The interplay of international law and domestic law: The case of Australia's efforts to protect whales

Environmental and Planning Law Journal

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 465-489

  Blay, Sam ^a   Bubna Litic, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 63049127646     PISSN: 0813300X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (172)

1. Australia, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Ian Campbell, Transcript of the Revised Management Scheme to Maintain Moratorium on Commercial Whaling (International Whaling Convention, Korea, 22 June 2005) available online at http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2005/tr22jun205.html (viewed 20 November 2006).
2. D'Amato A and Chopra SK, "Whales: Their Emerging Right to Life" (1991) 85 AM J Int'l L 21 at 57.
3. Kelsen H, The Pure Theory of Law (University of California Press, 1967) pp 320-347
4. Kelsen H, The Principles of International Law (Rinehart, 1952) particularly 404 ff.
5. Stark JG, "Monism and Dualism in the Theory of International Law" in (1936) 17 British Year Book of International Law 66 at 74.
6. Feldman D, "Monism, Dualism and Constitutional Legitimacy" (1999) 20 Australian Year Book of International Law 105.
7. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664.
8. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [34].
9. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [35].
10. The action by Greenpeace was not necessarily the result of the courts decision. The HSI action was independent of the Greenpeace. It is arguable that Greenpeace would have embarked on the action against the whaling ships in any case.
11. 1Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 (Black CJ and Finkelstein J; Moore J dissenting).
12. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2004] FCA 1510; [2005] FCA 664 (Allsop J).
13. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 (Black CJ and Finkelstein J; Moore J dissenting).
14. McGrath C, "Editorial Commentary: The Japanese Whaling Case" (2005) 22 EPLJ 250
15. McGrath C, "Japanese Whaling Case Appeal Succeeds" (2006) 23 EPLJ 333.
16. Background documents for this case are available at http://www.envlaw.com.au/ whales.html (viewed 12 November 2006).
17. D'Amato and Chopra, n 2 at 28-29.
18. Suhre S, "Misguided Morality: The Repercussions of the International Whaling Commission's Shift from a Policy of Regulation to One of Preservation" (1999) 12 Geo Int'l Envtl L Rev 305 at 306.
19. Carlarne CP, "Saving the Whales in the New Millennium: International Institutions, Recent Developments and the Future of International Whaling Policies" (2005) 24 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 1 at 3.
20. Carlarne, n 14.
21. Stein CM, "Whales Swim for their Lives as Captain Ahab Returns in a Norwegian Uniform: An Analysis of Norway's Decision to Resume Commercial Whaling" (1994) 8 Temp Int'l & Comp L J 155 at 159.
22. Suhre, n 13 at 308.
23. Maffei M, "The Protection of Whales in Antarctica", in Francioni F and Scovazzi T (eds), International Law for Antarctica (2nd ed, Kluwer Law International, 1996), pp 171-224
24. Maffei, n 18.
25. Maffei, n 18.
26. Environment Australia, A Universal Metaphor: Australia's Opposition to Commercial Whaling: Report of the National Task Force on Whaling (Commonwealth of Australia, 1997), p 60, available online at http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/whaling/index.html (viewed 2 November 2006).
27. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Sanctuaries Established under the International Whaling Commission, available online at http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=97518 (viewed 9 November 2006).
28. International Fund for Animal Welfare, n 22.
29. Environment Australia, n 21, p 60.
30. Environment Australia, n 21, p 60.
31. Environment Australia, n 21, p 60.
32. Prime Minister's announcement of the government's formal response to the Frost Inquiry's recommendations on 4 April 1979, quoted in Environment Australia, n 21, p 61.
33. Environment Australia, n 21.
34. Suhre, n 13 at 308.
35. Lessoff DS, "Jonah Swallows the Whale: An Examination of American and International Failures to Adequately Protect Whales from Impending Extinction" (1996) 11 J Envtl L & Litig 413 at 417.
36. Environment Australia, n 21.
37. Internet Guide to International Fisheries Law, Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Art 2, available online at www.intfish.net/treaties/whales31.htm (viewed 9 November 2006).
38. Internet Guide to International Fisheries Law, Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Art 2, available online at www.intfish.net/treaties/whales31.htm (viewed 9 November 2006).
39. Internet Guide to International Fisheries Law, Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Art 4, available online at www.intfish.net/treaties/whales31.htm (viewed 9 November 2006).
40. Internet Guide to International Fisheries Law, Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Art 5, available online at www.intfish.net/treaties/whales31.htm (viewed 9 November 2006).
