Corrigé
Corrected
CR 2013118
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
LAHAYE THE HAGUE
YEAR2013
Public sitting
held on Tuesday 9 July 2013, at 4.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Tomka presiding,
in the case concerningWhaling in the Antarctic (Australiv.Japan:
New Zealand intervening)
VERBATIM RECORD
ANNÉE2013
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 9juillet 2013,6/z 30, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidencede. Tomka, président,
en l'affaire relatàvlaChasse à la baleine dans l'Antarctique
(Australiec. Japon; Nouvelle-Zélande (intervenant))
COMPTE RENDU -2-
Present: President Tomka
Vice-President Sepulveda-Amor
Judges Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Judge ad hoc Charlesworth
Registrar Couvreur - 3 -
Présents: M. Tomka, président
M. Sepùlveda-Amor, vice-président
MM. Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Mmes Xue
Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
M. Bhandari,juges
Mme Charlesworth, juge ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier -4-
Tite Govemment of Austmlitt is representetl 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, Counse/ and Advocate;
H.E. Mr. Neil Mules, A.O., Ambassador of Australia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. Justin Gleeson, S.C., Solicitor-General of Australia,
Mr. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London,
Mr. Henry Burmester, A.O., Q.C., Special Counsel, Australian Government Solicitor,
Mr. Philippe Sands, Q.C., Professor of Law, University College London, Barrister, Matrix
Chambers, London,
Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Professor oflnternational Law at the University ofGeneva,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Ms Kate Cook, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London,
Dr. Makane Mbengue, Associate Professor, University ofGeneva,
as Counsel;
Ms Anne Sheehan, Acting Assistant-Secretary, Attorney-General's Department,
Mr. Michael Johnson, Principal Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Danielle Forrester, Principal Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Stephanie lerino, Acting Principal Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Clare Gregory, Senior Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Nicole Lyas, Acting Senior Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Ms Erin Maher, Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
Mr. Richard Rowe, Senior Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Dr. Greg French, Assistant Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, - 5-
Le Gouvememeut tle l'Australie est représeutépar:
L'honorable Mark Dreyfus, Q.C., M.P., Allorney-General d'Australie,
comme conseil et avocat ;
M. Bill Campbell Q.C., General Counsel (droit international), services de l'Attorney-General
d'Australie,
comme agent, conseil et avocat ;
S. Exc. M. Neil Mules, A.O., ambassadeur d'Australie auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M. Justin Gleeson, S.C., Solicitor-General d'Australie,
M. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., professeur de droit international à l'Université de
Cambridge, titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l'Institut de droit international, avocat,
Matrix Chambers (Londres),
M. Henry Burmester, A.O., Q.C., Special 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-General,
Mme Clare Gregory, juriste hors classe, services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Nicole Lyas, juriste hors classe par intérim,services de l'Attorney-General,
Mme Erin Maher, juriste, services de 1'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 Otricer, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Ms Donna Petrachenko, First Assistant Secretary, Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities,
Mr. Peter Komidar, Director, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities,
Dr. Bill de la Mare, Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division, Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities,
Dr. David Blumenthal, Senior Adviser, Office of the Attorney-General,
Ms. Giulia Baggio, First Secretary, Senior Adviser, Office of the Attorney-General,
Mr. Todd Quinn, First Secretary, Embassy of Australia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Advisers;
Ms Mandy Williams, Administration Officer, Attorney-General's Department,
as Assistant.
Tlle Government of Japan is representetl by:
Mr. Koji Tsuruoka, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Yasumasa Nagamine, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the
Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,President of the
Société française pour le droit international, associate member of the Institut de droit
international,
Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., member of the English Bar, Emeritus Professor of International Law,
Oxford University, associate member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Alan Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Edinburgh, member of the
English Bar,
Mr. Yuji Iwasawa, Professor of International Law at the University of Tokyo, member and former
Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee,
Mr. Payam Akhavan, LL.M., S.J.D. (Harvard), Professor of International Law, McGill University,
member of the Bar ofNew York and the Law Society of Upper Canada,
Mr. Shotaro Hamamoto, Professor of International Law, Kyoto University,
Ms Yukiko Takashiba, Deputy Director, ICJ Whaling Case Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as 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-General,
M. Todd Quinn, premier secrétaire, ambassade d'Australie au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers ;
Mme Mandy Williams, administrateur, services de l'Attorney-Genera/,
co11uneassistant.
Le Gouvernement tlu 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
internationalà l'Universitéd'Oxford, membre associéde l'Institut de droit international,
M. Alan Boyle, professeur de droit international à l'Université d'Edimbourg, membre du barreau
d'Angleterre,
M. Yuji Iwasawa, professeur de droit international à l'Université de Tokyo, membre et ancien
présidentdu Comitédes droits de l'homme,
M. Payam Akhavan, LL.M., S.J.D (Harvard), professeur de droit international à l'Université
McGill, membre du barreau de New York et du barreau du Haut-Canada,
M. Shotaro Hamamoto, professeur de droit international à l'Universitéde Kyoto,
Mme Yukiko Takashiba, directeur adjoint à la division chargéede l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine
devant la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme conseils et avocats; - 8 -
Mr. Takane Sugihara, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Kyoto University,
Ms Atsuko Kanehara, Professor of International Law, Sophia University (Tokyo),
Mr. Masafumi lshii, Director-General, International Legal Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,
Ms Alina Miron, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University of
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
as Counse/;
Mr. Kenji Kagawa, Director-General, Resources Enhancement Promotion Department, Fisheries
Agency,
Mr. Noriyuki Shikata, Minister, Embassy of Japan in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland,
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 Kata, 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'Universitéde Kyoto,
Mme Atsuko Kanehara, professeur de droit international à l'UniversitéSophia (Tokyo),
M. Masafumi lshii, directeur généraldu bureau des affaires juridiques internationales, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
Mme Alina Miron, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université Paris
Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
co1mneconseils;
M. Kenji Kagawa, directeur général du département de la promotion de la valorisation des
ressources, agence des pêcheries,
M. Noriyuki Shikata, ministre à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et
d'Irlande du Nord,
M. Kenichi Kobayashi, directeur à la division des affaires juridiques internationales, ministère des
affaires étrangères,
M. Joji Morishita, directeur généralde l'Institut national de recherche sur les pêcheriesen eaux
lointaines,
M. Akima Umezawa, Ph.D., directeur à la division des pêcheries,ministère des affaires étrangères,
Mme Yoko Yanagisawa, directeur à la division chargéede l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant
la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Naohisa Shibuya, directeur adjoint à la division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine
devant la CIJ, ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Ken Sakaguchi, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
Mme Akiko Muramoto, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ,
ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Masahiro Kato, division chargée de l'affaire de la chasse à la baleine devant la CIJ, ministère
des affaires étrangères,
M. Takaaki Sakamoto, sous-directeur à la division des affaires internationales, agence des
pêcheries,
M. Shigeki Takaya, sous-directeur à la division de l'amélioration de la gestion des pêcheries,
agence des pêcheries,
M. Toshinori Uoya, sous-directeur à la division de la gestion des pêcheries,agence des pêcheries,
M. Shinji Hiruma, sous-directeur à la division de la gestion internationale, agence des pêcheries,
M. Sadaharu Kodama, conseiller juridique à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
M. Nobuyuki Murai, LL.D., premier secrétaire de l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des
Pays-Bas, - 10-
Ms Risa Saijo, LL.M., Researcher, Embassy of Japan in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Ms HéloïseBajer-Pellet, member of the Paris Bar,
as Advisers:
Mr. Douglas Butterworth, Emeritus Professor, University of Cape Town,
Ms Judith E. Zeh, Ph.D., Researcher Professor Emeritus, University of Washington,
Mr. Dan Goodman, National Research lnstitute of Far Seas Fisheries,
Mr. Luis Alberto Pastene Perez, Ph.D., Director, Survey and Research Division, lnstitute of
Cetacean Research,
as Scientific Advisers and Experts;
Mr. Martin Pratt, Professor, Department ofGeography, Durham University,
as Expert 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 Governme11tof NewZealanc/is represe11ted by:
The Honourable Christopher Finlayson Q.C., M.P., Attorney-General ofNew Zealand,
as Counsel and Advocate;
Dr. Penelope Ridings, International Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
as Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
H.E. Mr. George Troup, Ambassador of New Zealand to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Ms Cheryl Gwyn, Deputy Solicitor-General, Crown Law Office,
Ms Elana Geddis, Barrister, Harbour Chambers, Wellington,
as Counsel;
Mr. Andrew Williams, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, - Il -
Mme Risa Saijo, LL.M., chercheur à l'ambassade du Japon au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme HéloïseBajer-Pellet, membre du barreau de Paris,
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,
co1mneconseillers et experts scientifiques ;
M. Martin Pratt, professeur au département de géographiede l'Universitéde Durham,
co1mneconseiller 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 conseillers juridiques.
