[Dr Natalie Klein is Professor and Dean of Macquarie Law School, Australia]
Cross-posted at SHARES blog.
One of the most successful environmental campaigns was captured by the slogan of ‘Save the Whales’. It was apparently when the Australian Prime Minister’s daughter returned home from school sporting a Save the Whales badge that the
initial impetus was provided for Australia to shift from pro-whaling nation to anti-whaling. Over the decades, we have seen a fundamental change in the legal regulation of whaling: from minimal regulation and maximum exploitation to a zero-catch quota (colloquially known as the moratorium) on commercial whaling under the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). There has been resistance to this moratorium – from those states that never agreed to the imposition of a moratorium and those states that seem to thwart the moratorium by conducting commercial whaling under the guise of legally permissible scientific whaling,
as Australia asserts Japan is doing. If we are to maintain legal standards in the conduct of whaling then how can states be held responsible?
In considering the intersection of the law of responsibility in relation to whaling, there is an initial question as to whom the obligation is owed?
