Corrigé
Corrected
CR2013/14
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
LAHAYE THE HAGUE
YEAR2013
Public sitting
held on Wednesday 3 July 2013, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Tomka presiding,
intite case concerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan:
New Zealand intervening)
VERBATIM RECORD
ANNÉE2013
Audience publique
tenue le mercredi 3juillet 2013,5 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidencede M. Tomka, président,
en l'affaire relative Chasse àla baleine dans l'Antarctique
(Australie c. Japon ; Nouvelle-Zélande (intervenant))
COMPTE RENDU - 2-
Present: President Tomka
Vice-President Sepulveda-Amor
Judges Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Judge ad hoc Charlesworth
Registrar Couvreur - 3-
Présents:M. Tomka, président
M. 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,uge ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier -4-
Tite Govemment of Australitl is represented 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 Jnternational 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 of Geneva,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Ms Kate Cook, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London,
Dr. Makane Mbengue, Associate Professor, University of Geneva,
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 Departrnent,
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 Gouvernement de I'Austrlllie est représentépllr:
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 auprèsdu Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M. Justin Gleeson, S.C., Solicitor-General d'Australie,
M. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., professeur de droit international à l'Université de
Cambridge, titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l'Institut de droit international, avocat,
Matrix Chambers (Londres),
M. Henry Burmester, A.O., Q.C., Special Counsel, Solicitor du Gouvernement australien,
M. Philippe Sands, Q.C., professeur de droit au University College de Londres, avocat,
Matrix Chambers (Londres),
Mme Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, professeur de droit international à l'Universitéde Genève,
comme conseils et avocats;
Mme Kate Cook, avocat, Matrix Chambers (Londres),
M. Makane Mbengue, professeur associéà l'Universitéde Genève,
comme conseils ;
Mme Anne Sheehan, secrétaireadjoint par intérim,services de l'Attorney-General,
M. Michael Johnson, juriste principal, services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Danielle Forrester,juriste principal, services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Stephanie Ierino,juriste principal par intérim,services de l'Attorney-Genera/,
Mme Clare Gregory, juriste hors classe, services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Nicole Lyas, juriste hors classe par intérim,services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Erin Maher,juriste, services de l'Attorney-General,
M. Richard Rowe,juriste hors classe, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce,
M. Greg French, secrétaireadjoint, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce, - 6 -
Mr. Jamie Cooper, Legal Officcr, Department of Foreign AfTairsand Tradc,
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 ofthe Attorney-General,
Mr. Todd Quinn, First Secretary, Embassy of Australia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Advisers;
Ms Mandy Williams, Administration Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
as Assistant.
Tlle 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 of New York and the Law Society of Upper Canada,
Mr. Shotaro Hamamoto, Professor of International Law, Kyoto University,
Ms Yukiko Takashiba, Deputy Director, JCJ Whaling Case Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel and Advocates; - 7 -
M. Jamie Cooper, juriste, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce,
Mme Donna Petrachenko, premier secrétaire adjoint, ministère du développement durable,
de l'environnement, de l'eau, des populations et des communautés,
M. Peter Komidar, directeur, ministère du développement durable, de l'environnement, de l'eau,
des populations et des communautés,
M. Bill de la Mare, scientifique, division de l'Antarctique australien, ministère du développement
durable, de l'environnement, de l'eau, des populations et des communautés,
M. David Blumenthal, conseiller principal, services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Giulia Baggio, conseiller principal, services de l'Attorney-Genera/,
M. Todd Quinn, premier secrétaire, ambassade d'Australie au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers;
Mme Mandy Williams, administrateur, services de l'Attorney-General,
comme assistant.
Le Gouvernement du Japon est représentépar :
M. Koji Tsuruoka, ministre adjoint des affaires étrangères,
comme agent ;
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 l'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'Université de Kyoto,
Mme Yukiko Takashiba, directeur adjoint à la division chargéede l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine
devant la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme conseils et avocats ; - 8 -
Mr. Takane Sugihara, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Kyoto University,
Ms Atsuko Kanehara, Professor of International Law, Sophia University (Tokyo),
Mr. Masafumi lshii, Director-General, International Legal Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,
Ms Alina Miron, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University of
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
as Counsel;
Mr. Kenji Kagawa, Director-General, Resources Enhancement Promotion Department, Fisheries
Ageney,
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 Institute 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 lmprovement Division, Fisheries
Ageney,
Mr. Toshinori Uoya, Assistant Director, Fisheries Management Division, Fisheries Agency,
Mr. Shinji Hiruma, Assistant Director, International Management Division, Fisheries Agency,
Mr. Sadaharu Kodama, Legal Adviser, Embassy of Japan in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr. Nobuyuki Murai, LL.D., First Secretary, Embassy of Japan in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, -9-
M. Takane Sugihara, professeur éméritede droit international de l'Université de Kyoto,
Mme Atsuko Kanehara, professeur de droit international à l'Université Sophia (Tokyo),
M. Masafumi Ishii, directeur généraldu bureau des affaires juridiques internationales, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
Mme Alina Miron, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université Paris
Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
comme conseils;
M. Kenji Kagawa, directeur général du département de la promotion de la valorisation des
ressources, agence des pêcheries,
M. Noriyuki Shikata, ministre à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et
d'Irlande du Nord,
M. Kenichi Kobayashi, directeur à la division des affaires juridiques internationales, ministère des
affaires étrangères,
M. Joji Morishita, directeur généralde l'Institut national de recherche sur les pêcheries en eaux
lointaines,
M. Akima Umezawa, Ph.D., directeur à la division des pêcheries,ministère des affaires étrangères,
Mme Yoko Yanagisawa, directeur à la division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant
la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Naohisa Shibuya, directeur adjoint à la division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine
devant la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Ken Sakaguchi, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
Mme Akiko Muramoto, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ,
ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Masahiro Kato, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
M. Takaaki Sakamoto, sous-directeur à la division des affaires internationales, agence des
pêcheries,
M. Shigeki Takaya, sous-directeur à la division de l'amélioration de la gestion des pêcheries,
agence des pêcheries,
M. Toshinori Uoya, sous-directeur à la division de la gestion des pêcheries,agence des pêcheries,
M. Shinji Hiruma, sous-directeur à la division de la gestion internationale , agence des pêcheries,
M. Sadaharu Kodama, conseiller juridique à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
M. Nobuyuki Murai, LL.D., premier secrétaire de l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des
Pays-Bas, - 10-
Ms Risa Saijo, LL.M., Rcsearchcr, 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 of Geography, Durham University,
as Expert Adviser;
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 .
Tlle 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, Counse/ and Advocate;
1-l.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 Atfairs and Trade, - 11-
Mme Risa Saijo, LL.M., chercheur à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme HéloïseBajer-Pellet, membre du barreau de Paris,
comme conseillers ;
M. Douglas Butterworth, professeur éméritede l'Universitéde Cape Town,
Mme Judith E. Zeh, Ph.D., chercheur, professeur éméritede l'Universitéde Washington,
M. Dan Goodman, Institut national de recherche sur les pêcheriesen eaux lointaines,
M. Luis Alberto Pastene Perez, Ph.D., directeur à la division des enquêtes et de la recherche,
Institut de recherche sur les cétacés,
comme conseillers et experts scientifiques;
M. Martin Pratt, professeur au département de géographiede 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
étrangèreset du commerce,
comme agent, conseil et avocat ;
S. Exc. M. George Troup, ambassadeur de Nouvelle-Zélande auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
Mme Cheryl Gwyn, Solicitor-General adjoint, Crown Law Office,
Mme Elana Geddis, avocat, Harbour Chambers (Wellington),
comme conseils;
M. Andrew Williams, conseiller juridique, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce, - 12-
Mr. James Christmas, Privalc Sccrctary, AUorncy-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 m the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Advisers. - 13-
M. James Christmas, chef de cabinet, services de l'Attorney-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 aftemoon. The sitting is open. This afternoon
the Court will hear the examination of the expert called by Japan. The procedure for this
examination is the same as that for the examination of Australia's experts last week so 1will not
repeat it. 1now give the tloor to the Agent of Japan. You have the tloor, Sir.
Mr. TSURUOKA: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Japan calls as its expert
Professor Lars Wallee, Professor Emeritus of the University of Oslo and the President of the
Academia Europaea. Professor Wallee will be examined by Professor Vaughan Lowe. Thank you,
Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Agent. Mr. Wallee may now take his place at the
rostrum. Good afternoon and welcome Mr. Wallee. 1 cali upon you to make the solemn
declaration for experts as set dawn in Article 64, subparagraph (b), of the Rules of Court. Please,
you have the tloor.
Mr. WALL0E: Thank you, I solemnly declare upon my honour and conscience that 1will
speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that my statement will be in
accordance with my sincere belief.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much and 1 now give the tloor to Professor Lowe to
begin the examination ofMr. Wallee. You have the tloor, Sir.
Mr. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. President. First of ali 1thank you for coming to give us your
evidence. You are Japan's solitary expert witness. Can you confinn that you wrote the expert
report that is in front ofyou at the end of the day bundle and that you stand by it, please? We can
hand you a copy of Japan's day bundle here.
Mr. W ALL0E: Yes, 1can confirm that this is my expert statement.
Mr. LOWE: Thank you. Your C.V. is attached to the report. Will you please explain
brietly to the Court what the Academia Europaea is, ofwhich you are currently President? - 15-
Mr. WALL0E: Academia Europaea is a pan-European academy of science and letters. It is
25 years old. It was established on the initiative of the European Commission at the time, but
includes also countries Iike Switzerland and Norway. The idea was that Europe needed an
academy independent ofthe European political institutions, a kind ofacademy like we have in most
European countries, but a pan-European academy.
Mr. LOWE: Thank you. Would you please explain briefly your experience m the
International Whaling Commission and its Scientific Committee?
Mr. WALL0E: My experience with whales and whaling in Norway started in 1986, when
the pressure was put on Norway, like on Japan and Iceland, to give up its objections to the
moratorium and where I was called upon to examine first the Norwegian research and then the
statements made by scientists in the Scientific Committee. I participated in the Scientific
Committee, first briefly in a meeting without being part any delegation but then, from 1988, as a
member of the Scientific Committee and then from the next year also as part of the Norwegian
delegation to the Commission.
Mr. LOWE: Thank you. Your C.V. does not refer explicitly to two major projects that you
undertook at the invitationof the Ms Brundtland, who became Prime Minister of Norway. Will
you please tell the Court briefly what they are?
Mr. W ALL0E: I was head of the Norwegian programme on acid rain, which was a conflict
at that time between Norway/Sweden on one side and the UK and, at that time, West Gennany on
the otherside, on the reason for changes especially in freshwater fish and the acidification of rivers
in Norway and Sweden. So I was head of that Norwegian research programme which ended in
1980. In this time Ms Brundtland, who was and still is a friend of mine- that was the reason I
was asked- 1supervised what was going to be her PhD. at the time, never finished because she
became a politician. But then 1was also engaged by the following research programme, which was
a joint programme between the Royal Society in the UK, the Swedish Academy of Science and the
Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, started theoretically or fonnally in 1984 but really
startedin 1986. - 16-
Mr. LOWE: And the other work you did, the drafting?
Mr. W ALL0E: 1was also, like Ms Brundtland, involved in the work leading to the so-called
Brundtland Commission, the book of our common future, so 1 was part of a small Norwegian
editorial group established by Ms Brundtland at the time. The other member was
Johan Jergen Holst, he was a social scientist: he later became Foreign Minister of Norway, now
dead.
Mr. LOWE: Thank you. 1know that 1should ask you to speak slowly and 1should remind
myself not to intervene as soon as you have answered so as to leave a pause for the translators to
make the translation. ln accordance with the Court's letterof 21 June, you have prepared a short
statement ofyour evidence. Would you please make that statement to the Court?
Mr. W ALL0E: Sorry, 1am not sure 1understand the question.
Mr. LOWE: ln accordance with the Court's letter of 21 June, which related to the manner in
which expert evidence would be handled, you have prepared a statement ofyour evidence. Would
you give that statement, please?
Mr. W ALL0E: Are you referring to the introduction?
Mr. LOWE: Yes.
Mr. WALL0E: The paragraph is on the third page ofmy statement.
"1 have been asked by the Government of Japan to prepare an independent
report providing a scientific review of certain issues raised by the Memorial of the
Government of Australia dated 9 May 2011 in the case Whaling in the Antarctic
(Australia v. Japan) before the International Court of Justice. 1 was in particular
asked to consider certain questions relating to Appendix 2 of the Memorial. This
contains an independent report by Dr. Marc Mangel of the University of California
Santa Cruz, bearing the titleAn Assessment of Japanese Whale Research Programs
Under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA,JARPA 11)as Programsfor Purposes
of Scientific Research in the Context of Conservation and Management of Wha/es.
The Government of Japan also asked me to provide this independent Expert Opinion
in preparation for possible appearance as an expert witness under Article 57 of the
Rules of Court in the above case." - 17-
Mr. LOWE: Rather than me ask you questions about that, 1asked you if you wouId prepare
a statement of about 20 minutes which you wouId give to the Court now. So would you give that
statement to the Court, please?
Mr. WALL0E: Thank you. Mr. President, Members of the Court, last week 1listened with
interest to the presentations given by the lawyers representing Australia and especially, of course,
to the cross-examination of my two colleagues, the expert witnesses of Australia. Of course, 1have
comments to what they said with regards to my expert statement. However, 1 cannot cover
everything in the 20 minutes Professor Lowe has given me. Let me first state that nothing ofwhat 1
have heard in this Court and nothing 1 have read in the different written statements by
Professor Mange! and Dr. Gales have made it necessary for me to change any part of my written
statement.
1 shall start with the issue of scientific methods and hypotheses, although 1 shall not spend
much time on it. My main point is that, in spite of the comments by Professor Mange! in his last
document, 1still think my two examples, the Mendel genetic example and the acid rain example are
perfectly valid. Mendel worked for a long time without hypothesis. For the acid rain example, 1
was a little imprecise on the exact timing when things happened.
As 1told, a little earlier now, the Norwegian acid rain programme was finished in 1980 and
the joint Swedish, Norwegian and British programmes started officially in 1984, but in reality in
1986. The searching without hypothesis 1 described in my statement took place in the years
between the two programmes. lt is easy to find other examples, both from the old history of
science, Alexander Humboldt from Germany and his research in South America, could be one
example. And from modem science, for instance genetic and DNA, and connections to diseases in
humans could be another example, a modem example, as pointed out by Judge Donoghue, if 1
understood her questions correctly last week.
1am not a geneticist, but 1do have quite detailed information about the current research in
this field. Since Professor Mange) in his statement writes, "data mining is not science" and further
"most exploratory data analysis do no lead anywhere meaningful and do not contribute to scientific
knowledge or understanding", 1cannot resist the temptation to mention that Dr. Gales' institution, - 18-
the Australian Antarctic Division on its website has a page called "data mining enhances scientific
knowledge". There, a scientist with a somewhat curious title, "data miner", Ben Raymond "uses a
variety of techniques to help scientists to make the most of their data". And he presents a very
good example ofjust that on that webpage.
Over to more serious matters. Why lethal sampling? Is lethal sampling necessary? In the
strict theoretical sense it is possible to obtain the genetic information by biopsy sampling. After 1
received Dr. Gales'" comment on this point in his last written document, 1 went back to my
Norwegian colleagues who operate in the field in the North Atlantic and the Barents Sea. They stiJl
supported my written statement that it is much more easy and thus much more efficient to obtain
samples, genetic samples, from killing of whales, than by biopsy samplingJThe first issue dealt
with by information obtained from genetic samples, but also from morphometrics, which cao only
be obtained from killed whales, is the question about stock structure of minke whales in the
Antarctic Ocean.
