13
   

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 11:42 pm
@dlowan,
This year-old article from the SMH could supply some of the information you're interested in, Deb. Sorry, I could trawl my way through page after page of this thread & the old "whales" thread, to find more precise details, but I haven't the time today.:

Quote:
January 19, 2008

The Australian Government is in a dilemma over enforcing its policy against commercial whaling, which may explain why its chartered patrol vessel Oceanic Viking is adopting a low profile in the dispute between two privately-owned vessels. The brinksmanship displayed by the owners of these two vessels in Australian Antarctic Territory waters should not obscure the fact that this is essentially a dispute between the Japanese and Australian governments.

The Australian Government's anti-whaling legislation applies only in Australian territorial waters. Australia's claims to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory are recognised by only four countries, and Japan is not one of them.

If territory waters are not Australian waters then they are high seas under the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, and Australian law does not apply. In that case the law applying to the operation of the Yushin Maru No. 2 would be Japanese law. Under the convention a vessel is entitled to "innocent passage" on the high seas, and a coastal state has very limited rights of hot pursuit.

The owners of Steve Irwin are taking big risks in boarding and interfering with Yushin Maru No. 2 and may find themselves subject to a claim for damages and the possible arrest of their vessel. Any claims specifically between the owners of the two vessels are matters of private law and do not involve the Australian or Japanese governments as such.

There is a solution to the diplomatic stand-off. If the Australian Government considers it has a legitimate right to enforce its legislation in the territory it could take immediate steps to seize and detain the Yushin Maru.

It has done so with illegal fishing vessels of other nations. The Australian and Japanese governments could then sort out the legal rights and wrongs of Australia's anti-whaling legislation in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, based in Hamburg, where Australia is no stranger as a party to fishing disputes.

There is a strong case for the Australian Government to take a much more active role to give teeth to its legislation. But to allow the role of the Australian Government in enforcing its legislation to be taken up by a private vigilante group is inappropriate.

The owners of the Steve Irwin (SeaShepherd) have no legal entitlement to enforce Australian law - that role falls squarely with the Australian Government.

If the Government is serious about enforcing its anti-whaling legislation it should put it to the test and let the international tribunal decide the issue.

Derek Luxford Shipping law partner, Hicksons Lawyers, Sydney ....<cont>


http://www.smh.com.au/news/specials/whale-watch/an-honorable-way-out-of-the-whaling-debacle/2008/01/18/1200764227112.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 12:05 am
@Thomas,
But Thomas, SeaShepherd & also GreenPeace (until quite recently) would have no need to "police" the Japanese whalers' activities if the Australian government did it. Or if the Japanese whalers did not exploit the IWC's "scientific whaling" loophole for commercial purposes. Neither organisation is an agent of the Australian government. They are both international conservation organisations. The Japanese government seems to expect that the Australian government controls SeaShepherd's activities in ocean territory which it also disputes Australia has a legitimate right to control. The Japanese government also (obviously) endorses the "scientific whaling" loophole as legitimate. It is a maddening situation.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 02:43 pm
@msolga,
Thanks Msolga, I'll have a good look after work!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 04:58 pm
Sea Shepherd prosecution will need A-G's consent
February 23, 2009/SMH

The federal Attorney-General would need to approve any prosecution arising from a raid on the anti-whaling ship Steve Irwin in Hobart, a Senate committee has been told.

Federal police raided the Sea Shepherd protest ship last week after it docked in Hobart, following a complaint from Japanese officials.


Quote:
But any charges against Paul Watson, the master of the ship that has harassed Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean, will require the consent of the Attorney-General.

"We haven't reached the stage of seeking ... consent," Bill Campbell, a senior departmental official told an estimates committee hearing on Monday.

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty said Japan's complaint about the Steve Irwin reached his organisation last week by way of the Japanese embassy in Canberra, and through the Australian embassy in Tokyo.

The official complaint stemmed from the director-general of the Japanese fishing agency.

Police confiscated the ship's log book and video footage of dramatic whale-killing scenes.

Mr Watson had co-operated fully and the material taken from the vessel was now being reviewed, Mr Keelty said.

Eighteen months ago the AFP investigated a complaint by Mr Watson against the Japanese authorities. In that case, the federal Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute.

"So in that sense we understand the legislation and the need to treat the legislation seriously and objectively for all parties," Mr Keelty said.

He declined to table the AFP search warrant on grounds that the investigation was continuing.

But he confirmed allegations made by the Japanese that the Steve Irwin crew might have endangered safe navigation of the Yushin Maru No. 3 by deploying a propeller entanglement system between February 2 and 5.

Mr Watson allegedly endangered safe navigation of the same Japanese vessel by forcing a deliberate collision.

