International court says Japan’s whaling is illegal

Japan's whaling program in the Antarctic sanctuary is now officially illegalIn a stunning decision and a victory for whales and whale enthusiasts, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague announced their binding decision today in the landmark case of Australia v. Japan, ruling that Japan’s JARPA II whaling program in the Antarctic is not for scientific purposes and ordering that all permits given under JARPA II be revoked.  Sea Shepherd Conservation Society USA and Sea Shepherd Australia, both of which have directly intervened against Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean, applauded the decision.

Continue reading

New Zealand sides with Australia to ban Japanese whaling

whalesAdding their voice to Australia’s. New Zealand says it will assist with any international legal action to stop Japan’s illegal whale hunting in Antarctica’s Southern Sea.

New Zealand said it favors a diplomatic solution as a first choice, but will resort to legal action if necessary.

Now if the International Whaling Commission would just get on board.

Potential ruling could legalize hunting whales

Whale hunting could become legal again

Whale hunting could become legal again

In what could be a devastating environmental decision, the International Whaling Commission may decide to allow whale hunting to become legal again.

A moratorium on conmercial whale hunting has been in place since 1986, although several countries have been allowed to hunt them under the guise of “research”.

The newly drafted Consensus Decision by the Small Working Group on the Future of IWC would let countries that currently hunt whales under the existing treaty’s “research” provision to hunt them under this new ruling. The countries this would cover include Japan (currently the most notable offender), Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, which kill a combined total of 1,500 whales a year. Whaling by indigenous groups would be allowed to continue.

It’s a telling tale when a world organization charged with protecting a threatened species opts for a compromise that would push that threat even deeper rather than take a firm stand in the face of disagreement.

For more on this story, go to