One important result from the JARPA program was that there is at )east two stocks of minke
whales in the investigated area, and that they mix during feeding, south of Australia. Dr. Gales
said, as a response to a question from Mr. Gleeson, that this was known before JARPA started. It
is correct that two Japanese scientists, Wada and Numachi, in 1979 published an article, claiming
·~4-~c.
two stocks based on morphology, thatt+tccolour pattern on the body, and allozymes, which is the
difference between different proteins. This paper was heavily criticized and was never accepted by
the IWC Scientific Committee.
A later paper, by the same two Japanese authors, failed to find any difference between minke
whales east and west of Australia, as mentioned by Professor Hamamoto this moming. The fact is
that the result that the Antarctic minke whales were composed of at !east two stocks was first
presented to the JARPA review meeting in 2006 and was first accepted by the Scientific
Committee in 2007. This is contrary to Dr. Gales'l claim.
But there is another, and more important aspect of the stock structure question. There is no
indication of any sub-stock structure in any ofthese two regions, which is of great importance for a
possible future implementation of RMP. To be able to state this conclusion with high certainty, a
very large sample is nccessary, which is obtained by the JARPA and JARPA II programs.JAge - 19-
can only be detennined by killing of whales. Age is important for at )east three different types of
investigations. The first is the catch at age, which will show, for instance, how the abundance has
changed with time. An increase up to approximately decline, a little steeper in the
begi decne.iEsecily he xpoentalhli~eincrease in the 1960s is interesting,
because the uncertainty herearge and it shows that the minke whales may increase by about
3percent per year, which has obvious implications for a possible future revision of the RMP. The
second use of the age data is that it tells the age at sexual maturity, which gives important
infonnation about changes food availability for minke whales. The age at sexual maturity
declined fromyears by 1945 to approximately 7 years by 1970. It is a large decline. The
Ifw-.\\
question now is whintncre asan~Possibly, as 1 expect, with a substantial time delay.
Thereis also a methodological question here, because sorne have claimed, in the Scientific
Committee, that the so-calledion zone", which can be observed in the earplug data, does
not indicate pubeThe Japanese now have the possibility to check this assumption,
S8Hlf'!tbecause they are catching also younger whales, white the old commercial catches took
only, or mainly, old and large whales. The third uses that makes it possible to get
infonnation about cohort productivity and cohort mortality. 1go more into the
useof these data.
My next issue is the blubber thickness and its changes over time.during
a preparatory meeting for the JARPA review meeting, to which 1was invited by Japan. 1think it
wasin 2005. To me the results indicated that sorne important changes were happening in the
Antarctic ecosystem, but if 1may say so, without insulting my Japanese scientific colleagues too
much, it was very poorly analysed and presented. So from then on 1participated in the analysis.
The results were presented at the review meeting itself, and at the Scientific Committee meetings
2006 and 2007. lt was lengthy critical discussions in the Scientific Committees both years. Many
scientists from anti-whaling countries asked crAmong them the prominent
scientist, Tom Polaschek, from Australia.
But, during these two years wc managed to reanalyse the data and convince the Committee
of the rea1ity of the findings, of the decline. The manuscript was later, in 2008, published in a -20-
journal of reasonably high standing, "Polar Research", after thorough peer review process, since
this tenn has been a theme last week, peer review.
Then for three years the results remained accepted by, not only the Scientific Committee of
~
IWC, butkhe larger scientific community . Then in 2011 questions were asked by an Australian
scientist, who came back to the Scientific Committee after having been away from the Committee
for many years. And he asked about the results and he suggested additional analyses, which were
J~s s'<~na>
perfonned during the same Scientific Committee meeting by a Norwegian colleague of minekc- 1
think to the surprise of the Australian scientist that he was able to do it in that short period of time.
C"C.t.'-t"S'd " '
1 myself.-eali!let\ the data using a robust different method called jack-knife.' Ali these analyses
gave the same results as the original, a decline in blubber thickness over the JARPA years.
Dr. Gales on Thursday told Mr. Gleeson "it is a very small change". That depends of course on
what we mean by a small change. lt is a 9 percent decline over the 18JARPA years. Ali the
different analyses showed the same decline.
We also investigated two related measurements which gave the same result. The two other
variables were the circumference of the thickest part of the body and the amount of fat, total store
of fat in the whale body which we analysed in a sub-set of the total sample.
The Australian scientist asked to get the primary data. Japanese authorities were reluctant to
"'~M
give~the data, but 1convinced them that he should get access to them. But then he decided
~ .\.
not to use them. My interpretation is that he had expected not da~aet thewna~sueprised
to get the offer.Maybe he regarded that it was better for him, and Australia, to keep the
uncertainty floating.
In the Scientific Committee this year, he again asked me new questiTo me this is
similar to what, in a political context, would be called "filibuster teIn observational
study, where it is not possible to randomize groups, it is always possible to ask new questions and
that is what the Australian scientist does.
On the stomach contents issue, Dr. Gale said to Mr. Gleeson: "Weil, the stomach content
data has added in similar ways to the earplug nothing to what we already knew. We know the
Antarctic minke whales eat Antarctic krill almost exclusively; we already knew that." 1am afraid
that this answer shows that Dr. Gales either has not read the paper presented to the Scientific - 21 -
Committee last year, or has misunderstood it completely. The main point in the paper is that the
fooc\
amount ofHitin the fore-stomach of Antarctic minke whales has declined over the JARPA years
when ali other variables which influence the amount of food in the stomach has been taken care of.
The manuscript is now under editorial review of a reasonably good scientific journal. 1 am
confident that it will also be published.
My last issue will be ali the statements made by Professor Crawford and Professor Sands last
week, for example, statements like "Professor Wallee has nothing to say on these resolutions".
There ~a.~a number of these statements presented last week. My easy way out would be that the
Government of Japan did not ask me about resolutions. But 1 would Iike to add an additional
explanation.
When 1 first got involved in the IWC matters and attended meetings in the late 1980s, my
Norwegian Commissioner at the time was Head of the Legal Office in our Foreign Ministry. His
name was Per Tresselt; 1 think he was Agent for Norway to this Court in the
Jan Mayen-Green/and case. Mr. Tresselt told me,
"Don't mind the resolutions, they are not legally binding. The group of
anti-whaling countries has a simple majority in the IWC"- he told me- "but they
don 't have three quarters majority anymore. They cannat change the Schedule. And
if they manage to get the three quarters majority in the future, we may lodge an
objection. But at present"- he said- "they can pass as many resolutions as they
like, that will not change thevention."
And indeed the following years, Japan and Norway ~'iJ !tibjc.i*land Iceland- were subject to
resolutions every year. We heard the number in one of the Australian presentations last week. 1
am not speaking on the legal issue. I am just explaining why 1did not deal with the resolutions in
my Expert Statement.
In a similar way, the different Annexes from L to P are specirying what special permit
proposais should contain and how they should be dealt with in the Scientific Committee. Again 1
cannat speak on the legal interpretation) but 1 can speak on how these documents have been
understood and dealt with bath in the Scientific Committee and in the Commission. The texts of
these documents have always first been proposed by the Scientific Committee, then accepted by the
Commission}n bath bodies by consensus. The reason consensus was possible, was always that the
listof possible objectives included a possibility for research which was not connected to -22-
conservation or management of whales. The Annexes were always understood both in the
Scientific Committee and the Commission as self-contained, not dependent on any additional
resolutions as claimed by Professor Crawford.
ln my Written Statement, 1 used Annex 0 to illustrate this point, because Norway had to
argue in relation to Annex 0 when it, Norway, was preparing a proposai for a three-year special
permit catch in 1991. We made it clear in the proposai that the research was not intended to
address management questions or contribute towards a comprehensive assessment, as called
at the time, but questions related to the management of fish stocks. Norway regarded that as a
critically important research need, to use the words in Annex O. 8oth the Scientific Committee
""''t.
and the Commission acceptedtha~ areaevnt argument for a special permit catch. The words
used in the current Annex P are, as you may read, that
"three possible objectives, either to improve the conservation and management of
whales stocks, or improve the conservation and management of the living marine
resources or the ecosystem to which the whale stocks are an integral part, or test
hypotheses not directly related to the managementing marine resources".
And in the Scientific Committee and in the Commission, this third objective has always been
understood as independent of management or conservation of whales. This is the background for
my Statement that the claim by Professor Mange! that ali special permit catches must be motivated
1
by its importance to the conservation and management of whales, is a ' fundamental
mtsun erstan mg.1 That ttistrong~~:;: use . so me, tt was reassurmg t at one promment
member of the Scientific Committee agrees with me on this point, but not only on this point but ali
main points in my Expert Statement, as you can read in the documents from Japan.
F;r~
Mr. President, Members of the Court, let me conclude. kJARPA Il is definitely a scientific
research program. Two: both JARPA and JARPA Il have given valuable information for the
possible implementationf the current version of RMP and for possible future improvements of
RMP. Three: for me even more important, is that the programs are giving critical information
about the ongoing changes in the Antarctic ecosystem. Thank you for your attention.
Mr.LOWE: Thank you, Professor Wallee. 1have no other questions. -23-
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, at the end of 30 minutes period. So 1thank you,
Professor Lowe, for this Jess interactive than usual examination of expert. 1now give the tloor to
Mr. Gleeson, who1understand is going to cross-examineWalle~ Me. Gleeson, you have the
tloor.
Mr. GLEESON: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Walle~ when did you write your
interesting non-interactive presentation weard?
Mr. WALL0E: When 1wrote it?
Mr. GLEESON: Yes.
Mr. W ALL0E: Most of it, 1wrote the two last days after 1heard the Australian presentation
last week.
Mr. GLEESON: Did you have any assistancen writing it?
Mr. WALL0E: No, absolutely not.
Mr. GLEESON: Ali right.
Mr. WALL0E: Neither did 1have any assistance in writing my own original statement.
Mr. GLEESON: 1think you told the Court twice this aftemoon, when you read out the first
paragraph from your report, that you are an independent expert. Do you remember saying that?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And you told the Court about your experience as a Norwegian
representative to the Commission, do you remember that?
Mr. WALL0E: Ycs.
Mr. GLEESON: ls it also the case that you have received one of the highest available
honours which Japan gives to a foreigner? -24-
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And that happened in 2009?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And could you confirm for us that the citation for that honour was for the
services you renderedn the promotion of Japan's policy in the field of fisheries? ls that aceurate?
Mr. WALL0E: 1do not remember, but it could be accurate. 1would Iike ta add that 1have
had additional influence on the Japanese earlier and I think that is also important. That was for an
issue not related ta the Scientific Committee, but on the killing of whales issue, which was my
~<r:.\o-
~ interaction with the Japanese. Not with the scientists but with a Japanese delegation ta the
Commission.
Mr. GLEESON: Weil, in terms ofyour interaction with JARPA II scientists, is this accurate:
Japan invited you in 2005 ta participate in a domestic Japanese review of the original JARPA
project ta assist Japan in the presentation of the results of JARPA ta the wider scientific
community. ls that accurate?
Mr. W ALL0E: That is accurate, but I wouId like ta add that it is not the only time. You
will probably come back ta that. But it is not the only time 1 have been invited ta consultation
meetings where 1 have been presented results from ongoing research and giving comments on it.
But 1would also like ta say that I have similar interaction with scientists from the United States for
aboriginal hunt of bowhead whales in Alaska. Bath with scientists in Seattle, \seieHtists itt
.AReksF&gla tnd scientists in Barrow. So, 1believe in scientific co-operation, and Japan is only one
of the countries. 1 have interacted with scientists from Russia. on their hunt in the eastern part,
with scientists from Denmark,r rather Greenland, on the aboriginal hunt in Greenland. And, as 1
said, most importantly, also with the United States scientists in Seattle and in Ute ether eettfltrie!t-io!\
Alaska. -25-
Mr. GLEESON: 1 would ask for you to tum to the statement you have provided to the
Court - if you have a copy of it with you?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes, 1have a copy.
Mr. GLEESON: To page 7 please. ln the last two paragraphs on page 7, you referred to
work which has been done on JARPA in the area of, firstly, the number of stocks, secondly,
blubber thickness, and thirdly, stomach contents. Would you confirm that, although you do not
provide any references- as we see on the screen- three of the references which underpin this
paragraph, arejoint publications, present or proposed, between you and scientists from the ICR?Is
that accurate?
Mr. WALL0E : 1am not quite sure 1understand the question. But, if the question is whether
my name is on the publication, that is true.
Mr. GLEESON: And the three publications we see on the screen in the areas of stock
mixing, blubber thickness and stomach contents which, you say on page 7, provide useful results
from JARPA, are in part your own work? ls that accurate?
Mr. WALL0E: lt is accurate that 1did the first statistical analysis using different methods
from what the Japanese had done. I have not been involved in the preparation of the collection of
data, I have just been involved in the analysis. Because, as 1said, 1saw sorne difficulties with the
analysis carried out by the Japanese, but 1still thought that it contained relevant information. That
was my background for helping, whether 1was a member, and my name appears on the publication
or not. That is, sometimes 1do, sometimes I do not, when l do this kindf collaboration. For me it
S~ol\o~~ol
is important that when 1 reach, not only my age, but my scientifick- what shall 1 say- 1 feel
secure in my science. lt is not always nccessary to be a member of the list of authors; 1often give
advice without being. But here, the Japanese insisted that my name should appear on the
publication. -26-
Mr. GLEESON: Thank you for that explanation. Would you confirrn that the three joint
publications involving you that we see on the screen, are sorneof the publications which underpin
the statements you make on page 7 in the last two paragraphs? ls that accurate or not?
Mr. WALL0E: Sarry, 1have to read it first to be sure. As far as l can see, l still have that
statement, yes.
Mr. GLEESON: ls there a reason you did not tell the Court, or Australia, that the
publications you were commending on page 7 were your work done together with scientists from
the 1CR?
Mr. WALL0E: No, 1did not think that was necessary. But, yes, l have no reason to try to
hide it. That was not my reason and, of course, especially the first publication is in the public
domain.
Mr. GLEESON: Thank you. Now, Jet me turn to a tapie you spoke about this afternoon to
the Court- which is the work done by Japanese scientists and yourself, on the topic of blubber
thickness. l will ask for you to be provided with a folderof documents which the Court has, and
Japan has. And, would you turn please to tab 7 of that folder? And do you recall in your
evidence-in-chief, you made what might be unkindly described as an attack upon a scientist from
Australia as engaging in the equivalent of a "filibuster"? Do you remember offering the Court that
ward?
Mr. WALL0E: 1 used that ward, 1 agree that it is a strong ward. And 1 think that it is
sometimes appropriate to use a strong ward.
Mr. GLEESON: And, do you recall telling the Court that, in effect, your work on blubber
thickness, done with Japan, has been as it were, accepted, as valid and helpful by the scientific
community?
Mr. WALL0E: 1told that a few minutes aga, yes. For three years. -27-
Mr. GLEESON: If you go to the document at tab 7, this is the meeting of the Scientific
Committee this year, which you attended. Is that correct?
Mr. WALL0E: Tab 7? Yes, the report of the working group of the ecosystem modelling?
Mr. GLEESON: And, on page 4 of tab 7, under Section 4.1, the first statement of the
Scientific Committee, is that at meeting 63 -that is severa! years aga- the variance of the trend
in blubber thickness reported by Mr. Konishi and others- that ineludes you- was found to have
been underestimated for a number of reasons given. Now, do you accept that is a finding that the
Scientific Committee came to about two years aga in respect to the usefulness and reliability of
your work on blubber thickness? Do you accept that?
