Why Japan supports whaling

Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy

Volumn 8, Issue 2-3, 2005, Pages 129-149

  Hirata, Keiko ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; WHALING; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

ASIA; EURASIA; FAR EAST; JAPAN;

EID: 31344465489     PISSN: 13880292     EISSN: 15481476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13880290590965276     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Isao Miyaoka, 1980s and Early 1990s: Changing from an Eco-Outlaw to aGreen Contributor, 16NEWSL. INST. SOC. SCI. U. TOKYO, 7-10 (1999).
2. Id. at 7.
3. Robert L. Friedheim, Introduction: The IWC as a Contested Regime, in TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE WHALING REGIME, 3-48 (Robert L. Friedheim, ed., 2001). Friedheim argues that a universal antiwhaling norm has emerged. Adopting phrases introduced by Finnemore and Sikkinnk, he contends that the norm has passed a "tipping point" and has already "cascaded" throughout the international community.
4. Friedheim argues that a universal antiwhaling norm has emerged. Adopting phrases introduced by Finnemore and Sikkinnk, he contends that the norm has passed a "tipping point" and has already "cascaded" throughout the international community. See Margaret Finnemore & Katherine Sikkink, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, 52 INT'L ORG. 887-917 (1998).
5. For example, see CHALMERS JOHNSON, MITI & THE JAPANESE MIRACLE:THE GROWTH OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY, 1925 - 1975 (1982).
6. Gary Strieker, Japan Grapples with Whale Harvesting, Cable News Network (CNN), July 24, 2002, (accessed on July 28, 2003).
7. Andrew P. Cortell & James W. Davis, Jr., Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms: A Research Agenda, 2 INT'L STUD. REV. 65-87 (2000);
8. Andrew P. Cortell & James W. Davis, Jr., How Do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms, 40 INT'L STUD. Q. 451-478 (1996);
9. Jeffrey T. Checkel, Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe, 43 INT'L STUD. Q. 83-114 (1999);
10. Thomas Risse-Kappen, Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures and the End of the Cold War, 48 INT'L ORG. 185-214 (1994).
11. I use the term "conservation" to refer to the regime because the IWC no longer serves the function of regulating commercial whaling but instead promotes a complete ban on the commercial hunting and killing of whales. See Stuart R. Harrop, From Cartel to Conservation and on to Compassion: Animal Welfare and the International Whaling Commission, 6 J. INT'L WILDLIFE L. & POL'Y 79-104 (2003);
12. Steinar Andresen, The International Whaling Commission (IWC): More Failure Than Success?, in Environmental. Regime Effevtiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence 379-403 (Edward L. Miles et al. eds., 2002).
13. An earlier attempt to regulate whaling resulted in the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, adopted by the League of Nations in 1931. The convention was designed to stabilize prices for whale oil and spermaceti. However, it had no enforcement powers and failed to curb excessive exploitation of whaling See Bruce J. Stedman, The International Whaling Commission and Negotiation for a Global Moratorium on Whaling, in Nine Cast Studies in International Environmental Negotiation 151-175 (Lawrence E. Susskind et al. eds., 1990). stocks.
14. International Whaling Commission (IWC), International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946, (accessed on September 21, 2002), italics added.
15. According to Andresen, supra note 8, the IWC has gone through three stages of development: (1) Phase 1, 1946-early 1960s (no conservation and no orderly development,), (2) Phase 2, mid-1960s-late 1970s (beginning of whaling regulation, regime effectiveness on the rise), and (3) Phase 3, late-1970s to the present (politicized era, mixed results).
16. Peter J. Stoett, The International Politics of Whaling (1997);
17. Friedheim, supra note 4;
18. Anny Wong, The Roots of Japan's International Environmental Policies (2001).
19. Harrop, supra note 8, at 81.
20. David Day, The Whale War 97 (1987);
21. M. J. Peterson, Whalers, Cetologists, Environmentalists, and the International Management of Whaling, 46 INT'L ORG. 147-186 (1992).
22. Environmental NGOs reportedly contributed to the expansion of the IWC membership by footing the membership fees and drafting the required membership documents for small, poor, nonwhaling states to become members of the IWC, so that antiwhaling states would grow to outnumber whaling states within the organization. See Leslie Spencer, The Not So Peaceful World of Greenpeace, FORBES 174-181, November 11, 1991;
23. Friedheim,supra note 4;
24. Steinar Andresen, The Making and Implementation of Whaling Policies: Does Participation Make a Difference? in The Implementation & Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory & Practice 431-474 (David G. Victor et al., eds., 1998).