Le Gouvemement ciela Nouvelle-Zélancle est représentépar :
L'honorable Christopher Finlayson, Q.C., M.P., Attorney-General de Nouvelle-Zélande,
co1mneconseil 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 auprèsdu Royaume des Pays-Bas,
co1mnecoagent ;
Mme Cheryl Gwyn, Solicitor-General adjoint, Crown Law Office,
Mme Elana Geddis, avocat, Harbour Chambers (Wellington),
comme conseils ;
M. Andrew Williams, conseiller juridique, ministère des affaires étrangèreset du commerce, - 12-
Mr. James Christmas, Private Secretary, Attorney-General's Office,
Mr. James Walker, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of New Zealand in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Mr. Paul Yinkenvleugel, Policy Adviser, Embassy of New Zealand m the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Advisers. - 13-
M. James Christmas, chef de cabinet, services de I'AIIorney-Genera/,
M. James Walker, chef de mission adjoint, ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
M. Paul Vinkenvleugel, conseiller politique, ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers. - 14-
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Good afternoon. This sittingis open. The Court
meets this afternoonto hear Australia begin the presentation of its second round of oral argument.
Thus 1shall now give the floor to the Honourable Marc Dreyfus, Attorney-General of Australia.
You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. DREYFUS :
AUSTRALIA'S CASE IN REPLY
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a great honour to represent Australia before
you, and to present mycountry's opening speech in this second round of oral argument.
2. First, let me say that 1 would very much have liked to have been here for the first round
presentation by Australia.Unfortunately it coincided with the last sitting week the Australian
Parliament. Thus my enforced absence from the first round. lt will not have escaped the notice
the Court that Australia also had a change of leadership in that same week, with the
Honourable Kevin Rudd returning as Prime Minister. lt was during his previous tenure that
Australia commenced this case, and it goes without saying that the Government he now leads
remains fully behind Australia's case.
3. The case is of great importance to the Australian people and the Australian Government.
ln my role as first law officer Australia 1can personally attest to the importance placed by the
Australian Government on upholding the rule of law at the international level and the positive
~\~ \.:-
effect that has on international relationsCompliance with international ~~~R ls central to
upholding the rule of law. lt is in that spirit that Australia has brought this case. This case is
founded on maintaining the integrity of the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling. A judgment of the Court broadly consistent with the orders sought by Australia is
essential to ensuring the sound functioning of the organs of the Convention , namely the
International Whaling Commission and its Scientific Committee .
4. Mr. President, Members of the Court, our legal dispute with Japan is a disagreement
between friends. As noted by the Australian Agent Mr. Campbell at the commencement of the
case, the decisionf the Court will mark a step forward in what is a close bilateral relationship. - 15-
5. That said, Australia and Japan have made their arguments in a forthright way during the
last two weeks. The arguments made by Australia have been based on sound legal reasoning with
supporting evidence submitted to the Court. Counsel for Japan, by contrast, have made many
baseless allegations of no relevance to the dispute before the Court. ln what 1can only assume is
an attempt to deflect attention away from the true nature of the unlawful JARPA Il program,
Professor Akhavan asserted that this case "is about an emotional anti-whaling moral crusade that in
the name of 'zero tolerance', tolerates Sea Shepherd's violent extremism, the politicization of
science, [and] the collapse of the IWC" 1• As weil as being a statement completely devoid of legal
argument, this is untrue and offensive to Australia. That this was the character of the Japanese
response to Australia's legal argument speaks volumes for the weakness of the Japanese case.
1wish to set the record straight on a number ofthese matters.
6. First, it is wholly untrue, and ridiculous, to suggest that Australia has "outsourced
Antarctic maritime enforcement to Sea Shepherd" 2• The fact of the matter is that Australia has
called for ali vessels in the Southern Ocean, including those of Japan and Sea Shepherd, to comply
3
with international law in their actions • The fact that Sea Shepherd vessels visit Australian ports or
may be registered in Australia is not indicative of Australian Government support. lt simply
reflects the rights available under Australian domestic law to any person or organization. As stated
by Professor Crawford, Australia fully complies with its international obligations arising out of
4
events in the Southern Ocean, including search and rescue • Australia does take seriously respect
for international law, which is why we have brought our dispute with Japan for determination by
this Court.
CR 2013/12, p. 63, para. 82 (Akhavan).
2CR 2013/12, p. 61, para. 77 (Akhavan).
3Joint Statement on Whaling and Sali:t) at Sca, "Govcmmcnt s of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and
the United States cali lor responsible behaviour at sea during the 2012/2013 Southem Ocean whaling season·•
21 Dec. 2012 (http://www.dlàt.go v.aulmedialreleasc s/department/20 12/dfat-rclease-20121221.html). Joint Statement on
Whaling and Sali:ty at Sea, "Govemments or Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States cali lor
responsiblc bchaviour at sca during the 2011/2012 Southem Ocean whaling season" 14 Dcc. 2011
(http://roreignministcr .gov.au/rclcascs/2011/kr mr 111214.html) Joint Statement on Whaling and Sali:ty at Sca,
"Govcmments or Australia, the Ncthcrlands, New Zealand and the United States cali lor rcsponsiblc
behaviour at sca during the 2010/2011 Southern Ocean whaling season" Il Dcc. 2010
(http://lorcignministcr.gov. au/rclcases/20 10/kr mr 101211a.html).
4
CR 2013/11, p. 20, para. 67 (Crawford). - 16-
7. 1would also like to address squarely Japan's accusation that Australia brings this case in
the spirit of cultural imperialism. That is simply not true. Professor Akhavan has told you "that the
days of civilizing missions and moral crusades a•e over"
~ ...
8. This case is not about civilizing missiowhether~ GAouenmtenr arltian
Australian public like or dislike the consumption of whale meat. Nor is this case about Australia's
strongly-held policy position of opposing commercial whaThis case is about the failure of
one country to comply with its international legal obligations not to conduct commercial whaling,
an obligation which that country accepted voluntarily but then immediately began to subvert.
Specifically, this case is about Japan's failure to abide by its clear obligations under the Convention
not to conduct any form of commercial whaling and, 1will repeat again, the unlawful misuse of the
scientific exception under Article VIII Convention as a means of continuing its commercial
whaling activities. Australia will not be dissuaded from pursuing what it regards as a clear breach
of international law by unfounded and untrue statements that it is seeking to impose Australian
culture on Japan.
9. Japan's allegations also extend to asserting that Australia colluded with New Zealand in
6
the bringing of this caseWhite Australia and New Zealand are both located in the southern
hemisphere and have a similar interesttopping Japan's illegal whaling in the Southern Ocean,
New Zealand has made a decision to exercise its legal right as a sovereign nation, and as a
Contracting Government to the Convention, to intervene in this case and give its views on the
interpretation ofthe Convention. The observations ofNew Zealand are not identical to Australia's
but they do complement Australia's position and lead to the same cothat Article VIII is
not self-judging and that it is a matter for this Court to determine objectively whether JARPA II is a
program for the purpose of scientific research pursuant to ArticlThis was confirmed
yesterday in New Zealand's oral observations on its intervention. Intervening in this case in order
to put its views before the Court was a proper process for New Zealand to follow.
1O.In stark contrast to this approach, Japan on no Jess than six occasions has quoted from a
statement expressing the view of a State that has chosen not to intervene in these proceedings and
5CR 2013/12, p. 63, para. 84 (Akhavan).
(>WrittcnObservations ofJapan on the Declaration oflntervcntion ofNcw Zcaland (WOJ), para. 9, 21 Dcc. 2012. - 17 -
7
thus be bound by the Court's interpretation of Article V111 • That statement, so convenient for
Japan as it is in bath timing and content, has no legal significance whatsoever. lt is a self-serving
statement issued the week before oral arguments in the case began, by a State which shares a close
policy position with that of Japan in relation to whaling.
Il . Before moving to the substance- which 1will do next- 1need to address one matter
which has no substance at ali. That is what might seem at first glanee to be an extensive and
unfounded derogatory attack upon Australia by Professor Pellet in Japan's closing speech last
Thursday. ln reality it is an attack on the integrity of any country or persan who opposes Japan 's
unlawful whaling practices. An example is the innumerable references to the alleged persecution
of the minority by the majority of nations in the forum of the International Whaling Commission •
The fact of the matter is that ali votes on key matters have been in accordance with the democratie
processes of the Convention. The positions taken on those votes have been those of sovereign
governments. Yet Professor Pellet portrays those countries voting against Japan 's preferred
position, as puppets of Australia. He does not identify those countries, nor does he provide any
evidence to support his unfounded allegations imputing bad faith on their part. Let me give an
example of the countries Professor Pellet puts into this category. The draft Resolution introduced
by Australia on JARPA Il at the 57th Annual meeting of the Commission in 2005 was
co-sponsored by: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, lreland, ltaly, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Mexico, Monaco,
Portugal, San Marino, the Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United
Kingdom and the United States of America. Does Japan really believe that ali those countries were
puppets of Australia acting in bad faith? Having personally interacted with many of those
countries on important matters, including climate change, 1do not think so.