Mr. WALL0E: 1accept that this was at the 2011 meeting, and that the question was raised
by the Australian scientists, and we realized that the reference here is to Skaug. He was recruited
~
as statistician in my team, sokeanalysed the data which 1brought to the meeting, using the methods
suggested by the Australian scientists. And, he got the same result, the same decline, as also my
jackknife analysis. Same decline, but the variance was a little larger. But it was still scientifically
significant at the 5 per cent level.
Mr. GLEESON: Professor Wallee, in arder that l don't Josemy entire hour, l'rn going to try
and make my questions as precise as 1 can and 1would invite you, if possible, to also keep the
answers as precise as you are capable of, if you wouId. If you go to the next paragraph on page 4,
the Scientific Committee recalls that the analyses requestedy the Committee in 2011 had not been
conducted, but instead Dr. Butterworth, a member of this Japanese delegation, produced certain
jackknife estimates. Do you see that?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And 1won't read the detail but the following paragraphs on that page and
the first two paragraphs on the next page record discussion in detail about the jackknife estimates
and do you see that in the third paragraph on page 5, Dr. Butterworth considered the evidence and -28-
candidly said to the Scientific Committee that the conclusions of the paper were invalidated. Do
you recall that happening just a few weeks ago in your presence, Dr. Wallee?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes. 1 agree, but 1 would like to add that this jackknife is not the same
jackknife analysis 1 was talking about which happened two years ago. ltifferent jackknife
analysis. 1was invited to be a co-author on that paper and 1declined because 1was uncertain about
the results. So 1think this was done in too much of a hurry, so 1have no problems with the third
paragraph on page5. But the difficulty, that you referred back to on the last page, that the question
asked two years ago, when the Australian scientists did not accept to re-analyse the data himself,
which to me was, 1argued for it,t for the Japanese Govemment at the time, and for him. I said
'"·"'•~:
~ you should re-analyse and see what you can get. Now he cornes back and says what is important is
for each whale to have the distance from the ice edge, which is a difficult question because then
you have for each yearf the JARPA years, to have the ice edge and then measure for each whale
h:>do~a.\-
the position, and then measure the distances. lt is a huge ~ver tlet ettt. That was the
reason it had not been done.
Mr.GLEESON: Do you see, Professor Wallee, that in the next two paragraphs that follow,
~o\~~
there is a record of you and Dt~l t'ie presenting a new analysis and the conclusion of the
Scientific Committee's Working Group in the last paragraph is, in effect, they encouraged
everyone to go away, do sorne analyses and the matter would be considered next year.
~\.tell\'
Mr. WALL0E: 1 agree, and of course the analyses of 6aheit\ and myself was what 1
mentioned, oneof the other variables, not blubber thickness but the total contents of the fat in the
whale body which was analysed, not on every whale but only on the first whale caught every day,
4w"'-.k,
in the JARPA period. Soit was a much lower numberkbut still we got the same decline then in fat
contentof the total body. And 1 agree that we should continue, but to me, when we do a large
amount of different analysis, and the Scientific Committee includes sorne people who are interested
in not saying that this is an interesting result, we alwaythis is a kind of what 1refer to
as filibuster techniquwe always get, weil, the only thing we can agree on is that we need more
analysis. Thiss not uncommon in the Scientific Committce. But 1stiJl think that our findings of a -29-
decline in blubber thickness is a valid result, the original papers have not been retracted; it stiJl is
in the public domain\ a rei'ult. And 1am quite sure that when we do ali these analyses, we will stiJl
C:~~UC;)
get the same result. But 1agree that we shall do this work or the Japanese \fellew4 shall do this
work before the next year's meeting.
Mr. GLEESON: 1 want to ask you two questions to conclude on the topic of blubber
thickness and if possible could you see whether you are capable of either answering them yes or no.
The first question is: after 26 years of data from JARPA and JARPA II, is it a fact that to date,
neither the IWC nor the Scientific Committee has confirmed that the data allows reliable
conclusions on trends in blubber thickness?
Mr. WALL0E: Weil, my persona! opinion is not. But it is the conclusion of the Scientific
Committee. My own scientific conclusion is that the data is not~-.!y margitatl'~C:Îbut
'~C,Q\-'-
they~strongly-Hé adecltetB u&1agree that this is a Scientific Committee and we heard
from Dr. Gales the other day that the Scientific Committee is not a political body, it is a purely
scientific body which is not my recollection and ilt's much politics going on in the
Scientific Committee when the issueut politically-sensitive issues.
Mr.GLEESON: l'rn going to ask you the second of the two questions, and again if possible,
a yes or no answer wouid be helpful. The question is: wouid you agree that after 26 years of data
from JARPA and JARPA II, neither the Commission nor the Scientific Committee has affirmed
that investigations of blubber thickness are required for the conservation or management of whales
or for any other critical research need. Do you agree with that proposition ?
Mr. WALL0E: On the first question, 1 agree. It is not necessary for the management of
whales or whaling.On the second question, 1 think wc have indications that something is
happening in the Antarctic ecosystem and to me as a scientist, it is important. So 1think that that is
an important question. -30 -
Mr. GLEESON: 1take it from your last answer that you think it's important, but you would
agree with me that neither the Commission nor the Scientific Committee has affinned that
investigations into blubber thickness are required as a critical research need. ls that accurate?
Mr. WALL0E: No. Because the Scientific Committee two years aga made a
statement-and 1 can find the referethat it is important to get an answer to the question
about blubber thickness. And 1can get the reference, 1don't have it in my head. That was two
years aga.ln the Scientific Committee and ali people in that Subcommittee and later in the
Scientific Committee, including the Australian scientistsd Dr. Gales, were present in
that meeting and supported that statement.
Mr. GLEESON: Let met tum to the second of the three areas where you are a joint
researcher on the JARPAproject which is the tapie ofstomach contents that you mentioned this
aftemoon.1 am going to ask for you to be shawn by Australia's Agent, Dr. Gales's report of
"-'~
31 May which 1 believe you have readAnd if yo{thatreport, could you please go to
paragraph 4.9.
Mr. WALL0E : Yes. 1have it. To 4.9. Yes, 1have it.
Mr. GLEESON: Would you accept as accurate that the extract there given from the
2007 Scientific Committee represents the current position which the Committee has taken, on
whether JARPA data on stomach contents is useful or relevant.
Mr. WALL0E : 1would have to read it first. lt is a long paragraph so, please excuse me for
a few minutes.
Mr. GLEESON: Please do.
Mr. WALL0E: 1 have read it and 1 agree that this was from the report of the Scientific
Committee meeting.1 am not sure 1 agree on ali the contents of it, but of course, as 1 have
indicated, there are differencesinion in the Scientific Committee and also in the
S&~O \ ~ ,\Il"o""
Subcommittee here. But for the lface~old l,~tha atthetime have a much better - 31 -
manuscript being considered forpublicatio than we had at that time, an1 agree that we had
sorne unresolved questions at that time.
Mr. GLEESON: My question, Professor Wallae was, do you agree that the statement of the
Scientific Committee in 2007, reproduced here, is at present the last word of the Scientific
Committee on stomach contents investigations? ls that accurate?
Mr. W ALL0E: lt is accurate that this is the last statement from the Scientific Committee
and 1 did not in my statement say that we have any more recent statement. 1 said 1 have a
manuscript under editorial review; that is whatated.
Mr. GLEESON: Would it be fair to conclude that in giving your evidence this aftemoon and
in your report you are in part defending your own scientific workot?
Mr. W ALL0E: lt is true t1am part of this team who have investigated this. The primary
results, data, are obtainedependent of my advice and with methods 1have not had any influence
on. But it is true that taking part in the analysis.
Mr. GLEESON: In the light of the question1have asked you this aftemoon, would you
wish to withdraw the claim that you are an independent witness?
Mr. WALL0E: No, 1would not. 1think 1am an independent witness in the sense that
much more so than, for instance, Doctor Gales is an independent witness. So, my main concem is
science and that is why 1 co-operate with Japanese scientists, with American scientists, with
Russian scientists, and on other fields, not whaling, kcientists from many other countries.
believe in scientific international collaboration.
Mr. GLEESON: Let me move to the topic of testable hypotheses. You have clarified for the
Court this aftemoon in relation to the acid rain project that you worked on that in two stages.
Firstly up to 1980, in Norway and subsequently, from the mid-1980s as part of the joint
UK/Swedish/Norwegian project. Correct?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes. -32-
Mr. GLEESON: You also corrected an imprecision in your statcment and said that the
period during which there was no testable hypotheses was between 1980 and, you said, about 1986.
Do you remember saying that?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: Now, 1wou1d like to show you first a document at tab 8, which was written
by the headf the joint project where he confirmed the methodology identified at the outset of the
joint project and you will see highlighted that aluminium was identified as one of the possible
culprits from the very beginninge joint project. Do you remember that?
P""" .. ~·~,,..\~ k"cwlt\
Mr. WALL0E: 1do not remember that. 1see it here, no~wa1986,4t may have beenk
already, that is my small correction. ln 1980 it was certainly not accepted .
Mr. GLEESON: Let me take you, Professorllee to the next document, which is at tab 9,
on the screen. The authors,a publication you also wrote, Messrs. Morris and Reader, said that
the effects aluminium on the salmonids had been demonstrated by fieldwork and experimental
studies and they gave references, threeh were from the year 1980. Does that cause you to
recall that by 1980,not earlier, the work done by various people in the field, including yourself,
had identified that aluminium was a possible culprit?
~1.\~
Mr. WALL0E: No. 1am not agreeing on tf;Jesawa,1 retttetHitAQ~ houl~have
been more precise on my timing.
Mr. GLEESON: Let me take you then, Sir, to tab 10, which is an extract from your article in
this same publication where you reflected back onluable contribution to this project. And
you recorded that previous analyses had pointed to concentrationsic aluminium species
as the main determinants and the work you did, which was valuable statistical work, was to conduct
a regression analysis onriables, including aluminium and you concluded aluminium was one
of three main causal factors. Jsthat accurate? - 33-
Mr. WALL0E: lt is accurate, but not with the year 1980. lt was published much later. As
you see, it was published in 1990.
Mr. GLEESON: What 1would like to suggest for your consideration, Sir, is that your work
in collaboration with international scientists on the acid rain project is a sound demonstration of the
scientific method at work. And let me put to you three aspects of that to consider . Firstly, there
was a clearly-identified problem at the outset. True?
Mr. WALL0E: That the acid rain was a hypothesis? That is true. lt was a hypothesis from
the beginning.
Mr. GLEESON: The problem, Sir, that 1 put to you was that the fish were dying and one
needed to know whether it was the sulphur emissions from the U.K. and German factories or
whether geology was the cause. Was not that the identified problem?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And, in addressing that identified problem, a range of potential causal
factors were identified, one ofwhich was aluminium, was it not?
Mr. WALL0E: No! Aluminium was not identified at that stage.
Mr. GLEESON: Yes, and if the author of the project recorded that in his book you would
say he was simply mistaken, would you?
Mr. WALL0E: lt is difficult, 1have not that book in front of me now but 1990 was when
the book was written, and even the paper, so we may have been imprecise in specifying. But 1am
quite sure, sil~invo inlhi, eadafter we finished our project in 1980, this was not even
a hypothesis, it was not. No indication of aluminium at the time, although in sorne of the analysis
we would go back afterwards and saw that aluminium was present.
Mr. GLEESON : Let me ask you more generally on this topic. Before a scientist embarks on
a large-scale field project, including one involving the killing of species, do you accept that there -34-
are any minimum criteria which must be addressed to establish the scientific validity of the project?
And, if so, what are those criteria?
Mr. WALL0E: 1agree that you must have a question. Sorne field of interest and something
you would like to investigate, but not necessarily to the leve) specified byssor Mange), that
Q
you should have an hypothesis which is noi_vague hypothesis but is an hypothesis where you can
design an experiment or an observational study and you can decide at which significance levet and
what should be the power of the test and ali the rest of it; ali the whole statistical instrumentarium
of modem statistics. 1do not accept that part, but 1accept that you should have sorne indication of
~\~')
what you would like to study. And 1agree with Doctor Mange) and sorne of~ citing Poincaré
that a pile of stone is not sciencalthough sometimes a pile of stone in this meaning could be of
importance for later scientists when they suddenly discover that there is information here. But 1
agree that you should have sorne idea why you are studying this, why you are collecting this data.
Mr. GLEESON: Do you accept that a literature review is a standard scientific step to take
before embarking on a large-scale fieldwork project?
Mr. WALL0E: That you should investigate the literature? Yes. But the problem with the
w-~
Antarctic Ocean is, of course, that th~renot so much precise literature available, at )east at the
point when the project was started.
Mr. GLEESON: Do you accept that the scientist would formulate the hypotheses as clearly
and specifically as possible given the limitse subject-matter?
Mr. WALL0E: Not necessarily. 1mean it's possible sometimes to formulate a hypothesis,
but thatis when 1, in my statement, referred to Professor Tukey. He said that sometimes it is
~
possible to formulate the specifie hypothesis, but that isksking the wrong question, instead of being
more vague and discover something. So, yes, 1 like Professor Tukey's statement on this
methodological question which is also supported by the persan who is a prominent persan in the
Scientific Committee. -35-
Mr. GLEESON: Do you accept that there is a connection between the formulation of the
hypothesis and questions such as the selectionf methods, the choice of sample sizes, and so on?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And the hypothesis may inforrn the degree of precision required in the
selection ofthe sample sizes?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And would you also agree that before embarking on the large-scale field
project, the scientist would give real consideration to choices between different available methods?
Mr. WALL0E: 1am not quite sure 1understand the question.
Mr. GLEESON: Before a scientist embarks on a field work project, the scientist would ask
"what alternatives do 1have to that project in arder to advance the knowledge 1am seeking?"
Mr. WALL0E: In a general sense, yes, 1agree.
Mr. GLEESON: And if a prior extensive field work project has already been conducted,
would you agree that the scientist would very carefully monitor and review the results and the
tessons from the prior project in arder to understand how that inforrns the question before the
scientist?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes, in a general sense, 1agree. But 1think l know where you are going
and 1am not sure l will agree with your next question.
Mr. GLEESON: Your evidence leaves me with two impressions, Professor Wallee. The
firstis that you are more humorous than me, but the second, more seriously is, you do appear to
me, and 1must put it to you, to be prcsenting your evidence in the fashion of an advocate and not a
witness. What do you say to that? -36-
Mr. WALL0E: Weill don't know whether 1should regard that as an insult, or an honour.
But l'rn trying to explain why doing this, and being an expert witness, it's not obvious that any
person in the Scientific Committee, even if they agree with the general background from the
JARPA Il program that they would be willing to appear as a witness here, outside this court room
what kind of harassment you couid be subject to.
Mr. GLEESON: Weil 1 trust l'rn not harassing you. What was the extra matter that you
wished thePresident to give you the opportunity to say to the Court, at this stage?
Mr.WALL0E: Sorry, l'rn not.
Mr.GLEESON: You said you wanted to say something more, you knew where 1was going,
what did you want to tell the Court, please tell the Court now.
Mr.WALL0E: No, l'rn not sure what you are referring to, l'rn referring to what 1 didn't
have time to say in my 20 minutes 1was given by Professor Lowe, is that what you're referring to?
Mr.GLEESON: l'Il rnove on Professor Wallee. l'rn now going to ask you in the folder
before you to go to tabplease.
Mr.WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And go to page 10, this is the JARPA proposai.
~c..
Mr. WALL0E: Thisi~AR IIProAosai.
Mr. GLEESON: Yes, and at tab 10, under the heading "Research Objectives", the first
objective is the monitoringhe Antarctic ecosystem.