25. The adoption of NMP was spurred by the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, which passed a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling as a result of intense campaigns by environmental NGOs and the U.S. government. While Japan, Brazil, and South Africa abstained, the other countries attending the conference voted unanimously in favor of the resolution. For more detailed discussion on the Stockholm conference on whaling, see William C. Burns, The International Whaling Commission in the 1990s: Problems and Prospects, 6 Int'l Wildlife L. Occasional Paper Series (1994).
26. These categories are the Protection Stocks (PS, the highest category including right, gray, humpback, blue, fin, and sperm whales), the Initial Management Stocks (IMS), and the Sustained Management Stocks (SMS). Commercial whaling was permitted for only IMS and SMS. Id. at 9;
27. Friedheim, supra note 4, at 4;
28. Andresen, supra note 13.
29. Stedman, supra note 9.
30. If a member lodges an objection to an IWC decision within a certain period of time, it is not bound by that decision (Article 5.3). IWC, homepage, (accessed on January 9, 2003).
31. Some prowhaling member states such as Canada eventually left the IWC in protest over the moratorium. Friedheim, supra note 4;
32. Andresen, supra note 13.
33. Wong, supra note 11.
34. However, even though Japan adopted the moratorium, the U.S. government froze the Japanese fishing quota in the U.S. EEZ in 1988 in order to protect its own fishing industry. Masayuki Komatsu, with the help of Shigeko Misaki, The Truth Behind The Whaling Disputes(unpublished manuscript).
35. Even though the IWC accepted and endorsed the RMP as a formula for sustainable, regulated whaling, the organization has never incorporated it into the IWC Schedule. The antiwhaling states have argued that a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) should be implemented first before the procedure takes effect. The RMS is supposed to incorporate both scientific aspects of management (i.e., including specific rules for conducting surveys of whale numbers) and nonscientific aspects of inspection and enforcement of rules for commercial whaling and humaneness of killing techniques. See Friedheim, supra note 4.
36. For a critical analysis of the effectiveness of the RMP, See Burns, supra note 14.
37. The Southern Ocean Sanctuary would preclude commercial whaling in the region within the greatest whale resources. Friedheim, supra note 4.
38. IWC, supra note 10.
39. Japan was not alone in conducting whaling operations under the name of scientific research. Norway, South Korea, and Iceland also have engaged in scientific whaling.
40. South Korea and Iceland also submitted similar proposals to the Scientific Committee in the same year. See Burns, supra note 14.
41. 39th Rep. IWC 24 (1987), quoted in Burns, supra note 14, at 11.
42. Alexander Gillespie, Whaling under a Scientific Auspice: The Ethics of Scientific Research Whaling Operations, 3 J. Int'l Wildlife L. & Pol'y 1-38 (2000).
43. Burns, supra note 14.
44. Masaaki Ishida, Brief Outline of the Japanese Research Whaling Program in the Antarctic (JARPA) (2002), (accessed on July 23, 2003).
45. William Aron et al., Scientists versus Whaling: Science, Advocacy, and Errors of Judgment, 52 Bioscience 1137-1140 (2002).
46. IWC, Final Press Release, 2000 Annual Meeting, Adelaide, Australia (2000), (accessed on July 28, 2003).
47. Robbins Barstow, 24 U.S. Senators Condemn Japan's Renewed Whaling, 9 WHALES ALIVE 3 (2000), (accessed on July 15, 2003).
48. Norman Mineta, The Case Against Japan's Whaling Program, Japan Times Online, August 26, 2000, (accessed on July 22, 2003);
49. Mineta Recommends Clinton Penalize Japan over Whaling, Japan Times Online, Sept. 14, 2000, (accessed on July 22, 2003);
50. The White House, the Government of the United States, President Clinton Directs U.S. Actions in Response to Japanese Whaling, September 13, 2000, (accessed on July 15, 2003).
51. Japan Slams U.S. for Sanctions Threat over Whales, CNN, September 5, 2000, (accessed on July 15, 2003).
52. A Middle Way to Whaling, Japan Times Online, May 22, 2002, (accessed on July 22, 2003).
53. Nihon Horui Kenkyu-jo [The Institute of Cetacean Research, ICR], 2003-nen Kita-Taiseiyo Horui Hokaku Chosa [Research on the Harvest of the Japan Research Whaling Program in the North Pacific, 2003], May 13, 2003, (accessed on July 23, 2003).
54. Emotions Escalate in U.S., Japan Whaling Debate, CNN, September 14, 2000, (accessed on June 26, 2002);
55. UK Warns Japan over Whaling Ban, British Broadcasring Corp. (BBC) News, May 16, 2002, (accessed on June 26, 2002);
56. Mari Yamaguchi, Whaling Methods Debated, The Washington Post, June 24, 2002, (accessed on June 26, 2002). As retaliation against Japan's scientific whaling program, the Reagan administration indicated that the United States might invoke the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment again to terminate all Japanese fishing rights within the U.S. EEZ.
57. By then, however, Japan's fishing quota in the U.S. waters was minimum, thus the U.S. gesture was only symbolic. While the U.S. administration indicated it would review Japan's action, it eventually took no action. Dean Wilkinson, The Use of Domestic Measures to Enforce International Whaling Agreements: A Critical Perspective, 17 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 271-291 (1989);
58. Burns, supra note 14.
59. See, for example, Greenpeace, Whaling (2000), (accessed on June 26, 2002);
60. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Japan's Lethal Research Programme: The JARPN II Review (2002), (accessed on July 23, 2003).
61. See, for example, Peter McKillop, Letter from Japan: Whale of a Problem, Time Magazine, September 1, 2000, (accessed on June 26, 2002).
62. See, for example, Jared Diamond, A Whale of an Agenda, Los Angels Times, June 23, 2002, at M 1, 6.
63. For an extensive and critical analysis of Japan's scientific research program, See Gillespie, supra note 24.
64. For example, Stephen Hesse, Scientists Petition Japan to Lay Down Harpoons, Japan Times Online, May 23, 2002, (accessed on July 22, 2003).
65. After the completion of research, a few thousand tons of whale meat are annually sold to the Japanese central government. Then the government distributes the meat to local governments, which then passes it on to wholesale fish markets. Eventually, the meat ends up in Japanese eateries. Japan - The Politics of Whaling, The Economist, Sept. 9, 2000, at 42.
66. S.J. Mayer,APreliminary Review and Evaluation of Scientific Whaling from 1986 to 1996 (unpublished manuscript).
67. Colin Nickerson, In Japan, Saving Whales Means Losing A Lifestyle, Boston Globe June 21, 1991, at 1.
68. It should be pointed out that Japan has not completely stopped STCW or commercial whaling. Small coastal whaling firms have continued to hunt whale species not subject to the IWC's ban on commercial whaling (e.g., Baird's beaked, pilot whales, Dall's porpoises). However, these firms are accorded quotas and thus regulated by the government. Japan Whaling Association, Questions and Answers, (accessed on July 23, 2003).
69. Arne Kalland & Brian Moeran, Japanese Whaling: End of an Era? (1992);
70. Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF), Japan's Position on Small-Type Coastal Whaling and Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, media release, May 24, 2002.
71. Friedheim, supra note 4, at 135.
72. Prior to that vote, Japan had proposed a compromise to the United States and Russia that would have amended the aboriginal quota and also to allocate Japan a STCW quota of 25 minke whales. However, the IWC voted the amendment down. See IWC Meeting Ends in a Bitter Divide, Japan Times Online, May 25, 2002, (accessed on July 21, 2003).
73. Bow to Aboriginals Seen as 'Sunny Day' for Japan, Japan Times Online, May 24, 2002, (accessed on July 21, 2003).
74. In October 2002, however, Japan changed its position and supported the renewal of the aboriginal whaling quotas for the Inuit and Chukotka for the next five years, on condition that Japan's scientific whaling data be considered at future IWC meetings. As a result, the IWC endorsed the renewal. It is speculated that Japan supported the proposal for the quota renewal because the United States switched its position and supported a Japanese resolution calling for an early resolution over its request for the quota of 50 minke whales under the STCW scheme. U.S. Denies Whaling Quid Pro Quo, Japan Times Online, October 17, 2002, (accessed on July 28, 2003).
75. MAFF, Alaskan's Lose Quota Due to United States' Hypocrisy, media release, May 23, 2002.
76. Komatsu's position is also found in Alex Kirby, Inuit Demand Whale Catch, BBC NEWS, October 13, 2002, (accessed on October 13, 2002)
77. Masayuki Komatsu, What Was Achieved at the Shimonoseki IWC Meeting, 26 ISANA (2002), (accessed on January 16, 2003).
78. MAFF, Lee, McLay - Whaling Mimics for Greenpeace, media release, May 21, 2002.
79. William C.G. Burns, The Berlin Initiative on Strengthening the Conservation Agenda of the International Whaling Commission: Toward a New Era for Cetaceans, 13(1) Rev. Eur. Comm. & Int'l Envtl. L. 73-84 (2004);
80. Reaction to Lost Votes: Japan Threatens to Pull Out of the IWC, The Japan Times Online, June 21, 2003, (accessed on July 21, 2003).
81. Milton M. R. Freeman, Japanese Community-Based Whaling, International Protest, and the New Environmentalism, in Japan at the Crossroads: Hot Issues for the 21ST Century 12-31 (David Myers & Kotaku Ishido, eds., 1998).
82. Japan May Halt Funds to Whaling Commission, Japan Times Online, June 18, 2003, (accessed on June 21, 2003).
83. Reaction to Lost Votes: Japan Threatens to Pull out of the IWC, Japan Times Online, June 21, 2003, (accessed on July 21, 2003).
84. Peterson, supra note 13.
85. Nihon Kogata Hogei Kyoukai [Japan Small-Type Whaling Association], Heisei 15-nendo Kogata Hogei Gyosha to Sono Shozai-chi [Small-Type Whaling Businesses and Their Locations, 2003] (2003), (accessed on July 24, 2003).
86. Id.
87. Kyodo Senpaku was established after the dissolution of its predecessor, Nihon Kyodo Hogei. This company was created in 1976 from a merger of three Japanese fishing companies (i.e., Nihon Suisan, Taiyo Gyogho, and Kyokuyo Hogei). The merger was effectuated due to the aforementioned IWC regulatory measures and the subsequent contraction of the industry. Zenjiro Tsuchii, Saikin Hogei. HAKUSHO [White Paper on Recent Whaling] 13 (1992).
88. See Japan - The Politics of Whaling, The Economist, Sept. 9, 2000, at 42;
89. Wong supra note 11.
90. Nihon Horui Kenkyujo [Institute of Cetacean Research, ICR], Nihon Horui Kenkyujo no Enkaku to Setsuritsu Mokuteki [The History of the Institute for Cetacean Research and the Objectives of its Establishment], (accessed on July 27, 2003).
91. A Middle Way to Whaling, supra note 32.
92. Gwynne Dyer, Why Japan Won't Back Down on Whaling, Japan Times Online, July 25, 2001, (accessed on July 23, 2003).
93. Cortell & Davis, supra note 7.
94. Prior to that, the hunting and eating of whales was largely confined to small coastal communities. See Arne Kalland, The Anti-Whaling Campaigns and Japanese Responses (1998), (accessed on July 3, 2002);
95. Wong, supra note 11.
96. Shima Kazuo, Japan and Whaling, 16 Newzl. Inst. Soc. Sci. U. Tokyo 3-6 (1999);
97. Jun'ichi Takahashi, Kujira No Nihon Bunka-Shi-Hogei-Bunka No Koro o Tadura: Nihon-Bunka No Kokoro, Sono Uchi to Soto [The Japanese Cultural History of Whales - Tracing the Path of the Whaling Culture: The Heart of the Japanese Culture, Its Inside and Outside] (1992).
98. A Japanese delegate to the IWC even declared that minke whales were "cockroaches of the ocean," referring to their purported overpopulation. Peter Hadfield, With Respect - A Whale of A Problem, JAPAN Today, July 22, 2001, (accessed on July 23, 2003).
99. Milton M. R. Freeman & Stephen R. Kellert, Public Atittudes to Whales: Results of a Six-Country Survey 4 (1992).
100. Kalland & Moeran, supra note 43.
101. See Dyer, supra note 60.
102. See Kalland, supra note 62.
103. See for example, Seiji Osumi, Kujira to Nihonjin [Whales and the Japanese] (2003);
104. Takahashi, supra note 63.
105. MAFF, Share Our Philosophy with You: Japan will Host the 54th International Whaling Commission Annual Meeting in 2002 (2002), (accessed on June 26, 2002).
106. Masayuki Komatsu, Kujira wa Tabetemo Ii! [It is All Right to Eat Whale!] (2000);
107. Masayuki Komatsu, Kujira to Nihonjin: Tabete Koso Kyozon Dekiru Ningen to Umi no Kankei [Whales and the Japanese: Human-Whale Relationship - Only When Humans Eat Whales, the Human-Whale Coexistence is Possible] (2002).
108. See also another Fisheries Agency official's book, Joji Morishita, Naze Kujira Ww Zasho Suru no Ka: "Han-Hogei" no Higeki [Why Whales Get Stranded: The Tragedy of "Anti-Whaling"] (2002).
109. Stedman, supra note 9, at 157-158;
110. Friedheim, supra note 3.
111. Yoshito Umezaki, Dobutsu Hogo Undo no Kyozoo [The Pseudo-Image of Animal Protectionist Movements] (2001);
112. Tsuchii, supra note 56, at 29.
113. Wong, supra note 11.
114. See, for example, Isao Miyaoka, Legitemacy in International Society: Japas's Reaction to Global Wildlife Preservation 80 (2004).
115. For the Japanese government's reaction to Greenpeace's blockade of Japanese whaling vessels, See, for example, Fisheries Agency, Greenpeace Antarctic Campaign a Failure, media release, January 16, 2002.
116. According to Wong, supra note 11, the planning and implementation of the antiwhaling campaigns of Greenpeace Japan were controlled by the international Greenpeace headquarters and were not carried out in ways that addressed the particular cultural sensitivities of the Japanese people.
117. Miyaoka, supra note 75;
118. Wong, supra note 11.
119. Sidney Holt & Nina M. Young, Guide to Review of the Management of Whaling (2nd ed. 1991).
120. Stedman, supra note 9, at 162.
121. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), The Position of the Japanese Government on Research Whaling (2000), (accessed on June 26, 2002).
122. MOFA's prowhaling stance and its attempt to ease conflicts with other states reflect the ministry's divided internal politics. Its Fisheries Division of the Economic Affairs Bureau enthusiastically promotes the MAFF/Fisheries Agency's whaling policies, while the North America Bureau is highly sensitive to the adverse impacts of Japan's prowhaling position on U.S. Japan relations and is least supportive of whaling. See Wong, supra note 11.
123. At the same time, Japan's two largest parties have prowhaling parliamentary groups: The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Parliamentary League in Support of Whaling (Hogei Giin Renmei, headed by Shunichi Suzuki), and the Democratic Party's Parliamentary Council to Address Whaling Issues (Hogei Taisaku giin Kyogikai, headed by Shiro Hino). Yet, like many other parliamentary "leagues" or "councils" in Japan, these groups have not been involved in policy making. Also, smaller parties (i.e., Komei Party, Communist Party have some whaling advocates, but these legislators have virtually no influence in policy making. See Friedheim, supra note 4;
124. Wong, supra note 11. Recently, Japanese politicians participated in a prowhaling rally prior to the 2003 IWC annual meeting.
125. See Whale Portal Site, IWC Shimonoseki de Hogei Saikai o Mezasu Zenkoku Soo Kekki Shuukai [National Rally to Push for the Resumption of Whaling at the IWC Shimonoseki Meeting], (accessed on March 15, 2004).
126. The fact that virtually no politicians publicly oppose whaling, however, does not mean that all are advocates for the prowhaling cause. It is possible that some are uninterested in whaling issues altogether or, due to cultural and social norms in Japan, are afraid to speak out publicly against whaling.
127. Wong, supra note 11.
128. Kujira Mondai Renraku Kyogikai [Whale Conservation Coalition of Japan], homepage (2002), (accessed on Jan. 3, 2004).
129. The limited role of Japanese NGOs in opposing whaling does not, however, reflect a prowhaling stance among their activist base. Today's Japanese youth have grown up not eating much whale meat, reflecting the fact that Japan's consumption of whale meat has dwindled since the 1970s. Thus, many young people are detached from the issue, neither having strong emotional attachment to the custom of eating whale meat nor feeling strongly about the rights of the whales. 40% of Japanese Indifferent to Whaling Issue, Survey Finds, Japan Times Online, September 21, 2000, (accessed on July 21, 2003).
130. Keiko Hirata, Civil Society in Japan: The Growing Role of Ngos in Tokyo's Aid & Development Policy (2002).