I believe that the Japanese and the Norwegians have a very valid point on the permitting of hunting of non-endangered species of whales. The global community has jumped on the whaling issue for various reasons. Some might include the fact some whales are becoming endangered as a result of the whaling industry, but I believe that a lot of the reason lies in the fact that the western world finds the concept of whaling disturbing simply because of the size and the human like qualities that we place on the animal. This argument then becomes a question of one culture versus the other. One culture sees whaling as barbaric and believe that it should stop the other culture sees whaling as normal since it has been a part of their culture for a long time.
Instituting a worldwide whaling ban means that an international organization is basically walking into a sovereign country and telling them which things they can and cannot do. That is definitely a threat to a nation’s sovereignty. Sovereignty allows a nation to make its own rules and decide how to enforce those rules. However, if an international organization walks
…show more content…
In theory, this would be the ideal. In an argument between nations, a neutral party should come in and intervene. However, would an international panel actually be neutral? Who constitutes the members of such a panel? It is the same people who have been raised in cultural contexts that would not understand the context of the two nations requiring a whaling ban to be lifted. Because of this, it is uncertain whether such a panel would actually be able to be fare in their judgments. In order to achieve some level of fairness, such a committee should contain persons from all over the globe, from cultures that are against whaling as well as those who are for it. This way, the points and arguments of both sides stand a chance of being heard and