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr.GLEESON: Has the IWC, or the Scientific Committee, identified that it considers such
a projects a critical research need? -37-
Mr. WALL0E: 1 must admit l'rn not sure exactly what the Scientific Committee
although 1participated in ali these meetings- l'rn not quite sure about the statements which have
been made on this. lt's quite clear that sorneof us in the Scientific Committee regard monitoring
the Antarctic ecosystem as an important- whether you should say critically important- it is an
important research need.
Mr. GLEESON: But 1think you're confirming that the Committee as a whole, and for that
matter the Commission has not identified that a long-term project to monitor the Antarctic
ecosystem is a critical research need. Is that accurate?
Mr. WALL0E : 1think that is accurate. But you have, again, to remember that the Scientific
Committee is not like a scientific committee in my other scientific fields, in physiology or in
statistics. There are close connections here with politics, especially for sorne of the members.
Mr. GLEESON: Could 1then ask you togo to page 11 of JARPA II where about halfway
down you find the second objective, which is to madel competition among whale species, and at
this point, theroposai refers to a series of hypotheses having been developed and those hypotheses
are spelt out on page61 of the document you might agree.
Mr. WALL0E : Page 61 ofthe document?
The PRESIDENT: At tab 14. You are on page 11, now you have to move to page 61.
Mr. WALL0E: Yes. Sarry. 1now see it. Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: Now, you said in your report that you disagree with Professor Mange)
because he said he could only find one hypothesis in JARPA, and you said there were sorne more.
Are the hypotheses that you found the ones before you, on pages 61 and 62?
Mr. WALL0E : 1 agree that sorne of these hypotheses are related to the krill surplus
hypothesis. But they are not different versions of it. Sorne of them are aIso independent of that.
But l agreeon that point: these are many of them, connected to that. -38-
Mr. GLEESON: What 1am putting for your consideration, Sir , is that to the extent one can
find any hypothesis in JARPA Il, we find themt pages 61 and 62. That's the first point. And the
second point is:f you go back to pagett,the hypotheses relate to only one of the four objectives,
namely, the objectivef building an ecosystem mode!. Do you agree with that?
Mr. W ALL0E: 1 agree, but first 1 would like to comment on the first hypothesis in
Appendix 5 on page 61. The hypothesis of the constant overall carrying capacity is not related to
the krill surplus hypothesis. That could be related to climate change, for instance.
Mr. GLEESON: Yes. Thank you. Now, looking at these hypotheses and the goal of
building a mode!, do you understand from JARPA II the model is designed to explore competition
between whale species?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes. 1 realize sorne of it is dependent upon competitiBut you have to
\Ravethe rig;Mundersta nfw~hat is meant by competition here: competition is not necessarily
•Q competition;"a.-the animais are in the same area eating on the same krill at the same time. lt
could be that humpback whales were eating krill at one point in the ocean and minke whales at
another timein another area, but still the krill abundance is limited, so if the humpbacks eat much,
then it will be Jess left over for the minke whales, evenhey don't see each other, they are not
competing in the sense that lions and hyenas are competing over a killed animal in Africa.
Mr. GLEESON: Could you tell the Court, Sir, whether the second objective that we are
looking at together with the hypotheses and the model-building exercise reveals what data is
necessary to collect in order to build the proposed mode!.
Mr. W ALL0E: No, 1am not agreeing on that point because to measure krill, which 1think
is what you are .
Mr. GLEESON: So, you may not understand my question. My question was whether, when
we read objective 2, on pages Il and 12, do the JARPA scientists tell us what data they propose to
collect in order to test the hypotheses and build a mode!? -39-
Mr. WALL0E : 1am not sure 1understand your questions but ...
Mr. GLEESON: lt is a simple question, Sir. Can you read from these pages what data Japan
proposes to collect to test the hypotheses and to build the model. Can you tellus whether you can
read thaton these pages or not?
Mr. WALL0E: Sorry but it will take me sorne minutes to read these pages and 1have not
read them now, so 1am not sure 1can answer the question without either being given time to read,
if it is page 11 and then page 61, or shall 1try to answer without having read?
Mr. GLEESON: No Sir, if you need time to read, please do, but 1understand you told the
Court earlier this afternoon that you have read every report from Australia, you have heard ali the
evidence last week and nothing causes you to change your mind. ls that your position?
Mr. WALL0E: That is my position but 1do not recollect every word of what 1have read in
these reports.
The PRESIDENT: Maybe Mr. Gleeson, you can identify the paragraph which Mr. Wallee
has to read now? Not the full two pages but the relevant paragraphs.
Mr. GLEESON: Yes. 1 am inviting you to read Sir, on page 11, the second half of the
page ...
Mr. WALL0E: "The monitoring of cetacean habitat", is that the part?
Mr. GLEESON: Commencing with the heading, the heading is the next one: "The second
objective is modelling competition", 1invite you to read that and read over to page 12.
Mr. WALL0E: To No. 3 there, five !ines?
Mr. GLEESON: To No. 3, and then I will ask you the question again.
Mr. WALL0E: Yes, 1will read this paragraph. Yes, 1have read these paragraphs. -40-
Mr. GLEESON: Now, to be fair to you, 1am also going to ask you togo to page 15, near the
bottom of the page you see the same heading, "Modelling competition" and you see more detail on
the mode! over on page 16, so ifyou read the bottom of page 15 and then most of page 16 and then
tellus when you are ready.
Mr. WALL0E: So l read down to Il, is that what you are .. ? 1have done.
Mr. GLEESON: Yes, my question is, having refreshed your memory on objective 2 and the
mode! building exercise, does the JARPA II proposai tell us what data needs to be collected to
carry out this exercise?
Mr. WALL0E: 1take it that it is not specified here in these pages? 1agree. But I take it in
the context that they wouId first of ali like to have abundance data on minke whales but also maybe
abundance data on the two other species mentioned, or three, humpbacks, fin whale is of course
difficult, so but that is stated here, and blue whales, andn the Scientific Committee we have at
!east now sorne numbers on not only the abundance but also the rate of increase of especially
humpback but also blue whales. Fin whales are more difficult.
Mr. GLEESON: Apart from that inference, does the document tell us what datais needed to
build the mode!?
Mr. W ALL0E: No, but 1assume ...
Mr. GLEESON: Thank you, Sir. Could 1ask you the next question. lfwe are not told what
data is needed for the mode!, does that mean that we do not have any statistical basis for knowing
how many whales must be kilied in order to build the mode!?
Mr. WALL0E: No, not necessarily because there is a reference to a mode! here which 1
know fairly weil, the Mori and Butterworth 2004 mode!, which of course was a mode! developed
with Jess data, but it is an interesting mode! and 1think that something starting from that mode!
would be interesting and you have abundance data and especially for minke whales you would get - 41 -
more abundance data, not only from JARPA II but also from the other research programs going on
in the Southern Ocean.
Mr. GLEESON: You know, do you not, Sir, that the Mari and Butterworth madel is
referenced here as an example of a madel tried in the past. JARPA II does not say it seeks to
populate that madel.hat accurate?
Mr. WALL0E: It does not say it here1 do not know whether it is mentioned
somewhere else but itquite clear that in the Scientific Committee the Mari and Butterworth
madel has been discussed many times and different contexts. And it has also been agreed
in discussions in the Scientific Committee that to measure krill abundance in itself by acoustic
means or by other meansvery difficult because they are patchy in their distribution, they can
hide somewhere where you do not get access to them by the acoustic methods, so to use the
abundancef whales and especially changes in the abundance of whales is a good way to also get
Cl~
hold of, is anything changing by producimary nstace, f ri.lr
Mr. GLEESON: Let me ask you togo back to your statement to the Court, at page 9 ofyour
statement to the Court. And this is on the tapie of sample size.
Mr. WALL0E: Page 9?
Mr. GLEESON: You say on page 9, in the middle paragraph, you have repeated sorne
calculations for a few variables making assumptions and you believe the results
the right arder of magnitude. Why did you not inelude those calculations in your report so that the
Court and Australia could consider them?
Mr. WALL0E: The reason is, and that is one of the, as 1 state here, weaknesses of the
JARPA Il documents, that 1do not really know how they have calculated the sample sizes. 1have
to make guesses and that is what 1 state. Somewhere here 1 write tha~~tn~te.planation
always 1 mean that is my criticism of the JARPA Il program. 1 had to make a number of
w~.- ~~~ do\C.
assumptions which may or may not agree witt'(theJapanese scientist{but the basic is, ifyou should
dctect changes over a six-ycar period, anda six-year period is arbitrary, you couId choose -42-
12years or something else, but 1think the Japanese scientists wanted to see if they could detect
changes over six years. And then it ~1~noperce~sinicance leve! but also the
power of the test, with what probability should they be the~degreetect any changes,
of changes. So 1calculated, for instance, because it had special interest to mt)for the change in age
c.~
and sexual maturity and 1 found thatdetecta any woldeney n he order of
magnitude 900 whales.
Mr.GLEESON: Professor Wallee, this seems to be your evidence: firstly, when you read
JARPA and tried to make sense of the statistical calculations of sample size, you have found great
difficulty doing so. ls that accurate?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And secondly, you have clonea piece ofwork, which is somewhere, but not
before this Court, where you have attempted to see whether you can understand the JARPA Il
calculations. ls that accurate?
Mr. WALL0E: That is accurate and 1think that is what 1am writing in my report. 1note
Qf\cA ~""'·
the numberskhat 1found difficulties inJ..
Mr. GLEESON: These calculations that you did Professor Wallee, where are they?
Mr. WALL0E: Weil, 1thinkare~y dskback in Norway. 1do not have them in my
mind here now.
Mr. GLEESON: No. Was there a reason why you chose not to include them in your report
so that the Court and Australia could consider your opinion properly?
""~c:o\c.-\ w01."i~"~ T\..c.
Mr. WALL0E: 1think that that~y not sufficiently~kintattkEIJapanese
\\\ra..."
have given a table, which l ton~~,iRte~;,p ref1hse not discussed this with
my Japanese colleagues but 1think what they have cloneis to look up in a textbook of statistics and
they have seen that sornecalculations have been clonein that textbook. I think I also know -43 -
which textbook it is but without having better evidence, 1would not like to present it. 1do not
think that they are guessing, they are using sorne statistical textbook.
Mr. GLEESON: 1 will just ask you again, Mr. Wallee, why did you not bring your
calculations to this Court and to Australia so that we could assess the work you were doing? ls
there a reason or not?
Mr. WALL0E: There is no other reason that 1 did not think that was, when 1 made the
criticism- and of course 1 have, you have, Australia also had the documentswhere they
present this table, sought that was sufficient to say that 1did not really understand it but that is
my answer.
Mr. GLEESON: Let me take this a step further. Ifwe go to tab 15, and it is on the screen
short)y, the calculation in JARPA for humpback whales, in arder to get a sample size somewhere
near the 50 which is in JARPA, required two assumptions; firstly a project running for 12years,
and secondly seeking to detect a changen the relevant parameter of either 3 percent up or
3 percent down.Do you recall analysing that?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: And the parameter here we are looking at is the proportion of pregnant
female whales. Do you recall that?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr.GLEESON: Now, would you agree that an assumption of a change of 3 percent per
annum, or 36percent over the 12 years, is biologically implausible, based on what we know about
humpback whale pregnancy?
Mr. WALL0E: 1am not sure 1can answer that question becausc 1think we have had that
,,.".~c.:.-~ ef..,'\-.'-.J
kind of discus buti3per ent per year for a humpback whale, 1 am not sure that that is
unrealistic. -44-
Mr. GLEESON: 1do not wish to be unfair to you, perhaps 1should ask you this question:
when you read the JARPA proposai, did you find a justification in JARPA for thinking that a
36 percent change, up or dawn, over 12 years, was a plausible hypothesis worth testing? Did you
find thatn JARPA?
Mr. WALL0E: No, but 1am a little uncertain.
Mr. GLEESON: Thank you. Could 1ask you my next question? My time is very short.
Mr. WALL0E: My comments in my Expert Statement are not on humpback whales but on
minke whales.
Mr. GLEESON: Bear with me for one moment, Sir. I will now ask you to be shawn tab 16
which is where with the fin whales, putting it briefly, would you agree that the exercise of sampling
50 whales assumed a 12-year project and a 36 percent change up or dawn over that period.
Mr. WALL0E: I think, before you continue, that what I did not write in my Expert
Statement, but what I was prepared to say, is that during the consultations 1 had with Japan,
Japanese scientists, 1neveliked~ especiallyx the fin whale proposai which is what 1said to the
~\o-or\-c.~
Japanese before theyk_.. 1never liked the fin whale proposai because l think, and especially with
18 whales caught, it is no information you can get from it. And also there are difficulties with the
humpback proposai, although 1 think that is better presented and justified than the fin whale
proposai.
Mr. GLEESON: Thank you for that candid statement. Just my question though was, would
you agree thatin terms ofwhat JARPA tells us, the fin whales are approached the same way as the
humpbacks, namely the sample size of about 50 assumes a 12-year collection program and a
36 per cent increase up or dawn over that 12 years. And if you do not make those two
assumptions, the whole statistics are worthless, are they not?
Mr. WALL0E : Yes. -45-
Mr. GLEESON: Now 1will ask for you to be shawn at tab 17 the equivalent table for the
minke whales. If one carried through the same assumptions- 12years and a 3 percent change -
the JARPA proposai indicates you wou id only need to kill 18 whales. ls that correct?
Mr. WALL0E: Well ...
Mr. GLEESON: Is that correct as far as that goes? 1will ask you the next question after
that.
Mr. WALL0E: 1agree that this table shows this, but then 1would like to point out that in
my Expert Statement 1say that most of these calculations- and it is not only for whale research,
my experience is from medical research- is that the power calculations in giving these kind of
small numbers, never is justified in practise because you do not know the distribution, you do not
know the shape of the distribution, and for this reason in medical research 1have been involved in,
1 mentioned it in my Expert Statement, there is always reason to have fairly large additional
number of patients in the medical research and in this case l do not believe these small numbers
,.....v
when you rely on~ analysis.
Mr. G LEESON: You would agree, though, if one applied the principles of the humpback
and the fin whales to the minkewhales- that is 12years and 3 per cent change- you wouid only
need a small number ofwhales?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: However, what JARPA II does is make two changes to assumption. Firstly
it looks for a smaller change, namely 1 to.5 per cent, and secondly it changes to six years and not
12years. That is what allows JARPA II to geta number somewhere in the range of850, isn't it?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Mr. GLEESON: When you read the proposai, did you find a scientific cxplanation for
choosing 12years for humpback and fin, but only six years for minke whales? -46-
Mr. WALL0E: As 1said a moment ago, 1was not that much concerned about the fin and
humpback whales because 1did not really like that part of the JARPA program.
Mr. GLEESON: Did you find a scientific justification for choosing2 years in two cases
and six yearsin the other case?
Mr. WALL0E: No, 1did not consider the 12 years in the two first cases but 1did consider
six or 12 years in the minke whale case. The argument, as 1 understood it, was that because
implementation reviews in RMP take place every six years, that was the period the Japanese
scientists or maybe even the Government, had chosen because of the six-year implementation
review period ofthe RMP.
Mr. GLEESON: Then why choose 12 years for humpback and fin, Sir?
Mr. WALL0E: As 1said, 1 never considered humpback and fin because 1did not Iike the
proposai to catch, especially fin whales, but also humpback whales.
The PRESIDENT: Mr. Gleeson, you have three or four minutes remaining. 1 would say
three.
Mr. GLEESON: Thank you, Mr. President. lfyou go back to your report, Sir, to page 10.
Mr. WALL0E: Excuse me, 1have to remove this then. To page 10?