The incident followed violent clashes between the Steve Irwin and Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean over the past month.

Any prosecution would open an international can of worms, the hearing was told.

Mr Campbell said the whaling vessels were Japanese-flagged while the Steve Irwin was flagged in the Netherlands with an international crew.

Mr Watson was a Canadian and the alleged offences occurred in international waters.

Australia is a signatory to the international convention on safe navigation at sea.

"Each state party to the convention is obliged to take jurisdiction over offences where a possible offender is present in its territory," Mr Campbell said.

Japan embarks on a controversial hunt for whales in the Southern Ocean every year.

It slaughters whales using a loophole in an international moratorium on commercial whaling that allows "lethal research" on the mammals.

AAP


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/sea-shepherd-prosecution-will-need-ags-consent-20090224-8gfz.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 07:00 pm
Media report from the recent IWC meeting in Portugal. Looks like, if you can't make any real progress, or reach agreement, then form another working party .... & postpone dealing with the problem! Neutral :

IWC to extend negotiations for a year
June 25, 2009/SMH

International Whaling Commission members have agreed to extend negotiations over the disputed hunting of the marine mammals for a year, avoiding a disastrous split in the group.

Spokeswoman Jemma Miller said the IWC, which regulates world whaling between hunters and conservationists, recognised that it "is at a crossroads beset by fundamental disagreements as to its nature and purpose.
"

Quote:
By consensus the 85-nation IWC agreed to reconstitute a working group set up last year which would "intensify its efforts to conclude a package or packages" by the 2010 IWC conference "at the latest," Miller said at the meeting held on the Portuguese island of Madeira.

IWC chairman William Hogarth supported the call for more consultations.

"There is a will, now we have to find the way. If in 2010 we haven't had any progress, set a course and made some changes, there will be no more delays," he said.

Whales are protected by a moratorium on hunting dating back to 1986 with some exceptions limited by quota.

Regardless of the moratorium, almost 40,000 whales have been killed worldwide since 1985 by countries which refuse to sign up to the IWC treaty, or use loopholes allowing scientific or "lethal" research, or maintaining "aboriginal" or subsistence hunting.

However, some members voiced reservations about more talks, warning that "we're not writing a blank cheque for endless consultations," said Australian Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, a key opponent of the scientific whale hunting practiced by Japan.

The main stumbling block in the negotiations is a proposal to let Japan resume commercial whaling off its coast in exchange for a cut in its scientific whaling in the Antarctic.

Japan, which says whaling is part of its culture, kills more than 1,000 whales a year through a loophole in the treaty that allows the ocean giants to be killed for research, although the meat still ends up on dinner tables.

The Japanese delegate to the conference defended his nation's position.

"We are not asking other countries to eat whale, but to agree to disagree," said Yoshimasa Hayashi.

A delegate from New Zealand warned that unless an agreement is reached by 2010 the whaling organisation is in trouble. "If we fail, the IWC will die," he told the meeting.

Iceland, looking to join the European Union, has significantly raised its self-imposed quotas for this year in a move condemned by countries including Britain, France, Germany and the United States.

Denmark on Tuesday officially requested permission from the IWC to resume hunting humpback whales off Greenland, with a quota of 10 per year for the 2010-2012 period, in a move that has angered environmentalists.

The hunting would be carried out under so-called "aboriginal" or subsistence hunting to support local communities, but opponents say it is unnecessary.

Conservationists also were sceptical about another round of IWC negotiations.

"There has been a year of talking already and no evidence from the new proposal that there will be anything more than talking for another year," said Sara Holden, Greenpeace International's whales campaign co-ordinator.


Meanwhile, a Norwegian fisheries organisation said Wednesday that Norway's whalers had suspended their hunt mid-season this year with less than half a government quota of 885 whales killed because demand was saturated.

AFP



http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/iwc-to-extend-negotiations-for-a-year-20090625-cxnb.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 07:40 pm
'Spaceship' boosts anti-whaling force
Andrew Darby in Madiera, Portugal

June 26, 2009/SMH

Looking more like a giant spider ... the activists' new Earthrace, which last year circled the globe in 61 days, fuelled by biodiesel.

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/06/25/604198/earthrace-420x0.jpg

JAPAN has asked Australia to prevent the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin leaving port to harass its whalers in the Antarctic next summer, but the plea may have little effect.

The anti-whaling activists plan to upgrade their fleet from an ageing, former North Atlantic fisheries patrol boat to include another ship - something out of the future. The global speedboat Earthrace would head south under Sea Shepherd colours next summer, the group's leader Paul Watson said.


Quote:
"It looks like a spaceship. It can do 40 knots and dive under waves completely. We'll be using it to intercept and block harpoons."

