These aspects feature in different ways in the various levels of Australian foreign-policy making. See further GyngellAllan & WesleyMichael, Making Australian Foreign Policy (2nd ed, 2007) 22–33.
2.
See ScottShirley V, ‘Australia's First Tuna Negotiations with Japan’ (2000) 24Marine Policy309, 309.
3.
See ibid 310 and ScottShirley, ‘Australian Diplomacy Opposing Japanese Antarctic Whaling 1945–1951: The Role of Legal Argument’ (1999) 53(2) Australian Journal of International Affairs179.
4.
But see IshiiAtsushi & OkuboAyako, ‘An Alternative Explanation of Japan's Whaling Diplomacy in the Post-Moratorium Era’ (2007) 10Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy55 (arguing that Japan has a greater interest in ensuring the continuation of its scientific whaling practice rather than over-turning the moratorium).
See D'AmatoAnthony and ChopraSudhir K, ‘Whales: Their Emerging Right To Life’ (1991) 85American Journal of International Law21.
11.
See Agence France Presse, ‘Australian leader open to legal action on Japan whaling’, 11 June 2008; FranklinMatthew and AlfordPeter, ‘PM Kevin Rudd Sticks to Legal Guns on Whaling’, The Australian (Sydney), 12 June 2008.
12.
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2004) 212ALR551; Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116; Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2007] FCA 124; DavisRuth, ‘Enforcing Australian Law In Antarctica: The HSI Litigation’ (2007) 6Melbourne Journal of International Law142.
13.
Ishii & Okubo, above n 4, 56, 74–84.
14.
See HirataKeiko, ‘Why Japan Supports Whaling’ (2005) 8Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy129.
15.
SatoYoichiro, ‘Fishy Business: A Political-Economic Analysis of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute’ (2002) 28Asian Affairs American Review217, 222 (‘The major disagreement between Australia and Japan has been over the projection of the stock recovery.’). See also Tanter, above n 6, 32 (‘The dispute between the three countries has both legal and scientific aspects, but the most important is the difference of scientific opinion about the state of the stocks’).
16.
HayashiMoritaka, ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases: Prescription of Provisional Measures by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ (2000) 13Tulane Environmental Law Journal361, 365.
17.
Tanter, above n 6, 33
18.
DarbyAndrew, Harpoon: Into the Heart of Whaling (2007) 60, 67, 104.
19.
Scientists comments published in 1(1) Journal of Cetacean Resource Management3–24, 2, cited in Report of the International Panel of Independent Legal Experts On: Special Permit (‘Scientific’) Whaling Under International Law, (Paris, 12 May 2006), 62, para 134 <ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_647.pdf> at 24 June 2008 (hereafter Paris Report).
20.
Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, opened for signature 10 May 1993, [1994] ATS 16 (entered into force 20 May 1994).
21.
See ibid, art 8.
22.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 (entered into force 16 November 1994).
23.
International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, opened for signature 2 December 1946, 161 UNTS 72, pmbl (entered into force 10 November 1948).
24.
TriggsGillian, ‘Japanese Whaling: An Abuse of Right or Optimum Utilisation?’ (2005) 5:1Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law33, 47 (‘The underlying assumption of the Whaling Convention is thus that, with proper conservation measures, the whaling industry will continue.’).
25.
International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, opened for signature 2 December 1946, 161 UNTS 72, Schedule, Section 10(e) (entered into force 10 November 1948).
26.
See arguments in Paris Report, above n 19.
27.
Ibid.
28.
SerdyAndrew, ‘The Paradoxical Success of UNCLOS Part XV: A Half Hearted Reply to Rosemary Rayfuse’ (2005) 36Victoria University Wellington Law Review713, 715.
29.
Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v Japan) (2000) 39ILM1359. For academic commentary, see, eg, KleinNatalie, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (2005) 35–43, 64–66, 73–75, 82–83; Hayashi, above n 16; KwiatkowskaBarbara, ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan Cases)’ (2000) 15:1 International Journal of Marine & Coastal Law1; OxmanBernard H, ‘Complementary Agreements and Compulsory Jurisdiction’ (2001) 95American Journal of International Law277.
30.
Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, opened for signature 10 May 1993, [1994] ATS 16, art 16 (entered into force 20 May 1994).
31.
See most recently the refusal to order provisional measures in relation to the construction of a pulp mill on the River Uruguay. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Request for the indication of provisional measures, Order of 23 January 2007 [2007] ICJ Rep.
32.
Triggs, above n 24, 52.
33.
In looking at the totality of Japan's scientific research programs, Gales comment: ‘Japan's expanded programme will result in annual catches that are more than half the total cumulative catches for scientific research by all nations in the past half-century.’GalesNicholas J, ‘Japan's Whaling Plan under Scrutiny’ (2005) 435Nature883, 883.
34.
Ibid (‘The strongest scientific argument in favour of lethal sampling – the collection of genetic samples for determining population structure – could be conducted far more efficiently using non-lethal biopsy techniques.’) See also SchiffmanHoward S, ‘Scientific Research Whaling in International Law: Objectives and Objections’ (2002) 8ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law473, 479 (noting that environmentalists maintain that ‘Japan has not seriously investigated non-lethal substitutes because the costs of non-lethal research cannot be recouped by the sale of whale products’).
35.
Greenberg argue that the duty to cooperate does not mean that Japan must accede to the particular views on conservation of others. See GreenbergEldon V CHoffPaul SGouldingMichael I, ‘Japan's Whale Research Program and International Law’ (2002) 32California Western International Law Journal151, 200.
36.
See, eg, CameronAlastair, ‘Is there Hope for the Fish?: The Post-Arbitration Effectiveness of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna’ (2007) 15New York University Environmental Law Journal247.
37.
McGregorJeanavive, ‘Too Many Fishermen in the Sea’, Reportage (November, 2006), <reportage.uts.edu.au/stories/2006/world/sbt.html> at 25 March 2008 (story revealed by Richard McLoughlin, then managing director of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, who believed he was presenting under Chatham House rules at the time).
38.
BradfordGillian, ‘Japan caught overfishing Bluefin Tuna’, ABC Transcripts, 16 October 2006 (referring to comments of the Australian Fisheries Minister that Australia expected Japan to comply with new SBT fishing limits since Japan had admitted its wrong-doing and accepted a penalty).
39.
See StephensTim, ‘The Limits of International Adjudication in International Environmental Law: Another Perspective on the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case’, (2004) 19(2) The International Journal Of Marine and Coastal Law177, 187; MansfieldWilliam R, ‘Note and Comment: Correspondence’ (2001) 95American Journal of International Law624.
Dispute settlement experts have been brought into the IWC as a means of finding ways around the current impasse. See Chair's Report of the Intersessional Meeting on the Future of IWC (6–8, March, 2008), IWC/60/7 Agenda item 18 <iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC60docs/60-7.pdf> at 24 June 2008.