Mr. GLEESON: ln the second paragraph you say you often had the impression that sample
sizes were also influenced by funding considerations. Could you explain what you mean by that?
Mr. WALL0E: 1 meant that funding considerations are also considered when funding
bodies, like research councils and so on, are considering costly research projects or a research
program, and in this case this is of the order of, what, 850 is what one such vesse) could cope with
in one season and bring back to Japan. So 1think these kinds of considerations wcre part of the
number 850. But 1would also like to say that for sorne of the questions, even larger sample sizes
than are written here, would be necessary. -47-
Mr. GLEESON: Two final questions, Sir. lfyou have problems with the humpback and fin
aspect of the proposai, do you consider that undermines the credibility, scientifically, of a proposai
which says itis seeking to madel competition between the various whale species?
Mr. W ALL0E: 1 consider especially the proposai of fin whales not very weil conceived
because the main part of the fin whale population are outside the arca of JARPA, further to the
~'"&
north, and again this .. cannat be random because of the lengthXlimit, they only could catch small
fin whales.
But for humpbacks, 1am sarry to say this because 1 know that humpbacks are, weil it has
been used the ward "sacred" animais here previously, I understand that it would be emotionally
very difficult, but it is a better scientific justification for taking humpbacks, because they operate in
the same area and it would be interesting, even with a small number, to see whether there are
changes in, for instance, the amount of krill in the stomach of the humpbacks or whether there are
changes in the blubber, and so on. There are many questions you could ask the humpback but 1
understand also that it is emotionally difficult and 1 think it is possible, even without sampling
humpbacks, to get the information about the changes in the ecosystem and perhaps about the
competition. One such example is ...
Mr. GLEESON: Professor Wallee, could 1interrupt you there, without being rude, 1am at
my final time. My last question is this. Have you formed the view that the Norwegian chair of the
IWC, that is the first chair, Mr. Birger Bergersen, now deceased, had in mind that Article VIII
would be appropriate under science for taking Jess than ten whales and he never intended for
hundreds of whales to be killed for this purpose and, if you did, what was the source of your
statement?
Mr. W ALL0E: 1agree and 1expected this question, because 1know 1was interviewed, that
is quite a while ago but I was at the time, that was aJtwas engaged in the whaling, Jwas asked
to write an article about Mr. Birger Bergersen for the Norwegian Encyclopcdia of Prominent
Q"b\f\o\\'-o.r
Persans- you know, you have it4in the UK, you have it in other countries, a national biography-
Jwas asked to write his biography so I went to the National Archives, looked into his papers and 1 -48-
had a somewhat different picture from what we heard from the Australian side about the history of
the Convention because much of the work occurred not in 1946 but in the 1930s, resulting in the
agreement of 1937. And 1read Birger Bergersen's old, everyday notes from the meeting in London
in 1937, 1read ali of them, and it is also true that the concept ofwhat is now Article VIII which had
a different number at that time, appeared on the very last dayt long meeting in London. lt
was introduced without any explanation and his notes at that time, Birger Bergersen, he was an
anatomist, Kellogg from the United States was an archaeologist, they were not whale scientists, but
Birger Bergersen in a letter to Kellogg wrote that it could be necessary to even if there was a new
speciesof whale and, remember at that time, Bryde's whales was discovered not many years
before. lt was discovered that it was a species separate from the Sei whale. That was in the
So ten years later, Bergersen as an anatomist argued that we need this paragraph which is now
Article VIII to be sure that we could kill whaleseeded. So that was his science and that was
~v.:.'\ oo'f:rf":cZlL'-'-
hi..s. but 1said soin an interview and 1expected this question to come because ofthat.
Mr. GLEESON: I am not sure you have explained why you have concluded he thought no
more than ten would be necessary.
Mr. WALL0E: If you are an anatomist, you would probably in sorne cases only need one
animal but what he said was a Iow number and wrote in that note, for example, Jessthan ten.
Mr. GLEESON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: You would Iike to re-examine, Mr. Lowe, please?
Mr. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. President, 1have no other questions.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. The Court will now retire for ten minutes but the
Parties and experts should remain in the vicinity of the Main Hall of Justice and after ten minutes'
break we will retum and my understanding that a few judges will have questions for Mr. Wallae.
The sitting is suspended for ten minutes. -49-
Certainly 1 expect that Mr. Wallee will enjoy these ten minutes to refresh and not to be
engaged in conversation either with members of the Japanese delegation or Australian or sorne of
his colleagues from the Scientific Committee.
Mr. LOWE: Yes, no contact with counsel during this break.
The Court adjournedfrom 4.35 p.m. to 4.50 p.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The hearing is resumed. The first judge to put a
question or questions to Mr.allee is Judge Greenwood. You have the floor.
Judge GREENWOOD: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Professor Wallee, 1think it
would save time if you had a copy of your own report open in front of you, because 1want to ask
you a couple of questions.
Mr. W ALL0E: 1have it here.
Judge GREENWOOD: Would you look at page 10, please?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Judge GREENWOOD: In the second paragraph there you say "it must be admitted that the
Japanese scientists have not always given completely transparent and clear explanationsof how
sample sizes were calculatedor determined, and on reading the research proposais for JARPA and
JARPA II submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee, 1often had the impression that sample sizes
were also influenced by funding considerations". Wouldyoujust explain to the Court please which
sample sizes you are referring to there, in relation to JARPA
Mr. WALL0E: 1am referring to the sample size of what 1consider 850.
Judge GREENWOOD: So the minke whales?
Mr. WALL0E: The minke whales. 1am not commenting on the sample size of humpbacks
or fin whales. -50-
Judge GREENWOOD: Right. Thank you very much. And do you understand the scientific
rationale, from reading the paper to the IWC Scientific Committee which you were asked about
earlier, do you understand the scientific rationale for the change from the sample size under JARPA
to the much larger sample size, 1think it is twice what was being caught, twice the sample size
the last couple ofyears of JARPA and nearly three times the initial JARPA size?
Mr. WALL0E: 1was not at ali involved in the beginning of the JARPA but 1consider it as
it was explainedtome that it was partly a feasibility study, although of course it was not only ten
whales, it was a large number even then. But what 1am considering in my expert statement was
only the sample size for the JARPA II. JARPA itself is a much more difficult program and 1must
admit 1 had sorne reservations on sorne parts of JARPA, but my expert statement is only for
JARPA II.
Judge GREENWOOD: Thank you very much. Weil, perhaps 1can just ask one follow-up
question about that. When JARPA II was first putto the IWC Scientific Committee as a proposed
program, part of that proposai was a move from the figure of 300 to 400 minke whales, which had
been the sample size for sorne 16 years in JARPA, to a figure that was more than twice as high. Do
you see a scientific rationale for why the original figure had been too small and therefore a new
higher figure was said to be necessary?
Mr. W ALL0E: 1think 1 saw the reasons for the larger number but 1did of course at that
time not calculate the way1tried to do when writing this expert statement. But it was also obvious
that sorneof the objectives for JARPA were not met during the JARPA period, partly because the
sample sizes were too small.Not the only reason, but that was one of the reasons.
Judge GREENWOOD: Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. The next judge to put a question is
Judge Cançado Trindade.
Judge CANÇADO TRlNDADE: Thank you, Mr. President. As specialized knowledge in
the most diverse domains is seen nowadays as not self-sufficient,f not unsatisfactory, when kept -51 -
in isolation, there have been in recent years sorne wishful expressions of support for a re/inking of
distinct areas of knowledge (reliant les connaissances), also- 1 would add- in relation to the
work of international tribunals, in their endeavours to instruct better the process, of cases brought
to their attention. Keeping this in mind, 1 have three interrelated questions to put to
Professor Lars Walloe.
- First: in your opinion, would the utilization of lethal methods for the purpose of JARPA-H, as
opposed to alternative methods of "research", lead to major or important "scientific" results? Are
those methods essential to obtain these results, or could such results be achieved by the means of
the utilization of non-lethal methods?
Mr. W ALL0E: As 1think 1at least tried to say in my first 20 minutes here, 1consider that it
is in theory possible to obtain the genetic information and sorne other information on pollution and
so on by biopsy sampling alone but my collaborators in Norway, we have experience from Barents
Sea and not from the Antarctic Ocean, it was much more efficient to obtain it by lethal sampling.
But there are other questions that could not be answered only by biopsy sampling. So really 1
accepted the Japanese argument why lethal sampling was necessary.
Judge CANÇADO TRlNDADE: Secondly, retaking a point already referred to: asto the
linesof the "scientific research" conducted under JARPA-11,and the objectives pursued thereunder,
can one determine the total ofwhales to be killed to attain such objectives?
Mr. W ALL0E: No, you mean over a long period?
Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE: Yes, such as JARPA-II's.
Mr. W ALL0E: No, 1 cannat. 1 think that is difficult and it depends on which of the
different questions you are focusing on. 1think for the time being for sorne more years it will be
justified to kill0 but you must also remember that my background is, as 1state, although it is not
relevant for this case,1considcr that the killing of whales, as long as we are quite sure that it is
done in a humane way, like we kill other animais, and as long as we are quite sure that it is
Q~"~'"
sustainable, 1do not see any argumen*o use the killing ofwhales as a scicntific method? -52-
Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE: And thirdly, and lastly: in your experience, can you think
of other programmes where the use of lethal methods has been deemed essential? And, if so, how
do you compare the useof lethal methods in other programmes to those in JARPA-11?
Mr. WALL0E: Sorry, but are you talking about whale research or research on animais in
general, because then it is although not necessarily, 1mean 1 do not have it in my head, but it is
obvious that there are other examples in ...
Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE: I am asking about whale research, since, as you yourself
referred, minutes ago,- before our brief break-,to the exercise which will take place next year,
on evaluationof JARPA-11.
Mr. WALL0E: Of course, as 1 mentioned in the early 1990s, Norway was conducting
special permit research to get the amountof stomach contents but, in contrast to the Antarctic
where one or two species of krill is the main food for the whales, in the North Atlantic and the
Barents Sea there are three or four potential species and we had to show at that time how much
doM our minke whales in the North Atlantic eat of the different species dependent on the
abundance ofthese species in the area around the minke whales. So we had to do lethal research to
M"'''"~
get this and that was used in a computer mode! called Mttltsf'e•, which was presented then in
fisheries associations and published in fisheries joumals. So for that research, it was necessary.
Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE : Thank you, Professor Lars Walloe; thank you,
Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. The nextjudge to put a question is Judge Yusuf.
Judge YUSUF: Thank you, Mr. President. Professor Wallee, 1 would like to understand
better your position with regard to the criteria put forward by Dr. Mangel, on the characteristics
a program for scientific research. 1understand that you disagree with those criteria? Did you say
you disagree with those criteria? -53-
Mr. WALL0E: If you are referring to the four crand 1do not have the text of them
in front of me, so then 1have to ask to have thbut 1think 1agree with much of it, but
not ali it. That is my recollection now, but 1wouId like to see the statements before.
Judge YUSUF: They are on page 5 ofyour report.
Mr. WALL0E: ln my report? Then 1should be able to, 1thought you were talking about
sorne other, sarry. Oh, ln addition, which 1did not mention here, it is the fourth criteria that
it should not endanger the stock, which was onetion to the three here. The fourth one 1
agree completely with, so that is the reason I did not mention it. But for these three here, 1agree-
that was what 1 tried to say in the begin1 agree that there should be sorne questions,
something the scientists would like to explore, but not necessarily focused questions. That
1 "" "'-.-..~~
1 disagree:the focused questi~ t~a ts FRillAiASin the sense that Mange! uses it, it is a
hypothesis which:: precise that you can tell which kind of observation a't~iiï;~any
need to get the 5 per cent leve! and the power of 80 per cent oto use the statistical
tenns- then 1do not agree. But 1agree on the first part; conceming the second one, yes, if you
employ the correct setempirical tools, 1agree, but to answer the question, including setting
sample sizes, with sound statistical reasoning, yes. But ase in:h11 statement and also
explained morein detail, 1 have serious concems about the use of statistical way to calculate
sample sizes, because it very often fails and the reasonal, that you never know what kind
of distributions you will have of the variables you are investigating. And that is one reason why
oneof my other scientific fields has been to investigate the robustness of the statistical methods and
1have even developed, by computer simulation with one of my graduate students, methods which
can be used in clinical studies where you do not need to calculate sample sizes beforehand. That is
called sequential methods which cannat be used in this kind of whale research, but is now being
very much usedn clinical trials on new drugs or new treatments.
Judge YUSUF: Thank you. You have been a member of the Scientific Committee for a
very longime. Has this issue of defining the characteristics of a program for purposes of scientific -54-
research, establishing criteria for such scientific research, ever come up m the Scientific
Committee - at least as long as you have been a member of that Committee?
Mr. WALL0E: lt has come up, yes, in the context of JARPA and JARPAN and JARPA Il,
the three research programs of which only two are mentioned here. lt has been discussed in the
Scientific Committee and there has been a fair amount of disagreement in the Scientific Committee
on these issues.
Judge YUSUF: So, the Scientific Committee has never established any criteria as far as you
can recollect?
Mr. WALL0E: Not more than you can read out of the different Annexes which were
agreed, proposed by the Scientific Committee then to the Commission an~backn as,1
i\-
understanq( (egally in the form of a resolution. lt needs only a simple majority, but it was always
passed with consensus both in the Scientific Committee and in the CommissAnd for this
w "o-l~o,; -r:.~
reason, of course that is what 1meant b>J.we have this fourth possible objective which is different
ot-
from management~ whales and so on. To that extent we have these Annexes which have
changed a little over time, we have agreement in the Scientific Committee.
Judge YUSUF: And my last question actually which is always on the same subject is: are
you aware of any criteria, or set of criteria, that have been established or adopted by professional
bodies in your areas of scientific research, for the definition of a scientific research project?
Mr. WALL0E: Yes, 1am aware but it depends a little on what you mean by criteria, but for
instance in the area of medical research you have a set of criteria which will go both to the ethics of
the study about, for instance, that it is unethical to perform a study without sufficient power
,.~.d~C4
because then you throw away, you use patfor~s which will give no useful knowledge. So
in the area of medical research especially conceming patients you have a defined set of criteria,
yes.
Judge YUSUF: Thank you very much, Professor Wallee. Thank you, Mr. President. -55-
The PRESIDENT: 1 next cali upon Judge Bennouna to put his question.Vouz avez la
parole, Monsieur.
Judge BENNOUNA: Thank you, Mr. President. 1 have one question for you,
Professor Wallee. While 1will do it step by step, and probably you will see where 1am going-
what I mean, what will finally be my question. Professor Wallee, can you say to the Court for how
long are you personally involved or active in scientific research in whaling, particularly in the
Antarctic?
Mr. WALL0E: ln the Antarctic, that is a little difficult to say, but my interest in the whaling
issue, asresponded to a question by Professor Lowe, 1can give the date evit was in 1986, in
May, when the Commission meeting ended, it was in Sweden that year, and it was shawn on the
television how the Norwegian Commission at the time was interviewed- Per Tresselt, 1
"'~'""
mentioned him earlier- and also a major figure on the anti-whaling body, Dr. SiHet:Htand
these two were talking against each other. lmmediately afterwards 1 got a telephone cali from
Mrs Brundtland and then my engagement started. But for the Antarctic, it started withling
methods and that was bath for the North Pacifie and for the Southem Ocean, because it was a
question whether theilling methods were efficient. The Japanese at that time used the secondary
killing method, that is when the harpoon does not killing the whale, how can you then kill it? They
used the method called theelectric lance". lt was very heavily criticized in the Commission, it
Q
was not~ tapie for the Scientific Committee. At one point intime, that was in 1996, l was asked
or 1offered- that is more correct-because I thought the Japanese had good evidence that the
electric lance was efficient although 1thought that the Norwegian method, of shooting by rifle was
better, sooffered to do the calculations. After sorne time 1was given the data and that was my
first involvement with-that was ten years after 1started in the Commission and in the Scientific
41\J '""~w~c.