12. Professor Pellet also unjustly impugns the integrity of scientists opposmg Japan 's
program in a similar manner. As described in the evidence of Dr. Gales, many scientists are
CR 2013112, p. 18, para. 19 (Tsuroka); CR 2013/13, pp. 62-63, para. 7 (PelletCR 2013/14, pp. 62-63,
para. 44(Pellet); CR 2013/15, p. 31, para. 13 (Takashiba); CR 2013/15 p. 35, para. 25 (Takashiba): CR 2013/16. p. 53,
para.41 (Pellet).
CMJ. para. 8.101; CR 2013/11, p. 28, para. 12(Giceson); CR 201311255,para. 57 (Akhavan); CR 2013/16,
p. 61, para. 58 (Pellet). - 18-
successfully exploring non-lethal techniques which, in contrast to JARPA Il, have been applauded
9
by the Scientific Committee • The Court saw a photograph on the screen last week of Australian
expert Dr. Gales attaching a satellite tag to a minke whale. This activity, which took place in the
Southern Ocean earlier this year, formed part of the broader Southern Ocean Research Partnership.
This is a regional whale research partnership which uses modern, non-lethal, scientific methods to
provide the information necessary to conserve and manage whales. Australia was also a key
participant in the Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research program, another non-lethal
program overseen by the Scientific Committee involving sighting surveys which was an important
source for current estimation of Antarctic baleen whale numbers.
13. Of course, Professor Pellet has adopted the old tactic that the best form of defence is
offence- in both senses of the meaning of that word. The tone, content and extent of these
attacks on the integrity ofthose opposed to JARPA Il and similar programs is a transparent attempt
to mask the lack of legal and scientific substance in Japan 's own case.
14. 1 will now move to the substance of Australia's arguments in the second round and
identify the key points of Australia's case.
15. First, there is no doubt that the Court has jurisdiction in this case. Neither the words nor
the intent of the reservation contained in paragraph (b) of Australia's Declaration made under
Article 36 (2) of the Statute of the Court can be interpreted in the way asserted by Japan. As
Australia demonstrated in its first round, and will show again, the reservation only operates in
relation to disputes between Australia and another country with a maritime claim that overlaps with
that of Australia- that is, a situation of delimitation. Australia has no delimitation with Japan and
hence the paragraph (b) reservation can have no operation.
16. Secondly, the letter and spirit of the Preamble of the Convention, as weil as the practice
of the IWC and the evolution of general international law confirm that the object and purpose of
the Convention is conservation and recovery of whale stocks. Australia accepts that the orderly
development of the whaling industry is referred to in the Preamble of the Convention. But
""Report of the Sub-Committcc on ln-dcpth Assessments", Anncx G to "Report of the Scicntilic Committcc
Annual Meeting 2013", p. 5 (availablc at: http://iwc.int/scrcport) . Sec also, Report of the Scientilic Committcc (2009)
J. C'etaceanRes. Manage Il (Suppl. 2), 2010, pp. 81-82; Report of the Scicntilic Committcc (2010) J. Cetacean Res.
Manage 12 (Suppl.), 20Il , pp. 58-5"Report of the Scicntilic Committcc" (2012), J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 1-1
(Suppl.), 2013, p. 67 (availablc at: http://iwc.int/scicntifc-committcc-rcport s). - 19-
conservation is an end in itself within the régime of the Convention, and not merely a means to
promote orderly development of the whaling industry. The conservation and recovery of whales is
a common interest of "ali the nations of the world", to use the words of the Preamble to the
Convention. The nations which are parties to the Convention have a particular interest in ensuring
its integrity, implementation and effectiveness. The strengthening of the conservation objective of
the Convention is also evidenced by the continuing shift in the IWC's focus to non-consumptive
10
uses ofwhales, such as whale-watching as noted in Australia's Memorial • ln a display of Japan's
usual unco-operative approach within the IWC, Japan issues an annual statement at each IWC
11
meeting refusing to participate in discussions on whale-watching •
17. Thirdly, the JARPA Il program is not being conducted "for purposes of scientific
research" as required by Article VIII of the Convention. This has become particularly clear in the
light of the expert evidence received by the Court- and no more so than in the thoroughly
pre-emptive manner of the transition from JARPA to JARPA Il that evidenced a number of fatal
tlaws in Japan's argument. This commencement of JARPA Il before completion of the review of
JARPA smacks of avoidance of proper scrutiny. Yet Japan has the temerity to criticize the
reputation of 63 scientists whose proper regard to the ethics of science precluded their participation
in such a tlawed process. Japan also has the temerity to rely upon the outcomes of that tlawed
process. There has been simply no justification that it was scientifically necessary for Japan to
embark upon phase Il of their program, in lieu of making use of the data already obtained from the
18years of the original JARPA program, itself tlawed as Japan's own expert accepted 12; nor is
there any credible justification in that transition for adding in JARPA Il two extra species- that is,
fin and humpback whales- to the original JARPA catch of minke whales. Any purported
rationale for the humpback and fin element of the program evaporated following the evidence of
Japan's own expert, Professor Lars Wall0e. No scientific justification was given for the doubling
of the take of minke whales. Similarly, on the subject of Japan 's tlawed sample sizes, the variance
between the take authorized by the permit and the actual take has no scientific justification. ln
10
MA, para. 2.97.
1"Statements on the Agenda", Ann. S to "Report of the Scientitic Committee Annual Meeting 2013", p. 1
(availablc at http://iwc.int/screport).
1CR 2013/14, pp. 48-49 (Walloe). -20-
answer to a question from this Court Japan has admitted that it has not considered, in the context of
JARPA Il, whether non-lethal methods were available in order to take this into account in setting
sample sizes 1• Finally, Japan's purported plan for a grand ecosystem model is an illusion and
bears no relation to what Japan is actually doing.
18. Japan has failed to dent in any way the credibility of the standard criteria identified by
Professor Mangel, which are retlected both in general scientific practice and in the Guidelines for
review of special permits adopted by the IWC Scientific Committee. Japan has been unable to
produce any altemative criteria in which to cloak JARPA Il with even a vestige of scientific
credibility. The equation referred to by Professor Boyle, which he acknowledged he did not
understand, was an effort to resolve one of the most hotly contested issues in this case, the
credibility of the basis for choosing to kill up to 935 minke whales rather than 300, eight, or none 1•
Japan's misrepresentations before this Court asto the extent ofendorsement of the program by the
IWC Scientific Committee will also bear further discussion in this second round.
19. Japan spent a great deal of time last week attributing to Australia propositions or
arguments which Australia did not make and then refuting those arguments. To take just two
examples of this straw man argumentation, Australia has never suggested that this Court should
substitute itself for the Scientific Committee, or that the Convention is one for the elimination of
whaling.
20. This brings me to my fourth point- the question of the correct interpretation of
Article VIII. Japan in effect says that it can do what it likes under Article VIII, provided it has not
been shown to be acting in bad faith. But the core question is one of treaty interpretation, under
well-established principles of international law. Australia rejects Japan 's minimalist interpretation
of the substantive provisions of the Convention other than Article VIII, and rejects Japan's
exaggeration of the scope and purpose of Article VIII. More generally, Japan's interpretation
contlicts with basic principles of treaty interpretation, in particular the principle of effectiveness.
Japan reduces what was intended to be a substantial discipline that should be respected in the grant
11
CR 2013/15, p. 69,paras.94-97 (Hoyle).
1/bid.,p.63,para.69 (Boyle). - 21-
of special permits under Article VIII to a rubber stamp designed to authorize continued commercial
whaling.
21. The fifth key point is the application of Article VIII, and what Australia says is the
proper standard of review to the facts of this case. Consistently with what 1 have just said,
Australia does not ask this Court to determine Japanese policy with regard to ali whaling for the
future. lt simply asks you to hold that Japan's continuing program of special permit whaling is
commercial, and not for scientific purposes within the meaning of Article VIII. lt is commercial
whaling pure and simple.
22. The sixth key argument of Australia in this second round is that of good faith and abuse
of right. Japan has failed to act in good faith in the issuing of permit after permit, year after year,
without giving any attention to details such as how many whales should be caught or turning its
mind to resolutions which have been adopted by the IWC itself. Also, notwithstanding its
statement to the contrary 1,Japan has failed to comply with its obligation under paragraph 30 of the
Schedule to provide the IWC with proposed special permits before they are issued. Furthermore,
the evidence presented to the Court demonstrates unequivocally that the purposes for which Japan
is granting permits allegedly pursuant to Article VIII are inconsistent with those for which the
provision was intended and amount to an abuse of right.
23. These six key points to be explained in more detail by Australia's counsel in the course
of this second round will establish, without a doubt, Japan's failure to abide by international law in
the conduct of its whaling program in the Southern Ocean.
24. 1thank the Court for its attention and would ask you, Mr. President, to give the tloor to
Mr. Burmester who will deal with thejurisdiction ofthe Court.
The PRESIDENT: 1thank the Attorney-General of Australia for his opening speech in the
second round of oral argument of Australia and 1 pass the tloor to Mr. Burmester. You have the
tloor, Sir.