In 61 days last year Earthrace circled the globe fuelled by biodiesel. The New Zealand owner/skipper, Pete Bethune, said he decided to become involved because "this is happening in my backyard and it really pisses me off. I'm going to make a stand."

He said he was adding half a tonne of Kevlar to the vessel to toughen it against the ice. It had the endurance to go half way round the world on a tank of fuel.

"They won't get away from me," he said.


Earthrace's role was unveiled as the International Whaling Commission heard that Sea Shepherd's protests endangered the lives of whalers in the Southern Ocean last summer when the Steve Irwin was involved in two collisions.

"These are highly dangerous, and it can only be described as a miracle that there has been no death or large-scale accident to date," said a Japanese delegation member, Jun Yamashita.

"We cannot tolerate such audacity," Mr Yamashita told the commission. "We ask for all appropriate measures, including a ban on the ship from leaving port, so that we can prevent these acts from being repeated."

Mr Watson, who is not permitted inside the meeting, said the Steve Irwin was soon to leave Brisbane for Hobart after a $500,000 refit. Its buckled hull plates had been repaired, and it was fitted with a powerful water cannon on the bow to match the whalers'.

He dubbed next summer's campaign Operation Waltzing Matilda and has adopted a symbol with a kangaroo wearing a pirate's eye patch. ...<cont>


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/spaceship-boosts-antiwhaling-force-20090625-cy7v.html
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:49 pm
@msolga,
Somehow it reminds me of some villain in a batman movie. Smile
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:51 pm
@Thomas,
Looks more like sci fi to me, Thomas! Smile
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:53 pm
@msolga,
.... a force not to be reckoned with!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:53 pm
@msolga,
Let's discuss it over sushi sometime.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:54 pm
@Thomas,



What particular variety of sushi, Thomas?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:55 pm
@msolga,
This is a trick question, isn't it.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:56 pm
@Thomas,
No, yours was! (You devil, you!)
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 08:58 pm
@msolga,
Well, certainly it couldn't be whale sushi. Don't you know the key ingredient is needed for research?

And my remark couldn't possibly be a trick question, since it wasn't even a question.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 09:02 pm
@Thomas,


Quote:
certainly it couldn't be whale sushi


Definitely not!

Quote:
Don't you know the key ingredient is needed for research?


And the findings are taking so long to finally reach us! All that necessary testing & re-testing, I guess ....

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 09:03 pm
@msolga,
The research is so important it's classified. National security, ya know. Can't really talk about it -- I'd have to shoot you if I did, which I can't.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 09:06 pm
@Thomas,
I'd definitely keep quiet about it, then, Thomas! Keeps both of us out of trouble!
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 09:11 pm
@msolga,
To change the subject to a more serious note -- what exactly is the status of the Whaling Ships and their environmentalist stalkers under international law? If the Whaling is legal-ish as "scientific" under the Whaling convention, isn't what the activists do at least in the broad perimeter of piracy? Could Japan have military vessels escort their Whaling ships, and have the military shoot the activists down? Rainbow Warrier style, only on the high sea?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 09:30 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Well, certainly it couldn't be whale sushi


Well, no. As it's mammal wouldn't it be carpaccio or tartare?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 09:42 pm
@Thomas,
You certainly know how to ask the hard questions, just as a girl is about to leave her keyboard to go out, Thomas! Wink

Whaling was supposedly banned by the IWC in 1986, it's just the "scientific" loophole that has been exploited by Japan, to continue commercial whaling. I don't know that exploiting this loophole exactly makes it "legal-ish". Other countries which aren't signatories to the convention at all & openly engage in whale killing.
As for the "the law of the sea", "piracy", etc ... incredibly convoluted! We got very bogged down in these questions when the Japanese whalers took some of the SeaShepherd crew hostage (with Japanese government blessing, apparently), around the same time Australia was patrolling the Southern Ocean to keep tabs on Japanese whaling activities ... then the Japanese government was leaning heavily on the Oz government to take legal action against SeaShepherd for lawless activities against the whalers ... meanwhile SeaShepherd claimed it was acting on/enforcing Australian law (because the Oz government wasn't!) in protecting whales in the Australian protected waters (this status is disputed by Japan & others) Rolling Eyes .... So you see, Thomas, when it comes to legalities, it's a big, big, grey area. And as you can also see, the recent IWC meeting in Portugal resolved nothing. So I guess, it means business as usual in the Southern ocean this summer!

Whether you see SeaShepherd's activities as "piracy" or not, depends very much on your political perspective. What measures is it reasonable for the likes of SeaShepherd to take, to protect whales from slaughter, given that the moratorium on whaling has never been properly enforced?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/11/2024 at 05:58:56