Committee -1 had no contact with the Japanese except for pleasantries in the Commiuring r-·.lkc.
the first ten years, but then it started.
Judge BENNOUNA: Thank you very much. 1 imagine that Japan was concemed by
scientific research in whaling before the launching of JARPA? -56-
Mr. WALL0E: Yes.
Judge BENNOUNA: ln 1987. Vou know also that in 1987- this is an important date
because you started yourse1f, you said,n 1986- is concomitant with the acceptance by Japan of
the moratorium on whaling for commercial purposes. My question, or what 1would Iike, or the
Court, would Iike to know from you is first how Japan conducted its research in this field before
JARPA? lfyou know?
Mr. WALL0E: 1 know sorne of it, but maybe my information is not sufficiently precise.
But, they obtained samples and data from the commercial whaling. And that is for instance, what
gave the information about the declinein age of sexual maturity from the year 1945 to 1970 which
1 referred to. Thatis in total based on the commercial catches. So evidence obtained. 1do not
know whether they had scientists on board the vessels or whether their samples were collected after
the vessels came to port. So 1 do not have detailed information. But it was conveyed, in the
Antarctic, from the commercial catches.
Judge BENNOUNA: That is interesting. So the samples were taken from commercial
catches? So my following question, perhaps it is the final one- do not worry- do you know
exactly why, is it by pure chance, why Japan decided precisely with the moratorium, the end of
commercial catching, to launch this program of JARPA for scientific research in 1987? Why, do
you know exactly why, Japan decided at that time,in 1987, to launch this program called JARPA?
Mr. W ALL0E: 1 have two comments. Because 1 was, as you understood, close to my
Prime Minister at the time, Ms Brundtland, 1was involved; not part of the negotiations, but I was
observing and giving her information on what was happening. And, what was happening was, as
we have heard the other day, the United States put strong pressure on three countries: Japan,
Iceland and Norway. And the two other countries gave in to the pressure. Well, Ms Brundtland
was stubbom, and said we are a loyal member of NATO, we are doing everything according to
United States wishes, 1do not want to be put under pressure here. So, she decidedt to withdraw
the moratorium. But of course, wc had contacts. But, 1was not involved, 1 only heard about it
from my Prime Minister that the Japanese were considering to withdraw the objection, because -57-
they expected that in 1990 there would be a reconsideration. And, as there were many whales in
the Antarctic Ocean- but this is indirect, I did not hear this from the Japanese, 1heard it from
Ms Brundtland and her people at the Prime Minister's office. So, 1think that was the background,
but also, and that was part of why we managed- the Norwegians managed- to resist the
pressure, was that we then decided at least we have to collect scientific evidence. And I was first
put in as a Chair of a small group of scientists-the United Kingdom and one American scientist.
The American, later, was not allowed by his Government to take part, so it ended up by two
Norwegian and two British scientists- prominent British scientists- Roy Anderson and
Ray Beverton. As a result, the next year, was that there was no strong evidence that the minke
whale abundance in the North Atlantic was declining but that if Norway wanted to continue its
catch of minke whales, we should have better scientific evidence. And then the science started on
our part. 1know that the Japanese needed better and more research, but now I am guessing, 1guess
that thereis a reason why they started this JARPA program immediately. But that is what 1heard
from the Japanese.
Judge BENNOUNA: Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. And the next judge is Judge Keith. Please, you have the
floor.
Judge KEITH: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Professor Wallee. Could 1take you
back to your initial document and the bottom of page 13 and the top of page 14, where you are
commenting about the purpose of monitoring the Antarctic ecosystem? And I take your point that
the area that the Japanese said they were monitoring was halfthe circumference of the Antarctic, a
very large area. As a matter of scientific method- and this a question very much from the
position of ignorance- there were, 1 understand, or there are 1 understand, a number of other
research projects related to that very broad matter going on in your part of the world as well, as
well as my part of the world, although where I live we are only halfway to the Antarctic, but as
thinking of SORP, Pacifie and CCAMLR and the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Rcsearch.
And 1think there are two Japanese institutes for Polar Research and for Far Eastern Fisheries. And -58-
my question is whether it would make good scientific sense in the case of a project like JARPA and
JARPA II for there to be linkages, because 1have not noticed that there are any linkages into such
other projects which have the broad Antarctic ecosystemin mind? Thank you.
Mr. WALL0E: I am not quite sure I understand the question. But was the question whether
my opinion on a possible co-operation between the CCAMLR science and the JARPA II program?
Judge KEITH: Yes.
Mr. WALL0E: And because that covers the whole circumference of the Antarctica? Of
course I would consider that valuable if it was possible. But, and this brings me back to the
political issue, there are strong opinions in the Scientific Committee about the value of the lethal
research. And sorne of the same scientists are from the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. One of
them is the scientist I referred to in my earlier speech. So, we have Norwegian scientists on the
CCAMLR, because Norway has sorne political interests in the Antarctic. But 1think it would be
difficult for persona) and political reasons. But 1would like to add that, to my persona) meaning, it
would be helpful and, since this was not asked by the Australian examiner of me previously, I
would like to state that I am now also entering into collaboration with Australia on the SORP
program, in collaboration with Dr. Gales. Because I consider, as you suggest, that co-operation
will be useful.
Judge KEITH: Two of the bodies I mentioned- and I realized that was a big wrapped up
question- but two of the bodies were Japanese institutes, and there would not be the same
political problem there, would there? But do you have any reaction in terms of the Japanese
Institute forolar Research and for Far Eastern Fisheries? Maybe their fields do not sufficiently
overlap, 1do not know?
Mr. WALL0E: Again, 1have sorne difficulties in hearing what you were saying. But are
asking "Are there other scientific institutions in Japan that we could have a better collaboration
with?" Yes, 1agree.
Judge KEITH: Thank you. -59-
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. And, Judge Charlesworth's question. You have the floor,
Madam.
Judge CHARLESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Professor Wallee. My
question is also just one of scientific method, like Judge Keith's. 1 am just wondering how do
scientists assess whether the sample ofminke whales it has taken under JARPA Il is representative
of the minke population as a whole? How do you know you are not just catching the slow whales,
for example?
Mr. W ALL0E: Of course it is, in a statistical sense, not representative of minke whales
from the other half of the circumference of Antarctica. We do not know where the outer borders of
the two main stocks are. They couid meet on the other side of the Antarctica or there could be one
or more other stocks with different biological characteristics. But, we, at present, do not know that.
But, 1still think that the information collected will be of great value for the two stocks. And also
the problem oftheir sub stocks, ofwhich there are no evidence, so far.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. This completes the examination of
Professor Wallee. 1 thank him, on behalf of the Court, for appearing before us and he can now
leave the rostrum. And as we have sorne 45 minutes left, 1cali on Professor Pellet to continue in
his pleading.
Mr. WALL0E: Before 1 leave, may 1 say thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to the
Members of the Court for the interesting questions.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Professor.
M. PELLET : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président.Je pense que ça tombe bien et que je
ne devrais pas du tout dépasserles 45 minutes.
Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, ce matin, j'ai montré que
l'article VIII étaitlimpide; «crystal clear», c'est bien plus poétique. Dans ces conditions, il n'est
~~ .....-..,
pas nécessairede recourir à des méthodescomplémentaires ou auxiliaires d'interprétation,lfomme
je l'ai dit, cela ne nuit pas et ces méthodes, en fait, confirment en tout point cc que la lecture du - 60-
texte enseigne lorsque l'on s'en tient au sens clair et naturel de =termes. C'est vrai s'agissant du
préambule,des travaux préparatoires ou de la pratique ultérieureet c'est à cette pratique ultérieure
que j'en suis arrivé,à la fin de la session de ce matin.
C. La pratique ultérieure
36. Monsieur le président, l'Australie fait grand cas de la pratique ultérieure des Parties 1•
Elle ne sert pas davantage sa thèse que le recours au contexte ou aux travaux préparatoires. Au
contraire, la pratique pertinente- et je me permets d'insister sur ce mot, Monsieur le président,la
pratique pertinente- confirme que l'article VIII, qui constitue une exception au regard des autres
règles applicables à la chasse à la baleine, contenues dans la convention, confère un pouvoir
discrétionnaire aux gouvernements contractants pour délivrer les permis spéciaux et fixer leur
contenu, y compris l'autorisation de «tuer, capturer et traiter des baleines» et le nombre d'animaux
concernésconformémentàce qu'il juge «opportun>>.
37. Trois constatations peuvent êtrefaites:
1. les textes de droit dérivéayant une valeur obligatoire qu'invoque l'Australie ne sont pas
applicables en l'espèceou n'ont pas la signification qu'elle leur prête;
2. s'il est exact que d'autres semblent conforter la thèse australienne, il s'agit exclusivement
d'instruments qui constituent de pures recommandations; et
3. c'est bien pour cela que l'Australie et d'autres Etats «antichasse» ont tentéd'obtenir la revision
de la convention, et en particulier de l'article VIII- et ceci en vain à cejour.
1. La valeur juridique variable des textes adoptés par la Commission
38. L'usage massif que fait l'Australie des textes adoptéspar la CBI conduit à s'interroger
sur le rôle que ceux-ci peuvent se voir attribuer dans la présenteaffaire.
39. Le paragraphe 2 de l'article III de la convention, qui préciseles compétencesappartenant
à la CBI et les conditions de leur exercice, pose le principe de l'adoption des «décisions» de la
1 MA, p. 164-170, par. 4.65-4.80 ; CR 2013/8, p. 35-41, par. 35-52 (Crawford).
2
Voir surtout p. 27-52, par. 2.47-2.98, p. 147-152, par. 4.20-4.30, p. 160-161, par. 4.53-4.56, p. 164-170,
par. 4.65-4.80. - 61 -
commission «à la majoritésimple des membres votants», mais il précisequ'«une majoritédes trois
quarts des membres votants sera requise pour les décisionsprises en vertu de l'article V».
40. Cette différencedans le systèmede vote se traduit par une différencede valeur normative
entre les deux types d'actes que la CBI peut adopter: les amendements au règlementd'une part et
les actes recommandatoires d'autre part. L'article V de la convention donne en effet à la
commission le pouvoir de modifier le règlementannexéà la convention, qui a la mêmevaleur que
celle-ce. En conséquence, les amendements adoptéspar la CBI selon la majoritérenforcéedes
4
trois quarts sont obligatoires pour les parties, sauf dans le cas où «un gouvernement présenteà la
commission une objection à un amendement, avant l'expiration [d'un] délaide quatre-vingt-dix
jours» 5,auquel cas U Ri s'i~p parie 1cet amendement ne s'impose pasH à ce gouvernement.
Par contraste, les actes adoptéspar la commission selon la règlede la majoritésimple n'ont pas de
valeur obligatoire, qu'un gouvernement y objecte ou non.
41. Parmi les amendements au règlement adoptéspar la CBI, un seul concerne la matière
régie par l'article VIII de la convention : il s'agit du paragraphe 30 du règlement adopté en
6
1979 - son texte figure sous 1'onglet n°2 du dossier desjuges. Les autres amendements auxquels
7
l'Australie fait référence comme étant des «mesures supplémentaires de conservatiom>
(«additional conservation measures», écrit-elle)- à savoir: l'instauration des sanctuaires de
8 9 10
l'océan Indien et de l'océan Antarctique , ou le moratoire de la chasse commerciale ou le
11
moratoire sur les usines flottantes -tous ces autres règlementssont applicables à la seule chasse
commerciale, mais non aux permis spéciaux. Ils ne peuvent donc en aucune manière informer
l'interprétationde l'article VIII.
3Voir art. 1°', par. 1.
4
Art. Ill, par. 2.
5
Art. V, par. 3 a).
6
CMJ, annexe 6.
7MA, p.160, par. 4.53. Voir aussi CR 2013/11 , p. 34-35, par. 35 (Gieeson) .
8CMJ, annexe 6, par. 7 a).
q Ibid., par. 7 b).
10Ibid., par. 10 e).
11Ibid., par. 10e). -62-
42. L'Australie déduitdu paragraphe 30 du règlement que celui-ci a eu pour effet de réduire
le pouvoir discrétionnaire dont les gouvernements contractants bénéficient en vertu de
l'article VIII. Selon elle, l'introduction de cette disposition aurait eu pour effet d'amender cet
article, pour établir «detailed criteria that had to be addressed before a Contracting Government
could issue a permit under Article VIII» 1• Bien qu'elle soit plus nuancée, la Nouvelle-Zélande
estime pour sa part que le paragraphe 30 a étéintroduit pour permettre à la commission de
surveiller l'application de l'article VIII, impliquant ainsi, sans doute, mais sans vraiment oser le
dire, que la CBI pourrait se prononcer sur la validitédes permis octroyéspour, éventuellement, en
empêcher l'octroi13• Je relèvetout de mêmeque, prudemment, le professeur Crawford affirme que
14
«là n'est pas la question»-«that is not the point» • J'ai connu mon ami moins circonspect-et
il faut sans doute que «la question» lui paraisse bien embarrassante pour qu'il botte ainsi en
touche...
43. En réalité, le paragraphe 30 guide un pouvoir qui demeure discrétionnaire, mais n'en
contraint pas l'exercice. Il en va de mêmedes lignes directrices, qui sont des documents adoptés
par le comité scientifique 15 afin de guider l'application du paragraphe 30 en ce qui concerne
l'examen des permis spéciaux. Ces documents, qui sont appelésannexes (L, 0 ou P) 16, ont étépar
la suite endosséspar la CBI, à travers une sériede résolutions. Ni l'un ni les autres ne transforment
un pouvoir discrétionnaire en une compétenceliée. Mme Takashiba reviendra plus longuement sur
ce point demain matin.
44. Il me suffira donc de dire que le Japon ne conteste pas la valeur obligatoire du
paragraphe 30, mais il n'en résultepas pour autant que cette disposition puisse êtreréputéeavoir
17
modifiéla convention comme nos amis de l'autre côtéde la barre le prétendent • Nulle part dans
la convention, il n'est envisagé que la commission pourrait modifier les dispositions mêmesde
12MA, par. 4.30.
13Voir OEN, par. 86 ou 105.
14
CR 2013/8, p. 33, par. 29.
15
Voir CMJ, par. 8.31. Voir aussi CR 2013/8 p. 21-22, par. 28-30.
16
Voir CMJ, par. 8.68.
17Voir CR 2013/7, p. 61, par. 66 (Boisson de Chazoumc s). - 63-
celle-ci par le biais d'amendements au règlementen vertu de l'article V 18• Certes, le règlementest
partie intégrantede la convention, mais les amendements que la commission peut lui apporter de
temps à autre font l'objet-en vertu de l'article V- de règlesspécifiques,qui ne s'appliquent pas
à la revision du corps mêmede la convention. Et ceci montre bien que les Parties ne sauraient
amender la convention par le biais de cette procéduresimplifiée.