15
CR 2013/15, p.15,para.9 (Takashiba). - 22-
Mr. BURMESTER: Thank you.
JURISDICTION
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in this presentation 1will respond to the arguments
made by Japan orally on jurisdiction . The Japanese argument is now much clearer than it was in
the Counter-Memorial and simpler- but it is still wrong. The dispute before this Court, as is now
very evident, is ali about the proper interpretation and application of the 1946 Convention. Japan
fails to show how this dispute fits within the tenns of Australia's reservation on which they seek to
rely. ln particular, thisis not a dispute about overlapping claims to sovereign rights. Yet this is the
common component that is required under either limb of the reservation. That is so, whether the
dispute manifests itself in an argument about where to draw a line- the first limb- or as an
argument over exploitation of resources in the area of overlapping daims- the second limb. That
alone is what Australia's reservation is about.
2. Japan purports to divide the reservation into two separate and unrelated parts. ln their
view, the first part covers disputes in relation to delimitation itself. The second part, in their view,
covers disputes arising out of, concerning or relating to exploitation, regardJess of whether they are
disputes about exploitation connected to an unresolved maritime delimitation between Australia
and another country. Japan sees these two parts of the reservation as relating to two separate and
unconnected worlds.
3. For the reasons given in my first round presentation, such a reading blatantly ignores
Australia's intent and is not the natural or reasonable interpretation of the words in light of that
intent. lt also fails dismallyin the requirement that the declaration be read as a whole.
4. As 1said in the first round,
"ali the reservation was designed to caver and ali that it does cover is pending
maritime delimitation situations . . . No such situation arises between Japan and
Australia. ln particular, the reservation does not caver a dispute concerning the 16
validity, or otherwise, under the 1946 Convention of Japan's JARPA II program."
5. Mr. President, when 1refer to "delimitation situations" 1am not suggesting that the second
part of the reservation has no additional work to do. lt clearly does. The first part covers disputes
16
CR 2013/11, p. 42, para. JO(Bunncstcr) . -23-
relating to maritime delimitation perse. However, as the words of the second part read in context
confirm, it covers disputes connected with exploitation in a delimitation situation. [Text on screen]
1 will not repeat what 1 have already said in the first round about the importance of the words
"such" and the words "pending its delimitation" in showing the need for this connection with a
delimitation situation. It is ali very weil for Professor Pellet to emphasize the multiple use of the
word "or", particularly where it occurs the second time- and 1bave it right this time. This does
indicate that the reservation applies to more than one delimitation situation. lt does not mean,
however, that the two parts of reservation (b) operate in self-contained worlds. As 1said inthe first
17
round, the words and intent show they are closely connected •
6. As 1also said in the first round, delimitation has a weil understood meaning relating solely
18
to disputes between opposite and adjacent States • Japan ignores this. An interpretation that
extends the reservation to exploitation disputes unconnected with delimitation would require this
Court to enquire into maritime boundary disputes of no relevance to the particular exploitation
dispute and in the absence of the other party to the unresolved delimitation dispute. As
Professor Pellet knows weil, from our time as counsel in the East Timor case, the absence of a third
19
State can complicate the resolution of a dispute before this Court • Yet the interpretation of the
reservation he advocates seems inevitably to require this Court to enquire into the area of
overlapping daims, and to determine what areas are adjacent to those claims, in the absence of one
of the parties to a pending delimitation. This is a further reason why the construction contended for
by Japan should be rejected.
7. Mr. President, it is not too difficult to think of examples of disputes that would fall within
the second part of the reservation as interpreted by Australia.
8. Take for instance a provisional arrangement of a practical nature, as envisaged under
Article 83 (3) of the Law of the Sea Convention. Such an arrangement may allow sorne form of
exploitation on certain limited terrns pending agreement on a final delimitation of relevant
maritime boundaries . If a dispute arose between the two parties to the arrangement as to
17
CR 2013111, pp. 44-47 (Burmester).
18/bid., p. 51, para. 43 (Burmcstcr).
1East Timor (l'orluKav.Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 90. -24-
compliance with the terms of the arrangement that would clearly be a dispute arising out of,
concerning or relating to the exploitation of a disputed maritime area pending its delimitation.
[Screen off]
9. As 1mentioned in my previous presentation, the situation faced with Timor-Leste, aState
with an opposing coastline to Australia, is very pertinent when considering the intent and words of
the reservation. Professor Pellet repeated my reference to petroleum companies encouraging
Timor-Leste to expand their claims into areas already being exploited by Australia 20 and sought to
argue that Australia seeks an interpretation that excludes disputes over petroleum but not whales.
The fundamental difference not addressed by Professor Pellet is that Australia and Timor-Leste are
in a delimitation situation with each other- there are overlapping claims. That is not the case
with Japan.
1O. With respect to Timor-Leste and Australia, the two States have reached no final
21
delimitation agreement and have instead agreed to freeze their respective claims for 50 years • ln
this context, as 1 mentioned in the first round, there are a number of agreements presently
governing exploitation of the area between Timor-Leste and Australia 22• One treaty creates a Joint
Petroleum Development Area 23• A separate agreement deals with unitization arrangements
24
covering petroleum deposits falling both within and outside the Joint Zone • These are precisely
the types of examples of the provisional arrangements which, pending delimitation, could give rise
to disputes about exploitation of areas in dispute between Australia and another country within the
meaning of reservation (b) in Australia's Declaration. They could also give rise to disputes
between Australia and that country in adjacent areas, such as areas under Australian jurisdiction
covered by a unitization agreement. The point to emphasize is this- these are ali arrangements
2°CR 2013112, pp. 32-33 (Pellet).
21
Trcaty bctwcen Australia and the Democratie Rcpublic of Timor-Leste on Certain Maritime Arrangements in
the Timor Sca donc at Sydney, 12 Jan. 2006, [2007] ATS 12.
http://w\\ w.austlii.cdu.au/au/othcr/dlat/trcatics/2007 112.html.
22Scc gcncrally Triggs and Bialek, ''TheNew Timor Sca Trcaty and Interim Arrangements for Joint Dcvclopmcnt
of Petrolcum Resources of the Timor Gap" (2002), Vol. 3 (2) Melbourne Journal of International Law,
http://www.law.unimclb.cdu.au/lilcs/dmlilc/download67411.pdl'.
23Timor Sea Trcaty bet\\ecn the Govcrnmcnt of East Timor and the Government of Australia donc at Dili,
20 Ma) 2002, [2003] ATS 13, http://www.austlii.cdu.au/au/othcr/dfat /trcatics/2007/12.html.
24Agrccmcnt beh\ccn the Govcrnment of Australia and the Govcrnmcnt of the Democratie Rcpublic of
Timor-Leste rclating to the Unitisation of the Sunrisc and Troubadour fields donc at Dili, 6 March 2003, [2007] ATS Il,
http://\\ ww.austlii.cdu.au/au/othcr/dlat/trcatics/2007 1ll.html. -25-
relating to exploitation between parties to a pending delimitation. lt is precisely these sorts of
provisional arrangements pending delimitation that are covered by the second part of
reservation (b). They are the types of arrangements that may not be covered if the reservation
consisted only of the first part. Even if there are no provisional arrangements there is no reason
why similar disputes between States with competing claims could not also be covered by the
second part.
Il. Japan erroneously seeks to extend the operation of the reservation weil beyond these
types of clearly contemplated situations. lt seeks to apply it to any dispute between Australia and a
third State over exploitation of resources that just happens to occur in areas subject to an
unresolved delimitation situation, even though the third State is not the opposite or adjacent State.
This is so, it seems, even if the status of the waters in question is entirely irrelevant to the
resolution of the dispute with the third State. That is the situation in this case, under the
1946 Convention.
12. Mr. President, Members of the Court, there are only a few specifie points made by
Professor Pellet in his attempt to support this erroneous interpretation to which 1need to respond.
The fact 1may not answer every point that he made does not however mean that Australia agrees
with them.
25
13. Japan quotes from the Fisheries Jurisdiction case to say that the Court needs, because
of the words "conceming" or "arising out of', to look beyond the subject-matter of the dispute, to
see ifthe dispute would not have come into being "in the absence of' the relevant matters covered
by the reservation 2• This passage from the Fisheries Jurisdiction was referring to the
"conservation and management measures" to which the Canadian reservation related 27• ln this
present case, if one asks whether the dispute relating to so-called Article VIII special permit
whaling would not arise in the absence of exploitation of an area subject to maritime claims
pending delimitation, the answer is it would stiJl have arisen. The fact that Australia may or may
not assert claims to some of the area where JARPA Il occurs makes no difference whatsoever to
2Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spv.nCanada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, /.C.J. 1998,tp.432.
26
/bid.,p.458.
21/bid. -26-
the dispute before this Court. That dispute exists regardless of Australia's maritime claims, in
relation to which Australia has made no reference and on which it places no reliance. The Court
need not express any view, explicitly or implicitly, on any maritime claim.
14. ln my first presentation, 1stressed that the words "pending delimitation" confirmed that
the reservation concerned disputes between two States pending delimitation between them. Japan
says those words are no more than a description of "a moment" 28• That diminishes the critical
importance of those words when interpreting the reservation. A purely temporal effect to those
words fails to give the words any substantive effect. That leads to bizarre results as it excludes
disputes relating to exploitation unrelated to any pending delimitation for only so long as that
delimitation remains pending. Once that delimitation has been resolved, a dispute with no
connection with that delimitation also ceases to be excluded. There is simply no logic in such an
interpretation. lt seems far removed from any reasonable interpretation and bears no resemblance
to the intentof Austral ia.
15. Next, Professor Pellet took the Court to a document that 1 had referred to in my earlier
speech- the National lnterest Analysis that explained to the Australian Parliament the purpose of
29
the reservation • 1used that document to highlight that, in addition to the requirement of a pending
delimitation, the second part of the reservation required there to be a dispute about exploitation,
whether it was a dispute arising out of, concerning or relating to exploitation of a disputed area.
Japan now accepts that. The document is describing in shorthand what the reservation does. lt
does not establish that the intention was to cover exploitation disputes between Australia and a
State not in a dispute with Australia over delimitation. Rather, as Mr. Campbell said in evidence to
the Treaties Committee, the "effect of the exception, combined with the UNCLOS declaration, is to
preclude compulsory dispute settlement of Australia's maritime boundaries" 30• This is not to say
that reservation (b) does no more than the UNCLOS reservation. The UNCLOS declaration is
necessarily more limited, given the wording of Article 287 of the Law of the Sea Convention.
2CR 2013/12, pp. 31-32 (Pellet).
2
~atio ltcret Anal)sis,Australian Declaration zmder Paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the
International Courtf Justice 19-15lodged at New York on 22 March 2002, tabled in the Australian Parliament
18 June 2002, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/ATNIN2002/20(tab 2 ofjudges' tolders).
3
°Commonwealth, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties,Parliamentmy Debates: T!·eatiestabled on /8 and
25 June 2002,12 July 2002; CMJ, Ann. 167, p. 215. - 27-
Reservation (b) remains, however, a reservation directed at disputes about maritime boundaries or
exploitation issues arising between Australia and another State with overlapping claims pending
resolution of the maritime boundary between them. The references in the discussion before the
Treaties Committee by Mr. Campbell to cases with a maritime aspect, to which Professor Pellet
31
referred ,were not explaining the scope of the reservation . They were answering a question about
previous cases involving Australia.
16. 1 shall also say something about Japan's argument that JARPA Il concerns the
exploitation of a resource. 1emphasize that this issue only arises if the Court rejects Australia 's
primary construction argument that the reservation only applies to exploitation disputes between
Australia and another State with an overlapping claim with Australia .
17. For a dispute arising out of, concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any disputed
area in a delimitation context, ordinarily requires competing claims by the relevant States to a right
to exploit the relevant resources. ln the present case, it is self-evident that the dispute does not
involve any assertion by Australia of a right to exploit whale resources. ln the absence of
competing claims to exploitation of whales- only Japan wishes such exploitation- any notion
of a "dispute" relating to such exploitation within the meaning of Australia 's Declaration
disappears.
18. 1 turn finally to a matter Professor Pellet emphasized, but which seems unrelated to
jurisdiction. This was that Australia's claim only related to JARPA Il and not JARPN 3• That is
true, but not for the reasons given. ln this respect, Professor Pellet seeks to impute a motive to
Australia which simply does not exist and for which he has offered no evidence. The scope of the
dispute has not been confined in this way in order to protect Australia 's proclaimed waters off its
Antarctic Territory. Australia has made no mention of these claims and they are irrelevant to the
dispute before this Court. JARPA Il, in any event, extends weil outside any waters claimed by
Australia. Japan's own diagram, at page 39 of its Counter-Memorial, shows that JARPA Il covers
half the Southern Ocean, south of 60 degrees S, including areas thousands of nautical miles
11
CR 2013/12, p. 32 (Pellet).
1CR 2013/12, p. 35 (Pellet). -28-
eastward from any claimed Australian watersJJ. JARPA II's area of operation is not defined in any
way by Australia's Antarctic claim. As the Attorney-General has just mentioned, Australia, as a
southern hemisphere State, has a strong interest in the whole of the Antarctic ecosystem. lt does
scientific research in areas of the Antarctic unrelated to its own claimed area, including in
co-operation with other States. lt is not surprising, therefore, given Australia's strong interest in
the Southern Ocean, that the case has been confined to whaling activity by Japan in that area, rather
than extending also to JARPN, conducted in the northern hemisphere. The fact that the dispute
does not also extend to JARPN is of no legal relevance to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear this
case.
19. Australia does not claim to be an injured State because of the fact that some of the
JARPA Il take is from waters over which Australia claims sovereign rights and jurisdiction .
Professor Boisson de Chazournes will answer Judge Bhandari's question concerning the injury
suffered by Australia in more detail. Every party has the same interest in ensuring compliance by
every other party with its obligations under the 1946 Convention. Australia is seeking to uphold its
collective interest, an interest it shares with ali other parties.
20. Mr. President, the interpretation of the reservation contended for by Australia is clear and
strongly supported by its intent and wording, reasonably interpreted. Japan 's alternative
interpretation should be rejected and the Court should find that it hasjurisdiction.
21. Thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Court, this concludes my presentation.
invite you to caliProfessor Boisson de Chazournes.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Burmester et je passe la parole à Madame Laurence
Boisson de Chazournes. Vous avez la parole, Madame.
11
CMJ, p.39. -29-
Mme BOISSON DE CHAZOURNES :
LA CONVENTION DE 1946 -INTÉGRITÉ, OBJET ET BUT
Introduction
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, tirant peut-êtreinspiration du
célèbreauteur, Haruki Murakami, le Japon a vainement tentécette fois-ci de nous plonger dans une
histoire fantastique, au-delà des frontières du réel. Toutefois, alors que les hérosdu roman à succès
JQ8.Jétaient transportés dans un futur inconnu, les conseils du Japon ont décidéeux de se
transvaser dans un passéinconnu. Ce passéc'est celui d'une conférence imaginaire dans laquelle
aurait étéadoptée «a convention about sustaining whaling» ! Une telle vision est, bien entendu,
éloignéede la réalitéjuridique, de la réalitépolitique ainsi que de la réalitéinstitutionnelle qui
caractérisent le régimede la convention de 1946 depuis son adoption.
2. Mais là ne s'arrêtent pas, Monsieur le président, les velléitésdu Japon de réécrirela
convention de 1946. Contre toute attente, le Japon nous confie que in fine la perception de
l'importance des baleines est une question qui relève de différences culturelles et religieuses entre
35
nations • Par le biais de l'un de ses conseils, il nous révèleque l'évolution qu'a connue la
conservation internationale des espèces de baleines, avec notamment le moratorium, relèverait
plutôt de l'«émotion» 36, de l'«éthique» ou encore de la «prise en otage de la CBI» 38,mais non de
la réglementationqui s'impose en vertu du droit international.
3. Le Japon oublie, à escient, qu'il est partie à une convention multilatérale dénommée
convention de 1946, par le biais de laquelle il a contracté des obligations multilatérales en vue de la
39
conservation des baleines. Contrairement à ce qu'affirme le Japon ,c'est lui et lui seul qui a
choisi la voie de l'unilatéralisme, et non l'Australie.
14CR 2013/13, p. 44, par. 16 (Boyle); CR 2013/12, p. 42, par. 8, p. 49, par. 38 (Akhavan): CR 2013/13, p. 70,
par. 29 (Pellet).
15CR 2013/12, p. 20-21, par. 28 ( rsuruoka) ; CR 2013/12, p. 44, par. 18, p. 63, par. 84 (Akhavan).
16CR 2013/12, p. 47, par. 27 (Akhavan).
17Ibid., p. 46, par. 26 (Akhavan).
18
Ibid., p. 48, par. 32 (Akhavan).
J?Ibid., p. 21, par. 29 (Tsuruoka). -30-
4. Le Japon, certes, s'efforce autant qu'ille peut, à se faire thuriféraire du principe pacta sunt
40
servanda mais il ne le fait qu'à demi-mot et sans en tirer toutes les conséquences aux fins de
l'intégrité,de la mise en Œuvre et de l'effectivitéde la convention de 1946.
5. Le Japon a également essayé de faire croire à la Cour que de rares allégations de
coopération de la part du Japon démontreraient tout l'attachement de ce dernier aux règles
fondamentales de l'interprétation et de l'application des traités. Or, il n'en est rien. Le Japon
menace depuis fort longtemps l'intégritéde la convention de 1946.
1. La Cour doit êtregarante de l'intégritéet de l'effectivité
de la convention de 1946
6. C'est le souci de garantir l'intégritéet l'effectivité de la convention de 1946 qui anime
fortement l'Australie tant dans sa requête que dans ses écritures et plaidoiries orales.
41
Contrairement aux insinuations du Japon, c'est là un souci qui ne fait appel ni à la «révolutiom> ,
ni à la «régression» 42 et ni à la «revision» 43 du droit international des traités. L'approche de
l'Australie est des plus constructives . Elle consiste, en effet, à demander à la Cour, organe
judiciaire principal de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, de garantir l'intégritéde la convention
de 1946, en interprétantet en appliquant le traitéde manière conforme à sa lettre et à son esprit. La
Cour contribuera ainsi à la mise en Œuvre effective de la convention et au bon fonctionnement de
ses organes.
7. Le Japon a déployébien des stratagèmes pour donner à la Cour l'image d'un membre
discipliné au sein de la CBI, respectueux de la coopération de bonne foi et travaillant «to gather
44
scientific data for the resumption of sustainable commercial whaling» • Mes collègues reviendront
sur ces assertions non fondées.
8. Toutefois, Monsieur le président, il y a une question qui me taraude et qui doit, peut-ê tre,
tarauder l'esprit des membres de la Cour. Pourquoi un Etat qui se proclame champion de la
4°CR 2013/12, p. 20, par. 27 (Tsuruoka) .
41
Ibid., p. 20, par. 27 (Tsuruoka).
42
Ibid., p. 21, par. 30 (Tsuruoka).
41CR 2013/13, p. 68, par. 25 (Pellet).
44CR 2013/12, p. 41, par. 4 (Akhavan). - 31-
coopération au sein de la CBI 45et champion dans le domaine de la recherche scientifique sur les
46
baleines s'évertue-t-il autant à vouloir limiter le rôle de la Cour dans la présenteinstance?
9. Si comme le prétend le Japon, «la CBI va mal [et] que le Japon a choisi de rester membre,
alors mêmeque ... ses droits [sont] bien souvent bafoués» 47, ne devrait-il pas se féliciter de la
48
saisine de la Cour par l'Australie ? La Cour, en tant qu'«organe judiciaire international» peut, en
clarifiant le droit international, pallier l'impasse ou l'effondrement diplomatique qui, selon les dires
du Japon, caractériserait la CBI 49, et permettre aux organes de la convention de 1946 d'exercer
leurs fonctions comme ils le doivent.
1O. L'Australie est convaincue que la Cour peut contribuer au plein et au bon
fonctionnement du régimejuridique et institutionnel découlant de la convention. Pour ce faire,
votre Cour doit garantir 1'intégritéde la convention de 1946. Garantir 1'intégritéde la convention
de 1946 reviendrait précisémentpour la Cour à clarifier l'objet et le but de la convention de 1946, à
apprécier la licéitéde JARPA Il à l'aune des obligations découlant de la convention de 1946 et de
son règlement, et à déterminer si le Japon a agi de bonne foi dans l'exercice de ses droits en vertu
de cette convention.
Il. Il ne fait pas de doute que la Cour a compétence en vertu de l'article 36, paragraphe 2, du
Statut, à rendre un arrêtaux fins d'assurer l'intégritéde la convention de 1946, ainsi que mon
collègue Henry Burmester l'a démontré. Il est utile à ce stade de rappeler que l'article 36,
paragraphe 2, du Statut de la Cour prévoit que les Etats parties au Statut de la Cour peuvent
reconnaître la compétence obligatoire de la Cour pour tout différend «d'ordre juridique»,
c'est-à-dire un différend ayant pour objet, inter alia: «a) l'interprétation d'un traité; b) tout point
de droit international ; c) la réalitéde tout fait qui, s'il était établi, constituerait la violation d'un
engagement international>>.
45
CR 2013/16, p. 54, par. 44 (Pellet).
46
CR2013 /13, p.l5 , par. ll , p.l6,par.I3(Hamamoto).
47CR 2013/16, p. 54, par. 44 (Pellet).
48Compétence en matière de pêcheries(Républiquefédéraled'AIIelltaKnec. Islande), fond , arrêt,C./.J. Recueil
197-1,p. 181, par. 18.
49CR 2013116, p. 54, par. 44 (Pellet). -32-
12. En soumettant à la Cour des questions relatives à l'interprétation et à l'application de la
convention de 1946, l'Australie a bien saisi la Cour d'un différend d'ordre juridique à l'égard
duquel votre juridiction a pleine compétence en vertu de l'article 36, paragraphe 2, de son Statut.
13. La Cour doit tout simplement rejeter l'affirmation de mon amt et
contradicteur- Alain Pellet. Mais c'est curieux ... pourquoi ai-je si peu de mal avec la
masculinisation des mots ... je ne sais ... Mon contradicteur a affirmé de manière erronée que
«chaque Etat est gardien de l'intégritéde la convention qui ne prévoit pas de mode particulier de
50
règlement des différends» • Cette diversion doit êtreécartée. La «compétence [de la Cour] repose
sur le consentement des Etats parties, dans la seule mesure reconnue par ceux-ci» 5 •
Dans la mesure où le consentement à la compétence de la Cour a été in casu bien établi, la
Cour peut se prononcer de telle manière à garantir l'intégritédu régimeexhaustif de la convention
de 1946. En d'autres termes, la Cour, saisie d'un différend relatif à la convention de 1946, peut le
trancher.
II. Le respect de l'intégritéde la convention de 1946est une question d'intérêtcommun
14. Monsieur le président, la convention de 1946 repose sur l'intérêtcommun des Etats
membres àconserver et reconstituer les peuplements baleiniers.
15. Les conseils du Japon ont cherchéà passer outre à l'importance de cet intérêc tommun tel
que protégépar la convention de 1946. D'entrée, l'agent du Japon a affirmé sans retenue que la
requêtede l'Australie dans la présente instance viserait à «établir la supérioritéde telle culture sur
telle autre»52 et cacherait <<Une tentative unilatérale de [l'Australie] pour imposer l'interdiction de
toute chasse baleinière en se fondant sur ses propres valeurs plutôt que sur une argumentation
juridique» 5 •
~C°R 2013/16, p. 58, par. 54 (Pellet).
~•Activités arméessur le territoire du Congo (nouvelle requête: 2002) (République démocratique du Congo
c. Rwanda), compétence et recevabilité, arrê,C./.JRecueil2006, p. 39, par. 88Certaines questions concernant
1'entraidejudiciaire en matièrepénale {Djibouti c. France),C./.JRecueil 2008,p. 200, par. 48.
52CR 2013/12, p. 21, par. 29 (Tsuruoka) .
~CR 2013/12, p. 21, par. 29 (Tsuruoka). -33-
16. Ainsi que l'Al/omey-General d'Australie l'a dit, l'Australie rejette fermement
54
l'invocation de prétendues spécificités liées aux «religions et cultures» , invocation faite dans le
dessein de faire fi de la règle de droit international à laquelle les deux Parties au présent différend
ont souscrit.
17. Le préambule de la convention de 1946 parle de l'intérêtdes «nations du monde» 55 à
«sauvegarder, au profit des générations futures, les grandes ressources naturelles représentées par
6
l'espère baleinière» 5 • Les «nations du monde» ... Comme l'a reconnu votre juridiction, «l'analyse
57
littérale» des mots a toute son importance dans le processus d'interprétation des traités. Le Japon
autant que l'Australie fait partie de ces «nations du monde» qui ont reconnu en devenant parties à
la convention de 1946 que la conservation et la reconstitution des peuplements baleiniers étaient
une question d'intérêtcommun. Le Japon autant que l'Australie fait partie de ces «nations du
monde» qui ont reconnu, en devenant parties à la convention, que les baleines sont une espèce
58
particulière qui méritait une protection particulière en droit international • C'est la convention
de 1946, et non l'Australie, qui qualifie les baleines de «grandes ressources naturelles».
18. L'Australie, comme tous les autres Etats parties à la convention de 1946, a un intérê t
commun àce que l'intégritédu régimedécoulant de la convention soit maintenue.
19. Je saisis cette occasion pour répondre à la question du juge Bhandari posée le 3 juillet
59 60
dernier • En «raison des valeurs qu'ils partagent» et telles qu'exprimées dans la convention
de 1946, tous les Etats parties à cette convention ont un intérêtcommun à ce que chaque Etat
respecte ses obligations en vertu de la convention et du régime en découlant. Pour reprendre les
mots de la Cour de céans, «cet intérêtcommun implique que les obligations en question s'imposent
54
CR 2013/12, p. 20-21, par. 28 (Tsuruoka).
~1'réadm e laconvention de 1946, premier paragraphe.
SbPréambulede la convention de 1946, premier paragraphe.
~Differend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrët, C.I.J.
Recueil 2009, p. 239, par. 52.
~8CR 2013/17, p. 18, par. 13(Finlayson).
