The Pros And Cons Of International Whaling

Japan and Norway, along with other countries, have sought cultural exemptions for whaling in the last few decades and such allowances should be made within certain qualifiers. At the core of the issue is the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the moratorium on hunting whales by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In 1986 the IWC made a blanket moratorium on whaling and it has been in place ever since (IWC, n.d.a). If a non-member of the IWC wishes to hunt whales they are allowed to do so, within certain geographical restrictions, per the terms of the UNCLOS (Hodges, 2000). As both Japan and Norway are members of

At issue here is that at one time the IWC was accepted as that international organization but their blanket ban and failure of any type of consistent enforcement, such as with the United States Makah tribe requests to hunt under subsistence rights in the 1990’s, have led to them losing favor as an unbiased organization (Hodges, 2000). As the IWC seems to lose ground as an unbiased organization various countries are now looking to receive authorization from other international organizations within the UN to grant them exemptions. Cultural exemption rights should be determined by an organization that is focused on the preservation of cultural heritage and also, in this situation, an organization that determines if there is a danger to this international resource. Ideally such a group should include members from the nations being affected so they know their interests are being presented and defended. As Norway and Japan are both still members of the current IWC organization, they should be abiding by their agreements with that group (IWC,

Unless not performing the activity would have such a negative economic impact that it would result in the eventual loss of the culture it should have minimal influence on the request for an exemption. While Norway has requested a cultural exemption their primary concern does seems to be the potential economic loss to the community than any other (Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Fisheries, n.d.). If there is an argument that without an activity like whaling the current culture would be lost that is a valid argument to make. Though if this argument is made while ignoring other potential ways to leverage opportunities for a robust economy in the culture it may be a false argument, being used to just prop up a position that otherwise would crumble without such support. However, on this issue the arguments opposing whaling seem to be supported by similar false narratives. In actuality only emotional or moral concerns are the driving force for the moratorium than any generally accepted research indicating whaling would not be sustainable if performed correctly (Marohasy,