45. Du reste, la pratique ultérieuredes Etats parties confirme qu'ils n'ont pas investi la CBI
d'un tel pouvoir de modification. Ainsi, dans l'unique hypothèse dans laquelle ils ont amendéle
texte mêmede la convention, ils l'ont fait par le biais d'un protocole, lui-mêmesoumis à signature
19
et à ratification •
46. Les conditions de l'adoption, en 1956, du seul protocole à la convention sont révélatrices
à plus d'un égard. Il s'agissait de modifier des dispositions du texte mêmede la convention afin
d'étendreles compétencesde la CBI. Les gouvernements contractants s'accordaient à considérer
que ceci ne pouvait se faire à la sauvette, en se bornant à insérerdans Jerèglementdes dispositions
modifiant Je corps de la convention, si bien qu'il a étéentendu que le protocole n'entrerait en
vigueur que lorsque tous les Etats parties l'auraient ratifié. Ceci montre bien qu'il ne suffit pas que
la commission adopte des textes votésà la majorité,mêmerenforcée,pour modifier la convention
elle-même 20• L'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande en sont bien conscientes et cela aussi fait partie
de la pratique ultérieurepuisque c'est sous la forme de protocoles formels d'amendements qu'elles
se sont efforcées,sans succèsjusqu'à présent,d'obtenir des modifications de la convention et en
particulier de son article Vlll -je vais y revenir dans quelques instants, et plus longuement
demain.
47. Contrairement au paragraphe 30 du règlement, dont les dispositions sont obligatoires
pour les gouvernements contractants, les avis du comité(et les positions que la CBI pourrait être
conduite à adopter sur les permis spéciauxnotifiéspar les gouvernements) n'ont nullement valeur
obligatoire. Il s'agit d'actes purement recommandatoires, facilitant la coopération entre un Etat
18
Voir, en cc sens, «Written question from Terjc Aasland (A) to the Minister of fïshcries and Coastal Affairs»,
Answered: 20 June 2013 by the Ministcr of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Lisbeth 13erg-Hanscn, disponible en ligne:
http://www.rcgjeringcn.no/en/dcp/tkd/Whats-ncw/Ncws/20 13/scientific-research-on-whales.html ?id=731449.
19
Voir le protocole du 19 novembre 1956, amendant les articles Il ct V de la convention (MJ, annexe 6).
20
Voir article Ill, paragraphe 2, du protocole du 19 novembre 1956, amendant les articles Il cl V de la convention
(CMJ, annexe 6). -64-
octroyant un permis spécial et les organes de la convention, notamment le comité
scientifique - organes qui n'ont pas vocation à restreindre les droits que les Etats tiennent de
l'article VIII; la CBI n'est pas une organisation supranationale. Et ceci me conduit à répondreaux
questions que M. lejuge Greenwood ne nous a pas posées... ; mais je pense qu'il ne rn'en voudra
pas de rn'y essayer tout de même:
First question:«What is the precise legal basis on which it is said that Japan has
a legal obligation [1 suppose, Judge Greenwood that you mean binding legal
obligation?] arising from the recommendations contained in resolutions of the IWC»;
answer: there is no such legal basis;
Second question: «and what is the precise content of that obligation»; answer:
no legal basis, no obligation, no content at ali...
48. Ceci n'a pas empêché le Japon d'adopter une attitude extrêmementconstructive à l'égard
de ces recommandations, comme je le montrerai demain, dans ma prochaine- et
dernière- intervention. Mais ça ne les rend pasjuridiquement obligatoires.
49. Ceci me conduit, Monsieur le président,à examiner brièvement le rôle que peuvent jouer
(ou que ne peuvent pas jouer) un certain nombre d'instruments de droit mou (de soft law) sur
lesquels s'appuie l'Australie pour tenter de faire dire à l'article VIII le contraire de ce qu'il dit.
2. La valeur du droit dérivé soft
50. L'Australie invoque en effet une sériede résolutionsde la CBI portant sur les permis
21 22
spéciaux , les lignes directrices du comité scientifique et certains commentaires des Etats
parties23,qui constitueraient selon elle une pratique ultérieurepertinente pour l'interprétationde
l'article VIII.
51. Dès lors que l'Australie affirme qu'il résultede cette «pratique» une interprétationde
l'article VIII allant à l'encontre du texte clair de cette disposition, ce n'est que si elle démontrait
que cette prétendue pratique avait modifié la convention- ce qui serait possible- que cet
argument aurait un semblant de pertinence. Or, il n'en est rien.
21MA, par. 4.68, par. 4.70-4.80. Voir aussi CR 2013/8, p. 19-21, par. 21-27 (Burmester) ; CR 2013/8, p. 37-38,
par. 40-45 (Crawford) ; CR 2013/11, p. 33-35, par. 30-35 (Giecson).
22MA, par. 4.67. Voir aussi CR 2013/8, p. 21-22, par. 28-31 (Burmcstcr); CR 2013/8, p. 34-35, par. 31-34
(Crawford) ; CR2013/11.p. 25, par. 2 ; p. 32. par. 25-26 (Giccson).
23MA, par. 4.78-4.79. - 65-
52. Les conditions pour que l'on puisse reconnaître une pratique ultérieuremodificatrice sont
extrêmementstrictes. Dans son projet de convention sur le droit des traités,la COI avait envisagé
la possibilité qu'une pratique ultérieurement suivie modifie les dispositions expresses d'un traité.
Dans le commentaire du projet d'article 38 24, la commission insistait sur la nécessitéd'un
consentement unanime des parties «en vue d'appliquer le traitéd'une manière différente de celle
qui est prescrite dans certaines de ses dispositions» pour qu'une telle pratique puisse «avoir pour
effet de modifier le traité» 25•
53. Comme l'a rappeléavec clartéune sentence arbitrale récente:
«[P]our qu'il y ait une pratique telle que celle viséepar le paragraphe 3 c) de
l'article 31 de la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités,il est nécessairequ'il y
ait une concordance indiscutable entre les positions des parties et que ces p26itions
aient étésusceptibles d'avoir fixéle sens d'une disposition du traité.»
Ce n'est pas le cas de la «pratique)) invoquéepar l'Australie.
54. En premier lieu, aucun des élémentssupposésla constituer (on ose àpeine utiliser le mot
«instrumentS)) tant cette soi-disant «pratique)) est disparate)- aucun de ces élémentsdonc ne
présentepar lui-mêmela moindre valeur contraignante. C'est évidemmentle cas pour les prises de
position de certains Etats ou groupes d'Etats; mais ce l'est aussi en ce qui concerne les résolutions
adoptéespar les organes de la convention.
55. Selon les termes de l'article VI :
«La Commission pourra, de temps à autre, faire des recommandations à l'un, à
plusieurs ou à l'ensemble des gouvernements contractants, portant sur toutes questions
relatives aux baleines ou à la chasse à la baleine et aux objets de la présente
convention.))
Par e11es-mêmesd ,e te11esrecommandations ne peuvent êtreconsidérées commeun élémentde la
pratique ultérieure ni aux fins de l'interprétation de la convention, ni, moins encore, pour établir
24
Rapport de la Commission du droit international à l'Assembléegénéral,eAnnuaire 1966, vol. Il, p. 257.
25
Ibid., p. 257, par. 1 du commentaire du projet d'article 38. Voir aussi Conséquencesj uridiques pour les Etats
de la présence continue de l'Afrique du Sud en Namibie (Sud-Ouest africain) nonobstant/a résolution 276 (1970) du
Conseil de sécurité, avis consultatif. C.I.J. Recueill9p.22, par. 22 ; Souverainetésur Pedra Branca!Pulau Batu
Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour), arrêt,C..IJ. Recueil 2008, p. 50, par. 120 ou Différend relatif
à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrêt,C.I.J. Recup.242, par. 64.
26
Question du régime fiscal des pensions versées aux fonctionnaires retraités de l'UNESCO résidanten /·rance,
sentence arbitrale du 14janvier 2003, RSA, vol. XXV, p. 259-260, par. 74 : voir aussi p. 258, par. 70. -66-
l'existence d'une modification s'imposant aux gouvernements contractants 27• Et je rappelle que
l'article VIII doit s'entendre et s'interpréternonobstant les autres dispositions de la convention.
56. Or, en l'espèce, bien souvent, ces recommandations vont à l'encontre du texte mêmede
la convention, et en particulier de notre article VIII. Tel est le cas des résolutionsqui requièrent
que toute recherche scientifique soit menéepar des méthodes non létales. Il va de soi que ces
recommandations ne sauraient êtreappeléesà l'appui d'une interprétationde l'article VIII, qu'elles
contredisent et qu'elles ne sauraient dans ces conditions êtreconsidéréescomme des «directives
particulièrement convaincantes [ou] autorisées»«highly persuasive, [or] authoritative guidance» 28•
Et si la Cour a eu l'occasion de se référerdans le passéà des résolutions non obligatoires (de
29
l'Assembléegénéraleou du Conseil de sécuritédes Nations-Unies) , elle ne l'a jamais fait pour
,'Ci.
infirmer un texte....-Almoins que les conditions d'une modification coutumière de l'acte constitutif
soient remplies. Ce n'est pas le cas en l'espèce.
57. A cet égard, avec tout le respect que j'ai et pour le professeur Crawford et pour les
0
Lauterpacht, père et fils, je crois que le premier fait dire aux seconds quelque chose d'inexace :
bien sûr qu'il peut se former une pratique de l'organisation; et bien sûr que cette pratique peut
servir à interpréter l'acte constitutif de l'organisation ; mais on ne saurait tirer de la seule
accumulation de résolutions sans valeur obligatoire et adoptées dans des conditions souvent
marquéespar un trèsfort antagonisme entre les Etats membres, la conclusion qu'une telle pratique
établit «l'accord des parties à l'égard de l'interprétation du traité» au sens de l'article 31,
paragraphe 3 b), de la convention de Vienne. Ce n'est mêmepas le cas lorsque de telles résolutions
sont adoptéespar consensus -marque souvent de résignationplus que de volontépositive- ou
mêmeà l'unanimité: voter pour une recommandation, par définitionnon obligatoire, ce n'est pas
s'engager à l'appliquer-même si une telle recommandation, comme toute résolutiond'ailleurs,
27Voir, par exemple, Affaire Cruz Varas et autres c. Suède, Requêten° 15576189, CEDH, arrêtdu 20 mars 1991,
par.100.
28CR 201317, p. 31, par. 28 (Gieeson) ; voir aussi CR 2013/8, p. 35, par. 35 (Crawford).
29Voir Conséquencesjuridiques de 1'édificationd'un mur dans Jeterritoire pa/estmi en occupé,avis consultatif
du 9juillet 2004C.J.J.Recueil 2004 (/), p. 176, p98-~9.
3°CR 2013/8, p. 36-37, par. 36-37 (Crawford). -67-
31
doit êtreprise de bonne foi en considération par leurs destinataires ; mais c'est un autre problème,
sur lequel je reviendrai demain.
[Projection n° 5 : Les votes sur les résolutionsconcernant JARPA.]
58. Au demeurant, les résolutions qu'invoquent l'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande sont loin
d'êtreconsensuelles. La Nouvelle-Zélande force donc très abusivement le trait lorsqu'elle affirme
-et je cite sa demande en intervention : «These resolutions serve as an expression of the
collective views of the parties... »32 De la mêmemanière et pour la mêmeraison, l'Australie a tort
de prétendreque ces résolutions reflètent\- j& site sett FR61Jneiren ,stt, je eite M. lih:tPMestaC« :the
33
widespread view of the Convention' s Contracting Governments» ,l3~~Y-...-eetHeeett&ee-J~if!Bit!Ïst:o,-tj-ee~eMittte~èee
34
RSYveatt~4 BttPMestet t «the collective view of the Commissiom> . Elles ne représententque les
vues communes à certains Etats membres (pour l'instant majoritaires) et, à ce titre, doivent être
dûment prises en considération par tous les gouvernements ; rien de moins, certes, mais rien de
plus : il ne s'agit pas de traités,de pacta qui seraient servanda.
59. Le Japon a dresséun tableau illustrant les conditions d'adoption des résolutionsvisant les
programmes japonais de recherche 35 ;il est reproduit dans le dossier des juges sous 1'onglet n° 38 et
est projetéen ce moment. Il en ressort que, dans la plupart des cas, ces résolutionsnon obligatoires
n'ont nullement recueilli l'assentiment de l'ensemble des Etats parties, bien qu'elles aient toujours,
bien sûr, obtenu la majorité simple nécessaire à leur adoption: comme M. Gales l'a relevé, les
positions au sein de la commission aussi bien que du comité scientifique sont terriblement
«polarisées» 36 et M. Wallee l'a aussi redit tout à l'heure. Et ceci constitue une raison
supplémentaire pour laquelle ces recommandations ne sauraient êtreopposables en tant que textes
37
obligatoires aux Etats de la minoritéet ne peuvent guèreéclairerl'interprétationdu traité •
31
Voir Procédurede vote applicable aux questions touchant les rapports et pétitionsrelatifs au Territoire du
Sud-Ouest africain, avis consultatif, C.I.J. Recuei/1Opinion individuelle de M. Lauterpacht, p. 118-119; voir aussi
Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe,Princip/es of the lnstitutional Law of International Organizati2• éd.,Cambridge
University Press, 2005, p. 179.
32WON, par. 31.
33 CR 2013/8, p. 19, par. 23 (Burmester).
34 CR 2013/8, p. 20, par. 26 (Burmcster) ; p. 41, par. 52 (Crawford).
35CM, p. 403-40.
36
CR 2013/9, p. 26.
37
Voir T.I.D.M., affaire n° 14,1/oshinmaru (Japon c. Fédérationde Russie), prompte mainlevée, arrêtdu
6 août 2007, par. 86-87. -68-
60. En outre, le contenu de ces résolutions ne témoigne pas de la conviction des Etats parties
selon laquelle elles viendraient limiter leurs droits en vertu de l'article VIII. Un épisode est
particulièrement révélateuràcet égard.
61. Peu après l'adoption du moratoire et avant mêmel'entréeen vigueur de celui-ci, certains
Etats au sein de la commission ont essayé d'en étendreles effets à la chasse à des fins scientifiques.
Une première résolution a étéadoptéeen 1985, dans laquelle la commission avait, sans la moindre
preuve, laisséentendre que certains permis spéciaux octroyés en vertu de l'article VIII pourraient
38
relever, en réalité,de la chasse commerciale • (Les tenants de cette résolution reconnaissaient au
39
demeurant «les droits souverains des Parties contractantes» ).
62. Mais l'année suivante, en 1986 donc, la commission a adopté, et cette fois par
consensus 40, une résolution sur les permis spéciaux recommandant aux Etats de collaborer
étroitement avec le comitéscientifique, sur la base du paragraphe 30 du règlement 41• L'Australie
42
insiste sur l'adoption consensuelle de cette résolution ,signe, selon le professeur Crawford, que
«ali Contracting Governments, including Japan, accepted the principles embodied in this
43
Resolution» • C'est oublier que nombre d'Etats, parmi lesquels le Japon justement, ont exprimé
d'importantes réserves 44 et que, je l'ai dit, le consensus est loin de valoir acceptation. Au
demeurant, le ralliement au consensus des Etats qui avaient émis des objections au moratoire, y
compris le Japon, signifiait de réelles concessions de leur part et étaitfondésur la prémisseque la
CBI allait entreprendre, au plus tard en 1990, «l'évaluation exhaustive» prévue par le moratoire.
Toutefois, après la clôture de la session durant laquelle cette résolution a étéadoptée, le
commissaire des Etats-Unis a cru pouvoir envoyer au secrétairede la CBI une lettre demandant que
des modifications soient apportées à la résolution de 1986, afin de tenter de restreindre l'exercice
38 CBI, résolution 1985-2, «Resolution on Scientific Perrnits» (MA, annexe 7).
39 CBI, comptes rendus de la 37" réunionannuelle, 1985 (Australie).
40 «Chairrnan's Report at the Thirty-Eight Meeting», p. 12, disponible en ligne :
http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/b5vill4sd5kckwkc04socw804/CHAIRS%20REPOR…
86.pdf.
41 CBI, résolution 1986-2, «Resolution on Special Perrnits for Scientific Research», disponible en ligne :
http://iwc.int/cachcldownloads/5g4 9gv1uutssss4sgksocsg8o/Resolution%20 1986.pdf.
42 CR 2013/8, p. 38, par. 42 (Crawford).
43 CR 2013/8, p. 38, par. 42 (Crawford).
44 «Chairrnan's Report of the Thirty-Scventh Annual Meeting», 1985, p. 11-12; voir aussi CBI, Verbatim
Records of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting, 1985. -69-
45
des droits des Etats parties en vertu de l'article Vlll - preuve a contrario que ce n'est pas ce que
fait cette résolutionde 1986 46• Les Etats opposéspar principe à la chasse baleinière ont néanmoins
eu gain de cause l'année suivante et, revenant sur le difficile consensus réalisé par la
résolution 1986-2, celle de 1987 a étéadoptéeaprès une suite de discussions trèsconflictuelles, par
47
19 voix contre 6, et 7 abstentions • D'autres résolutions sur lesquelles s'appuie plus spécialement
l'Australie ont étéadoptées à des majorités encore bien plus serrées. Telles sont, Monsieur le
48
président, les «majorités considérables» sur lesquelles s'appuie l'Australie pour prétendre à
49
l'existence d'une pratique représentant «l'action collective des gouvernements contractants» •
(Fin de la projection n° 5.]
63. En tout étatde cause, la seule existence de résolutions critiques de JARPA ou JARPA Il
n'équivaut pas à une pratique. Pour qu'il en aille autrement, il faudrait que ces recommandations
traduisent l'accord unanime des Parties, soient suivies d'actes matériels d'exécution de la part des
Qc,h.~
Etats, et que ces Qew aillent tous dans le sens de la pratique alléguée. Ce n'est pas le cas comme
le montre un examen de la pratique suivie par les Etats en matière de recherche scientifique après
l'adoption du moratoire.
64. Dans la période précédantle moratoire, tous les Etats ayant une industrie baleinière,
Australie incluse, avaient octroyé des permis scientifiques, comme le montre le tableau statistique
50
inséréà l'onglet n° 39 du dossier des juges • Tel était aussi le cas du Japon, dont je relève
qu'entre 1976 et 1978, il avait autorisé la prise de 660 baleines au titre de permis scientifiques
-un chiffre non négligeable si l'on tient compte du fait qu'il n'y avait pas alors de moratoire sur
la chasse commerciale et que l'on pouvait donc recueillir des donnéesbiologiques égalementpar le
moyen de la chasse commerciale-et ceci confirme qu'il n'y a, décidément,rien d'arbitraire dans
les quotas de chasse actuels. Si ces activités n'ont pas soulevé à l'époque-je parle d'avant le
45 Lettre de M. Calio, du 26 août 1986, reproduite dans la «Cireular Communication» du 29 août 1986
(doc. RGN Jll/16202) (annexe 2 aux observations du Japon sur l'intervention de la Nouvelle -Zélande).
46 Voir notamment CR 2013/8, p. 37, par. 40, ou p. 38, par. 72 (Crawford); CR 2013/11, p. 25, par. 44 (Gleeson).
47 Voir aussi le tableau retraçant le vote des résolutions à l'onglet n° 57 du dossier des juges de l'Australie.
48
Voir CR 2013/8, p. 41, par. 53 ; p. 50, par. 79 (Crawford); CR 2013/11, p. 27, par. 8 (Gleeson).
49
Voir ibid. ; CR 2013/8, p. 41, par. 53 ; p. 50, par. 79 (Crawford) ; CR 2013/11, p. 27, par. 8 (Gieeson).
50
Voir le tableau statistique inclus dans la «Circular Communication to Commissioners and Contracting
Govemmcnts». 5janvicr 1987, RGNJH/16365 (anncl<e3 à la réponse du Japon sur les observations écrites de la
Nouvelle-Zélande, 31 mai 2013). - 70-
51
moratoire - de difficultésparticulières, comme d'ailleurs la Nouvelle-Zélande le remarque , ce
n'est pas parce qu'elles étaientfondamentalement différentesde ce qu'elles sont aujourd'hui, mais
parce que la composition de la commission étaitdifférenteet que certains des Etats ayant eu une
industrie baleinière, comme l'Etat demandeur et l'Etat intervenant, ne s'étaient pas encore
convertis à la nouvelle religion de la préservation desbaleines «en soi».
65. L'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande brocardent l'augmentation du nombre de baleines
53
tuées au titre de permis spéciaux que le Japon a octroyés après l'adoption du moratoire • Ce
persiflage n'est pas de mise. Certes, après l'entrée en vigueur du moratoire, durant la
saison 1987-1988, le Japon a dû développerdes programmes plus ambitieux en termes de prises,
pour pallier l'absence des informations que l'on pouvait tirer auparavant des prises commerciales.
Mais, loin d'êtrela preuve d'un quelconque abus des droits reconnus par l'article VIII, cela
corrobore au contraire qu'il y avait là un impératif lié à la recherche scientifique : il a fallu
compenser la perte des donnéesque procurait la chasse commerciale 54•
66. Au demeurant, le Japon n'est pas le seul Etat à avoir émis des permis scientifiques
après 1986: la Républiquede Corée,l'Islande et la Norvège ont fait de même 55• Assurément,ces
pays ont autoriséla prise de moins de baleines que le Japon; mais, il faut garder à l'esprit que les
deux derniers de ces pays, l'Islande et la Norvège, disposent toujours d'informations scientifiques
,u.
obtenues dans le cadre de la chasse commerciale : la Norvège/eémisune objection au moratoire, et
M. Wall121a e rappelé dans quelles conditions elle l'a maintenue, et l'Islande qui, après avoir
dénoncéla convention suite à son adoption, est redevenue partie, mais en formulant une réserveà
ce mêmemoratoire.
51OEN, par. 93.
52
OEN. par. 78.
5
JVoir MA, p. 34-35, par. 2.66-2.67.
54 Voir les statistiques de permis scientifiques pour la période 1987-2011 sur le site de la CBI, à l'adresse:
http://iwc.int/tablc permit.
55 Voir les statistiques de permis scientifiques pour la période 1987-2012 sur le site de la CBI, à l'adresse:
http://iwc.int/tablc permit. - 71 -
3. Les tentatives infructueuses de revision de l'article VIII
67. Monsieur le président, il existe une preuve décisive de l'inexistence de toute pratique
modificatrice et, au-delà, de la fausseté de l'interprétation de l'article VIII qu'invoque l'Australie :
à plusieurs reprises en effet, les Etats opposésà toute forme de chasse à la baleine ont fait savoir
56
qu'ils souhaitent modifier l'article VIII ou le supprimer de la convention •
68. L'Australie est l'un des, sinon le, chef(s) de file de ce courant et n'a pas cachéque la
suppression de l'article VIII est l'axe majeur de sa politique relative à la CBI. Je n'en donne qu'un
exemple- il date de 2010 :
«Australia has been clear that we consider any new approach must include an
agreement to bring an immediate end to this form of whaling and must put in place a
mechanism and timetable to address the reform of Article VIII of the ICRW to
permanently end this practice.» 57
69. L'Australie n'en a pas moins conscience qu'une modification du texte de la convention,
n'a aucune chance d'aboutir, dans l'état actuel des choses et je vais citer une autre brochure
australienne en français, ce qui marque l'importance que l'Australie devait lui accorder parce qu'on
ne peut pas dire que les documents australiens soient trèsfréquemment traduits en français :
« Une majoritédes membres actuels de la Commission baleinière internationale
s'oppose à l'utilisation de l'article VIII sous forme de «chasse à la baleine
scientifique» à l'échelle commerciale et la plupart de ces membres ne soutiendraient
pas une reprise immédiate de toute forme de chasse commerciale. Toutefois, cette
majorité ne se traduit pas nécessairement par une capacité à modifier l'article VIII de
la convention. Modifier la convention requiert la convocation d'une conférence
diplomatique, et l'accord de toutes les parties [à] tous les changements afin de les
rendre efficaces. Il est peu probable que cela se produise dans le moyen à court
58
terme.»
56 1
Voir notamment Chair's Report of the 58 h Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2006, p. 23 (CMJ, annexe 65) ; voir aussi Royaume-Uni (Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, The International Whaling Commission : the way forward, 208, disponible en ligne :
htto://archive.defra.gov.uk!wildlife-pet s/wildlife/protect/whales/documents/iwc-wayforward.ppar. 23. Voir aussi la
position de la Nouvelle-Zélande, The Conservation of Whales in the 21st Century , disponible en ligne :
http://doc.org.nz/documents/conservat ion/native-anis/marine-mammals/conservation-whales-c2l .pdf, p. 21.
57
Gouvernement d'Australie, The Future of the International Whaling Commission: An Australian Proposa/,
2 mars 2010, doc. lWC/MlO/SWG 5, disponible en ligne:
http://archive.iwcoffice.org/ documents/commission/future/IWC-M 10-SWGS.pdf. Voir aussi Gouvernement
d'Australie,Conservation et gestion des baleines. Un avenir pour la CBI, doc. 1WC/M08/INFO 11-FR, p. 7, document
présenté à la reumon intersessions de la Clll en 2008, également disponible en ligne:
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/iwc-future-paper.
pdf.Voir aussi Chair's Report of the 61 51
Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2009, p. 8 (CMJ, annexe 68).
58 Gouvernement d'Australie, Conservation et gestion des baleines. Un avenir pour la CBJ, doc. 1WC/M08/INFO
11-FR, p. 12, document présenté à la réunion intersessions de la CBI en 2008, disponible en ligne:
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publicat ions/pubs/iwc-future-paper.pdf. (les italiques sont de nous). - 72-
Les deux documents que je viens de citer sont reproduits respectivement sous les onglets n° 415
et 42 de vos dossiers.
70. Faute d'amendement, l'Australie a lancédes appels à un changement volontaire dans la
pratique des permis spéciaux. Ainsi, elle a proposé qu'à l'avenir (et c'est bien d'un changement
futur par rapport au droit et à la pratique existants qu'il s'agit-~t:tl ''àaJ, «'ioAvÏr~ments
shou/d commit to activities only when authorised by the Commission>> 5 • Ce faisant, l'Australie
reconnaît que ce qu'elle plaide devant vous est souhaitable sans doute à ses yeux, mais que cela ne
correspond pas au droit en vigueur. L'interprétationqu'elle donne de l'article VIII répondà ses
vŒux- c'est ce qu'on appelle du wishful thinking; mais la réalité,mêmejuridique, est têtue.
71. Sans avoir le temps d'y insister, j'indique au passage que la Nouvelle-Zélande avait
également produit, en 2005, un document de discussion en vue de l'adoption d'un protocole
modifiant plusieurs dispositions de la convention, à commencer par l'article VIII60• Ce document
spécifiaitqu'une telle modification ne pouvait êtreenvisagée que par le biais d'un instrument
obligatoire, ayant la mêmevaleur que la convention elle-même,donc par un protocole. On ne
saurait, Monsieur le président, envisager plaidoyer (a contrario) plus convaincant en faveur de
l'interprétationque fait le Japon de l'article VIII, tel qu'il continue de figurer dans la convention.
72. Certains Etats membres de la CBI ne se sont d'ailleurs pas fait faute de rappeler la
nécessitéd'un amendement formel lorsqu'ils ont exprimé leur désaccord avec le contenu des
résolutions contraires à l'article VIII, ainsiqu'à toute tentative directe ou indirecte visant à
soumettre les permis scientifiques à un régimede contrôle par la CBI 6• Ces désaccords,exprimés
par des Etats particulièrement intéresséstant à cette pratique prétenduequ'à l'opiniojuris alléguée,
59 51
Chair's Report of the 61 Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2009,
p. Il (les italiques sont de nous) (CMJ, annexe 68) ; voir aussi Govemment of Australia, «Addressing Special Permit
Whaling and the Future of the !WC», IWC/6119 (2009) (CMJ, annexe 178).
60
Voir Cover page for protocol, vi, 24 mars 2005 (annexe 4 aux observations du Japon sur l'intervention de la
Nouvelle-Zélande).
60
Nouvelle-Zélande, Discussion Document, Protocol Amending the International Convention for the Regulation
ofWhaling, 24 mars 2005 (annexe 5 aux observations du Japon sur l'intervention de la Nouvelle-Zélande).
61Voir Chair's Report of the 61" Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2009,
p.Il. - 73 -
empêchent la formation de tout accord ultérieur sur une interprétation contra scriptum de
73. Aussi longtemps que les Etats membres de la CBI, partagésen deux camps antagonistes,
ne parviendront pas à un accord pour modifier la convention, les résolutions invoquées par
l'Australie resteront l'expression de la position des Etats ayant, pour l'instant, la majoritéà la CBI ;
mais cette position est sans influence sur l'interprétationdes dispositions conventionnelles. Cette
expression est, d'une certaine manière, unilatérale, puisqu'elle ne reflète que les intérêts
homogènes-ou hégémoniques?- de ce «camp». C'est une demande, une réclamation de la
majorité,mais non~ l'expression du droit positif. Et ce n'est pas parce que les Etats opposésàla
chasse à la baleine ont, pour l'instant, acquis la majorité dans l'organe conventionnel que la
convention est devenue «leur chose» et que vous pouvez, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour,
retenir l'interprétationque deux d'entre eux (non sans quelques nuances d'ailleurs) tentent de vous
faire endosser.
Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je vous suis très reconnaissant d'avoir écoutéavec
attention cette longue plaidoirie\ IJiaisil 8WiitftBttt êtFeBflJlBFfttrt tjttseiteettf!ée ert Elet1,qui
a portésur un problème que nous tenons pour central dans notre affaire. Mon successeur à cette
barre sera le professeur Lowe, mais je suppose que vous préférerezne lui donner la parole que
demain matin mêmes'il est à votre disposition.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci beaucoup Monsieur le professeur. Certainement je donnerai la
parole au professeur Lowe demain matin à 10 heures. Before closing this aftemoon's session, 1
will give the floor to Judge Bhandari, with a question for Japan. Judge Bhandari, you have the
floor.
62Voir Pêcheries(Royaume-Uni c. Norvège), arrêt,C.!.J. Recueilp.131 ou Plateau continental de la mer
du Nord (République fédérale d'Allemagne/Danemark) (République fédérale d'Allemagne/Pays-Bas), arrêt,
C./.J. Recueil 1969, p. 43, par. 74; voir aussi Ile de Kasikili/Sedudu (Botswana/Nt, C.J.J. Recueil 1999 (//),
p. 1087, par. 63. - 74-
Judge BHANDARI: Thank you, Mr. President. 1have two questions for Japan.
"Paragraph 5.108, page 244, of Australia's Memorial indicates that the
Director-General of the Japan Fisheries Agency stated that '[t]he implementation of
scientific whaling was viewed as the only method available ta carry on with the
traditions of whaling'. 1would like ta request your comments on this statement, in the
context of the good faith doctrine."
My additional question for Japan is:
"Before launching JARPA Il, did Japan establish that it is carrying out lethal
scientific research on such a large scale because it is critical and there is no other
available method?"
Thankyou.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Judge Bhandari. The written text of these questions will be
sent ta the Parties as saon as possible. Japan is invited ta answer questions orally, preferably
tomorrow during the first round of oral argument. Australia is free during its second round of oral
argument ta comment on the reply of Japan. The Court will meet tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. ta
hear the continuation of Japan's first round of oral argument. Thank you, the Court is adjourned.
The Court rose at 5.55 p.m.
Audience publique tenue le mercredi 3 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))