Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling imposes duties on the nations of
Question:
1. The International Court of Justice had jurisdiction to resolve this dispute because both parties had consented to compulsory jurisdiction under the Court's Statute and because it involved a treaty, the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Do you think that Japan anticipated that a third party like the Court would enforce the Convention in this way when it entered into the Convention? Do you think that Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan) will discourage countries from entering into such treaties?
2. The Court noted that Japanese authorities had engaged in "scant analysis and justification for the underlying decisions" and this was very important in the Court's decision that the JARPA II program was not really "for research purposes." What if Japan had prepared a better "paper trail" with lengthy analyses, but the same result? Would they have won? What if there had been analysis, but the Court determined that the analysis was wrong?
3. The Court never explicitly accused Japan's program as being conducted as a cover for continued whale hunting. Do you think that's what the substantive decision means? Can Japan avoid this problem by withdrawing from the Convention? What would prevent Japan from withdrawing?
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Step by Step Answer:
Related Book For
International Business Law And Its Environment
ISBN: 9781305972599
10th Edition
Authors: Richard Schaffer, Filiberto Agusti, Lucien J. Dhooge
Question Posted: