA Il evidences a
commercial motive: it is a common practice to fund fisheries research in this way, as Article VIII,
paragraph 2, recognizes. But, even supposing that it did evidence a commercial motive, quod non,
where would that get Australia? lt would take us straight to Judge Gaja's question. How do we
treat mixed motives?
45. Some rules of international law do refer to the motive or purpose for which a power is
given or for which an existing power may be exercised. For example, rules concerning the
expropriation of property require that it be asked if the property was taken into State ownership
182
"for a public purpose" • But where is the evidence that, once a "public purpose" is indeed
established, courts or tribunals must go further, and check that there was no ancillary motive that
accompanied it? We have not found any such evidence; and the fact that there is, in addition to the
"public purpose" requirement, an explicit prohibition in international law on "discriminatory"
expropriations rather suggests that further requirements such as a "sole purpose" requirement
should not be read into the "public purpose" requirement.
46. 1 note also that where the Whaling Convention does wish to confine States to one sole
purpose, it says so- as, for example, in paragraphs 2.3 and 21 (a) of the Schedule, which refer to
18CR 2013/20, p.35, para.6 (Giccson).
182
For cxamplc, Libyan American Oit Company (Liamco) v. Libya, 7 International LeKal Materials (/LM)
3 (1978), 4YB. Com. Arb. 177 (1979). - 66-
ships that have been used "solely" for the purpose of freezing or salting whale meat intended for
human food or feeding animais.
47. Neither Australia nor New Zealand has shown any legal or logical basis for supposing
that there is a "sole purpose" principle in international law- much less, for writing it in to
Article VIII. ln our submission international law contains no such principle.
183
48. The passage that they quoted from the Costa Rica case does not show it • That says no
more than that "expressly stating the purpose for which a right may be exercised implies in
principle the exclusion of ali other purposes and, consequently, imposes the limitation thus defined
on the field of application of the right in question". A right given for purpose A cannot be
exercised for purpose B. But that says nothing about the situation where the right is exercised for
purpose A and purpose B is an additional, ancillary motive.
49. And one more point on the law. The Solicitor-General, with his usual, admirable clarity,
noted that 1had not referred to a duty to consider the Resolutions issued by the IWC as an aspect of
184
the duty of good faith • So let me correct that point immediately. Japan accepts that the duty to
implement its obligations under the Whaling Convention in good faith includes a duty to "have
regard to resolutions expressed by the Commission under Article VI", as the Solicitor-General put
it. lt accepts that duty, and it has complied with that duty.
50. Weil, so much for the law. But what of the facts? Where is the evidence from Australia
of bad faith? The Solicitor-General suggested that it was "by never opening up its mind to a
consideration of making the slightest change to the core aspects of its lethal methodology, scale,
continuity and indefinite period have never been the subject of reconsideration by Japan" 185•
51. As my colleagues have indicated, JARPA Il does not have an indefinite period. As the
research plan says, it is to be reviewed after six years. Any changes considered to be necessary or
appropriate will be made then. No doubt any special permits issued subsequently will continue to
look much like photocopies of their predecessors- they are simply the bottom line, the result of
the processes of consideration and decision on each of the matters that bears on the fact the final
18Di~pru eKarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa v.NicaraKZta},JudKment, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
p. 241, para. 61: cibyNew Zea1and at CR 2013117, p. 41, para. 20 (Ridings).
18CR 2013/20, pp. 36-37, para. 12 (Giceson).
185
CR 2013/20, p. 37, para. 13 (Giccson). - 67-
decision to authorize a certain size of lethal take. But they will be considered. JARPA Il is not
running on an automatic pilot powered by everlasting batteries.
52. That has been and will be Japan 's practice. Continuity- or discontinuity- is the
product of those decisions.
53. lt really does beggar belief that Australia can think that Japan has not considered
changing the scale of JARPA Il, for example by abandoning or scaling down sorne research goals
and relying in greater measure upon non-lethal methods. ln the face of Sea Shepherd attacks,
continuous criticism from groups within the IWC, publicity campaigns by groups who have
deeply-rooted and well-articulated positions opposed to whaling, and the many other political costs
that come in the wake of the continuation of Japan's whaling research, no rational Government
could simply press ahead unthinkingly.
54. Australia interprets the fact that Japan has not altered JARPA Il as Australia wishes as
proof that Japan has not opened its mind to genuine reconsideration. But that is not so. These
matters are reviewed; in 2007, following the two-year feasibility study of JARPA Il, a paper was
submitted to the Scientific Committee with the express objective of considering "changes for the
186
full JARPA Il research program, if necessary" • And these matters will be comprehensively
reviewed in the 2014 review of JARPA Il, perhaps before the judgment in this case is issued. The
fact that Japan has decided not to abandon its lethal take is not a sign that it is acting in bad faith in
exercising its rights under the Convention. One can give full consideration to comments, and stiJl
decide not to alter one's position.
55. lndeed, Australia understands this weil. The Solicitor-General said last week that:
"The submission, if 1 may repeat it, was that Japan never opened its mind to a
consideration of making the slightest change to the core aspects of its lethal
methodology, scale, continuity and indefinite period have never been the subject of
reconsideration by Japan. And so it was that last Thursday Professor Lowe politely
but firmly invited Australia to re-phrase, as in withdraw, that claim. May 1 tell you187
[said the Solicitor-General] that after reconsideration, Australia does not do so."
Weil, quite so.
18Government of Japan (Compiled b) Fujise, Y., Pastene, L.A., Hatanaka, H., Ohsumi, S. and Miyashita, T.)
(2007). Evaluation of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 feasibility study of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA Il), p. 1; paper SC/59/03 presented to the lWC Scientilic
Committee, May 2007.
18CR 2013/20, p. 37, para. 13(Gieeson). - 68-
56. Please let me draw your attention to one set of statistics, about which 1think there is no
disagreement. They are taken from the cruise report of the 2005/2006 feasibility study for
JARPA Il, which is reproduced as Australia's Annex 57; and they relate to the size of the minke
whale sample. The target is 850. But it is likely that around halfofthem will be males, and ofthe
other, female half, around 40 percent will be immature females. ln fact, of the 2005/2006
feasibility study, from a full sample of853, only 391 were females; and of them, only 242 were
mature. Pregnancy rates, trends in age at sexual maturity of females, and so on can be determined
only by lethal means; and data on sorne of those matters were accordingly based in that survey on
a sample of242, out of a population of over half a million. But to get that sample of242 mature
females, one needed an overall sample size of 850. That is simple mathematics.
57. This age and pregnancy data cannat be obtained by non-lethal means. But, having
sampled the stock in arder to get this data, one can also gather much other valuable information
from the entire sample, including the immature females and the males; a good part of this
additional information could, admittedly, be obtained by non-lethal means. Yes: non-lethal
sampling is practicable in certain places, in certain sea conditions, and it can provide valuable data.
But the idea that lethal sampling can simply be replaced by non-lethal methods is naïve.
58. Japan is perfectly open about its thinking. It wishes to resume commercial whaling with
reference to the sound scientific basis for lifting the moratorium. JARPA Il is one of Japan's major
research projects aimed at providing that scientific basis. A key element of the scientific evidence
will relate to productivity rates, and those rates can best be determined only with knowledge of the
age structure, the age of sexual maturity, and the pregnancy rates of the whales. That data cannat
be obtained by non-lethal means. Yes: there is a serious scientific debate to be had. But at the
moment Japan does not consider that there is a scientific case for the abandonment of its lethal
sampling of minke whales on a scale that- as Professor Mangel accepted 18- can have no
adverse effect upon the condition ofthat whale stock.
18CR 2013/9,p.63 (Mangcl). -69-
Concluding remarks
59. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in our submission Australia has not made out its
case on the facts or on the law. lt does nothow- to use its own test- that it is unreasonable to
regard JARPA Il as a scientific research program, whatever the criticisms there might be of its
methodology; and it has not shown that Japan had any motive beyond its declared motive of
gaining the data necessary to provide a basis for the science-based consideration of the possibility
of resuming commercial whaling, and of gaining that data through a research program that is
conducted in essentially the same way as fisheries research is conducted the world over.
60. Mr. President, unless 1can be offurther assistance to you, 1should say that that is the end
of my submission. 1thank the Court for its attention. 1would ask you to cali on Professor Pellet
next, but you may feel that we need a good night's sleep before you do that.
The PRESIDENT: Unless ten minutes would be sufficient for Professor Pellet, we will
postpone his pleading for tomorrow moming. Thank you, Professer Lowe.
The Court will meet tomorrow moming from 10.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. to hear the conclusion
of Japan's second round of oral argument and the presentation of final submissions. Thank you.
The Court is adjoumed.
The Court rose at 5.55 p.m.
Audience publique tenue le lundi 15 juillet 2013, à 15 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))