59CR 2013/13, p. 73.
bOQuestions concemant 1'obligation de poursuivre ou d 'extmder (Belgique c. Sénégal),arrêtdu 20 juillet 2012,
par. 68. -34-
à tout Etat partie à la (convention de 1946] à l'égardde tous les autres Etats parties. L'ensemble
61
des Etats parties ont un «intérêjturidique)) àce que les droits en cause soient respectés)) •
20. L'Australie fait ainsi valoir son intérêtjuridique à ce que les droits découlant de la
convention de 1946 soient respectés par le Japon. Pour reprendre encore les termes de la
jurisprudence de la Cour, les Etats parties «n'ont pas d'intérêtspropres; ils ont seulement tous et
chacun, un intérêc tommun ... )) dans le cadre du régimeétablidans la convention de 1946.
21. Il est bon, à ce stade, de rappeler que la convention de 1946 a permis la mise en place
63
d'un organe plénier,la CBI , organe doté,on l'a dit, de pouvoirs larges. Aux côtésde ses pouvoirs
normatifs déjà évoqués, la CBI a des pouvoirs au titre de l'article IV de la convention. Ces
pouvoirs ont trait à la recherche scientifique dans Je champ d'application de la convention. Les
64
études, évaluations et programmes de cet organe, tel le programme SOWER , contribuent à
promouvoir l'objet et le but de la convention. Meilleur usage pourrait êtrefait de ces compétences
telles que prévuespar la convention de 1946.
22. En dépitdes oppositions farouches du Japon, l'Australie invite respectueusement la Cour
à faire le choix de l'intégritéde la convention de 1946. Ce choix de l'intégritéconduira également
la Cour à rappeler au Japon le véritableobjet et but de la convention de 1946.
III. L'intégritéde la convention de 1946 est tributaire du respect de son objet et de son but,
à savoir la conservation et la reconstitution des peuplements baleiniers
23. Ainsi que l'Australie l'a clairement indiqué lors de son premier tour de plaidoiries,
1'objet et le but de la convention de 1946 ont trait à la conservation et à la reconstitution des
peuplements baleiniers. Ils constituent des fins en soi dans le régime mis en place par la
convention de 1946. Cela ne fait pas de doute. L'Australie souhaite à nouveau dans ce contexte
évoquer le sixième paragraphe du préambule de la convention de 1946, lequel englobe Je désir
«d'instituer un régimede réglementation internationale de la chasse à la baleine qui soit de nature à
61Questions concernant l'obligation de poursuivre ou d'extrader (BeiKique c. SénéKarrt du 20 juillet 2012,
par. 68.
62 Réserves à la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de Kénocide, avis consultatif,
C.I.J.Recueill951, p.23.
61Originellement dénomméela commission internation ale de la chasse à la baleine.
64Voir Statement by Dr. Nick Galesp. 22, par. 5.5-5.7 ; voir aussi SOàEl'adresse : http://iwc.int/sower. - 35-
assurer d'une manière appropriée et efficace la conservation et l'accroissement des peuplements
baleiniers» 65•
24. Le Japon n'a pas jusqu'à présent démontréde manière objective en quoi le soit-disant
66
«scientific-based sustainable whaling» constituerait la fin en soi de la convention de 1946 (ou
67
selon encore les termes du Japon, «the very purpose of the Convention !» ). Le Japon n'a pas non
plus démontréen quoi la conservation ne serait qu'un moyen devant permettre le développement
méthodique de l'industrie baleinière. Il n'a pas réfutéles arguments de l'Australie en la matière ;je
serai donc brève sur la question de l'objet et du but afin d'éviter de répéterla position de
l'Australie.
25. Le Japon, par la voix de son conseil, s'est mélangéles pinceaux. Il admet désormais que
la convention de 1946 «of course, was, and remains, a convention designed to promote
68
conservation and recovery of whale stocks» • Toutefois, il apporte immédiatement un bémolen
expliquant que la convention de 1946 «is also a convention designed to promote sustainable
exploitation of whale stocks» 69• Ces assertions ne s'appuient point sur la pratique de la CBI et
encore moins sur l'évolution du droit international général,qui mettent tous deux l'accent sur la
conservation comme une fin en soi en matière de protection des ressources naturelles.
26. Le Japon reconnaît pourtant que la convention de 1946 donne le pouvoir à la CBI 70 de
faire les modifications nécessaires au règlement pour «atteindre les objectifs et buts de la
convention et assurer la conservation , le développement et l'utilisation optimum des ressources
baleinières». Cependant, il en tire une conclusion hâtive selon laquelle «the Convention is ali
about [optimum utilization], it is not about conservation as an end in itself» 71•
27. Les articles V et VI de la convention de 1946 reconnaissent à la CBI un pouvoir
spécifique en matière de réalisation de l'objet et du but de la convention de 1946. La pratique de
65
Préambulede la convention de 1946.
66
CR 2013/12, p. 49, par. 38 (Akhavan).
67Ibid.
68CR2013 /13,p.45,par.l9(13o)le).
69Ibid.
7°CR 2013/13, p. 42, par. Il (Boyle).
71
Ibid. -36-
cet organe plénier,confonne à la lettre du préambuleet s'inscrivant dans la mêmedynamique que
le droit international général,se doit d'êtreprise en compte dans le cadre du présentdifférend. Le
conseil du Japon ne s'y est toutefois pas référép ,référantadopter des interprétations hasardeuses ou
se référerde manière tronquée à certains instruments de droit international de l'environnement.
28. Si le Japon s'appuyait, comme il aurait dü le faire, sur la pratique de la CBI, il
constaterait que la pratique de cette dernière a évoluépour mettre l'accent principalement sur la
conservation 72• Cette évolution reflète l'approche collective quant à l'objet et au but de la
convention de 1946 et nul ne saurait s'en écarter au risque de menacer le cadre collectif de
coopération.
29. La Cour, elle-même, a reconnu dans son avis sur la Licéitéde l'utilisation des armes
73
nucléairespar un Etat dans un conflit armé, l'importance de la «pratique propre» d'organes tels
la CBI pour interpréter des traités qui, comme la convention de 1946, instituent des organes.
Hormis les diverses initiatives juridiques déjà évoquées au cours de ces plaidoiries 74, cette
«pratique propre» est composée des diverses résolutions adoptées par la CBI aux fins de la
75
conservation des peuplements baleiniers , et de l'établissement du comitéde conservation auquel,
76
je Jerappelle, le Japon refuse de siéger • Cela confirme l'importance de la conservation au sein du
régime de la convention de 1946 ainsi que le fait que la conservation est une fin en soi. Pour
souligner la pertinence de cette pratique, qu'il me soit permis de me référerà titre illustratif au
rapport, déjàmentionnédevant vous, de l'organe d'appel de I'OMC dans l'affaire Crevettes. Dans
son rapport, l'organe d'appel a reconnu que l'établissement d'organes comme le comité de
conservation devait êtrepris en compte pour analyser la portée des droits et obligations des
membres de I'OMC en matière de protection de l'environnement. Aux côtés du préambule de
72 Voir P. Birnie, International Regulation of Whaling: From Conservation of Wha/ing to Conservation of Whales
and Regulation ofWhale-Watching, vol. Il, Oceana Publications, lnc., New-York/London/Rome , 1985, p. 575-634; voir
aussi P. Bimie, A. Bo) le, International Law and the Environment, Second edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2002, p. 667.
73
Licéitéde 1'utilisation des armes nucléaires par 1111Etat dans 1111conflit armé, avis consultatif.
C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (1),p. 75, par. 19.
74
MA, p. 17-19, par. 2.47-254, p. 19-23, par. 2.55-2.70, p. 27-32, par. 2.79-2.93.
75 Voir Annual Report of the International Whaling Convention 2003, 55th Annual Meeting, 2003, Resolution
2003-1, The Berlmlmt iative on Strengthening the Conservation Agenda of the International Whaling Comnussion. Une
liste de 100 résolutionsportant sur la conservation est attachéeaudit rapport.
76
CR 2013116, p. 48, par. 28 (Pellet). -37-
l'accord instituant I'OMC dont il a souligné l'importance en matière d'interprétation, l'organe
d'appel a considéréque «l'élémentle plus important ... est la décision prise par les ministres à
77
Marrakech d'établir un comitédu commerce et de l'environnement permanent» •
Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, une pratique semblable a trouvé place dans le cadre de la
convention de 1946 avec la créationdu comitéde la conservation.
30. Plutôt que de se perdre dans un dédale d'instruments internationaux sans rapport direct
78
avec la convention de 1946, le Japon aurait dû prendre en considération la «pratique ultérieure»
de la CBI, tant normative qu'institutionnelle. A la lumière de cette pratique ultérieure, il ne fait pas
de doute que l'objet et le but de la convention de 1946 sont bien et ont toujours étéla conservation
et la reconstitution des peuplements baleiniers , n'en déplaiseau Japon.
JI. L'Australie souhaite à ce stade répondre à la question posée par le juge
Cançado Trindade sur l'interprétation des termes «conservation et développement» dans le cadre de
79
la convention • Le terme «développement», qui dans le contexte de la convention de 1946 doit
s'entendre de manière évolutive, est liéà la conservation et à la reconstitution des peuplements
baleiniers. La meilleure manière de contribuer à la conservation et au développement, ou si vous
80
préférez,à la reconstitution des peuplements baleiniers doit êtredéterminéepar la CBI • Des
décisions relatives aux quotas appropriés pour la chasse aborigène de subsistance, ou à des mesures
à des fins autres que la consommation, comme l'observation (aussi dénommée en anglais
«Whale watching») relèvent des mesures de conservation et de développement au sens de la
convention. Permettez-moi de souligner que 87 pays se livrent déjà au Whale watchi nela l.t.
traduit l'importance et le fort attrait de cette activité économique relative aux peuplements
baleiniers, notamment pour les populations côtières sur les différentscontinents du monde.
77Etats-Unis -J'v/esures concernant l 'importation de crevel/es et de produits contenant des crevel/es. Rapport de
l'organed'appel de I'OMC, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12octobre 1998, par. 154.
78CR 2013/14, p. 63, par. 45 (Pellet).
79CR 2013/17, p. 49.
80
Voir IWC/63/CC5 -«Report of the Small Advisory Group on Conservation Management PlanSubmitted
by the Govemment of Australia on behalf of the Small Advisory Group on Conservation Management Plans»;
IWC/64/CC6- «Report of the Standing Working Group on Whale Watching Submitted b) the United States» ;
SC/65a/SCPOI-(2013 Scientific Committee)-IWC Conservation Management Plans and Scientilic Committec
advice; guidanceor sub-groups ; IWC/64/CCI -Agenda of the Conservation Committec.
81
Voir MA, p. 34, par. 2.97 [traduction du Greffe}. -38-
32. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je vous remercie de votre
bienveillante attention.
33. Monsieur le président, puis-je vous demander de bien vouloir donner la parole au
professeur James Crawford.
Le PRESIDENT: Merci, Madame. And 1cali now on Professor James Crawford. You have
the tloor,Sir.
Mr. CRAWFORD:
AUSTRALIA 'S CASE AND JAPAN'S MISAPPREHENSION OF IT
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court. Last week Japan spent a great deal oftime arguing
vigorously against propositions which it attributed to Australia but which Australia does not
actually put forward and which, in any event, are not necessary or even relevant to our legal claim.
For example:
(1) The present case, as you will see from reading the Application is exclusively about Japanese
"scientific whaling", in reality commercial, and the scope of Article VIII. lt is not about the
policy issues which divide the IWC as to the continuation of the moratorium. Whatever you
might decide on Article VIII, the debate on the moratorium will continue. From listening to
Professors Pellet and Akhavan last week, you might have supposed they were arguing a
counter-claim concerning the legality of Australian support for the moratorium. But of course
Japan never brought such a counter-claim. That was convenient for counsel, who were able to
satisfy themselves by making allegations without the slightest need to prove them. Indeed they
made extravagant allegations about Australia's role as puppet master in ensuring the
continuation of the moratorium: as an Australian, 1 wish my country had even half the
diplomatie clout they attributed tos! Especially now. But ali this has absolutely nothing to do
with the present case.
(2) The issues which underpin this case will not be resolved by Japan's so-called "review" of the
JARPA II program proposed for 2014. This case concerns JARPA II as it has been authorized
and implemented by Japan since 2005 and as it continues to this day. There is quite enough - 39-
material before the Court without it needing to speculate on what might happen in 2014.
lndeed, if anything, the outcome of the 2009 JARPN Il review provides further evidence to
support Australia's criticisms of Japan's approach to special permit whaling as weil as of the
inabilityof the mechanisms established under the Convention to resolve the current impasse.
The Solicitor-General and Professor Sands will say something more about that tomorrow.
(3) Nor is this case about the "reform" of the 1946 Convention. lt is true that both Australia and
New Zealand have made proposais for reform, and these proposais have not been accepted.
But that is irrelevant for present purposes: what we seek is the interpretation and application of
the Convention in accordance with international law- the Convention as it stands and
international law as it stands. That issue arises between the Parties; it is a live legal issue and
will remain so whatever the policy issues.
(4) Nor is this case about suggestions that the precautionary approach leads to a reversai of the
onus of proof in environmental cases. Professor Boyle addressed a lengthy speech to you on
that subject, but Australia has made no such suggestion. Australia accepts that each party
asserting a proposition whether of factor law should establish that proposition: actori incumbit
probatio. So that is not an issue either.
(5) Nor does Australia argue that special permits under Article VIII have to be consented to or
authorized by the Commission or the Scientific Committee, or that any other Government or
authority than the issuing State can revoke or cancel those permits. The question, as with most
questions of treaty interpretation coming before you, is simple. lt is whether Japan's actions
are or are not consistent with the relevant treaty and with the decisions taken under that Treaty.
lt is true that that can sometimes give rise to difficult remediai questions, as it did in Lockerbie,
but there are no such questions at stake here. Australia seeks appropriate declarations and
orders consequential on your findings, as in any other case of State responsibility. lt will be for
you to judge the opportunity of the particular declarations and orders sought.
(6) Australia does not seek to convert the 1946 Convention into a convention for the elimination of
whaling, nor could it do so in judicial proceedings. Any interpretation you give will leave
Article VIII part of the Convention and available to be relied on by any Contracting
Government to the Convention which satisfies the criteria of research for scientific purposes. -40-
2. None of this is to diminish the importance of the issues before you, but it is to put them
into their legal perspective. This is the first time the Court has been faced with a multilateral
convention for the conservation and protection of endangered species. You do not need reminding
of the successive conservation crises that have been caused by over-fishing and similar activities
around the world. But, though necessary background, that is just background to the specifie issues
you face under the 1946 Convention . This case concems a particular program, long-running,
justified by the proponent State under a treaty. That is ali and that is enough.
3. What Australia has argued- 1 have told you what it has not argued- is relatively
straightforward, both as to the law and the facts.
4. As to the law, our position is asfollows- and 1have four propositions:
(1) The moratorium on commercial whaling is binding on Japan as to ali three species designated
in JARPA Il special permits. The sanctuary and the factory ship moratorium are both binding
on Japan asto fin and humpback whales.
(2) lt follows thatsinee Japan is engaging in whaling contrary to the terms of those provisions, it is
in breach of international law unless it is protected by Article VIII of the Convention.
(3) JARPA Il is not a program for the purposes of scientific research within the meaning of
Article VIII, for at least two reasons: the first reason,(a) it is not a scientific program capable
of being protected by Article VIII; the second reason, (b) it is in any event a program
conducted for commercial purposes, which is itself sufficient to disqualify it from protection
under Article VIII.
(4) Although Japan has made assertions, before you and elsewhere, that various resolutions of the
IWC are ultra vires, nothing tums here on whether that is so. Japan has not challenged the key
provisions in the present case, the moratorium, the Sanctuary and paragraph 30 ofthe Schedule.
ln any event, these are presumed to be val id as they fall within the range of Article V of the
Convention and were passed by consensus or by relevant majorities and Japan has accepted
them, except for a reservation asto the application of the Sanctuary to minke whales. - 41-
5. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it will be obvious that many of the issues before you
turn on questions of fact and appreciation. The facts will be dealt with at some length by counsel
tomorrow and 1will not seek to anticipate these treatments. 1 would simply make the following
four points:
(1) As to fin whales, Japan has taken around 4.5 percent of the targeted number- not one in
twenty. As it turns out, not even Japan's sole expert defends Japan's scientific position on fin
whales, although he did not say so in his report.
(2) As to humpback whales, Japan has taken none. A program ostensibly designed to study
inter-species competition declines to take one of the species in accordance with its ostensible
program design. One suspects the humpbacks were included as a bargaining tool. But
diplomatie positioning or bargaining is not science.
(3) As to minke whales, there is no trace of a scientific justification for the target catch, which
seems to have been worked out on the back of a proverbial envelope. Nor is Japan in recent
years taking anything like the projected number of minke whales- only about a third of the
projected number. We say the reasons for that are commercial; but one thing is clear. If 1am
your research supervisor and 1tell you to inspect the stomach contents of 850 rats plus or minus
10 percent, and after four years you are averaging 32 percent of that number of rats, then you
are a very bad student ... and 1am a very bad supervisor.
(4) lndeed it is not too much to say that Japan's scientific case has come apart at the seams. Thus
Japan has no choice but to fall back on a polemic against Australia's conduct within the IWC,
on the one hand, and on the other hand, on purely legal arguments, seraphically free from taint
of facts, as to the effectively self-judging character of Article VIII. The former, the polemic, 1
have already dealt with and we will not say anything more aboutit; the latter, for purely legal
arguments, 1will return to, with your permission, tomorrow, Mr. President, after the facts have
been more thoroughly exposed and summarized by the Solicitor-General and Professor Sands.
6. Mr. President, that concludes Australia's presentation this afternoon. Mr. President,
Members of the Court, thank you for your attention. -42-
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor Crawford . The Court will meet again tomorrow
morning at 10a.m. to hear the continuation of Australia's second round of oral arguments. Thank
you. The Court is adjourned.
The Court rose at 5.45 p.m.
Public sitting held on Tuesday 9 July 2013, at 4.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)