41. The Protocol Amending the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling of 8 June 1937, (London, 26 November 1945).
42. Australian Treaty Series 1947, No 9.
43. Australian Treaty Series 1948, No 18.
44. Emphasis added.
45. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Art III(1), Art V(1).
46. Ackerman RB, "Japanese Whaling in the Pacific Ocean: Defiance of International Whaling Norms in the Name of Scientific Research, Culture and Tradition", (2002) 25 B C Int'l & Comp L Rev 323 at 328.
47. Suhre, n 13 at 309.
48. Carlarne, n 14 at 6.
49. Suhre, n 13 at 310.
50. Suhre, n 13 at 310.
51. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Art V. Indeed Japan, Norway, Peru and the former Soviet Union formally filed objections to the moratorium. Japan and Peru withdrew their objections in 1987 and 1983 respectively, following United States threat to impose trade sanctions. The Russian Federation and Norway are not legally bound by the ICRW however the Russian Federation is currently not whaling. Norway resumed commercial whaling in 1993, but claims that it is confining its catches to fall within the guidelines so far developed for the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), for sustainable whale harvesting suggested by the IWC's Scientific Committee.
52. Individual governments can obtain "special permits" that allow them to take whales for scientific purposes. Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states: "Any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of the Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention".
53. Carlarne, n 14 at 10.
54. Matanich J, "A Treaty Comes of Age for the Ancient Ones: Implications of the Law of the Sea for the Regulation of Whaling" (1996) 8 Int'l Legal Perspective 37 at 53.
55. Carlarne, n 14 at 15.
56. Environment Australia, n 21, p 46.
57. Environment Australia, n 21, p 46.
58. Trading in whaling products is prohibited under CITES.
59. Carlarne, n 14 at 15.
60. Environment Australia n 21, p 31.
61. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Art VIII.
62. New Zealand, Department of Conservation, "Whale Sanctuaries", in The Conversation of Whales in the 21st Century available online at http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-and-Animals/003~Marine-Mammals/Whales/100~Conservation-of-whales-in-the-21st-century/150~Whale-sanctuaries.asp (viewed 9 November 2006).
63. International Whaling Commission, Scientific Permit Whaling, available online at http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/ permits.htm (viewed 9 November 2006).
64. International Whaling Commission, n 57.
65. International Whaling Commission, n 57.
66. Ackerman, n 40 at 330.
67. Ackerman, n 40 at 330.
68. D'Amato and Chopra, n 2 at 54.
69. Ackerman, n 40 at 329.
70. Ackerman, n 340 at 329.
71. Barstow R, "Whales are Uniquely Special" in Davies N, Smith AM, Whyte SR and Williams V eds, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (Bath UK, 1991), cited in Environment Australia, n 21, p 11.
72. Australian Treaty Series 1994 No 31.
73. Available online at www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/gen-intro.htm (viewed 17 November 2006).
74. Available online at www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/international/antarctica/madrid/ (viewed 17 November 2006).
75. The states are: Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, The United Kingdom, Norway and France.
76. Antarctic Treaty 1959, Preamble.
77. Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933 (Cth).
78. Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954 (Cth).
79. Antarctic Treaty Act 1960 (Cth).
80. Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 (Cth) (AAD Treaty summary).
81. Antarctic Seals Conservation Regulations 1986 (Cth) (AAD seals conservation summary).
82. Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1993 (AAD environmental impact summary).
83. Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) (Waste Management) Regulations 1994.
84. Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1981 (Cth) (AAD AMLRC summary).
85. Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Regulations 1994 (Cth).
86. Antarctic Treaty, Art 89, "No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty".
87. Antarctic Treaty, Art 1.
88. Madrid Protocol, Art 2.
89. Madrid Protocol, Art 7.
90. Triggs G, International Law and Australian Sovereignty in Antarctica (Legal Books Pty Ltd, 1986) Ch 7.
91. Auburn N, Antarctic Law and Politics (Hurst and Co, 1982)
92. Bilder R, "The Present Legal and Political Situation in Antarctica'" in Charney JI, The New Internationalism and the Use of Common Spaces (Allen Held Osman, 1981).
93. It has been argued that Australia acquired title and sovereignty to the AAT through discovery and subsequent occupation consistent with traditional customary international law principles (see Triggs, n 76). Australia's claims however remain unrecognised in the international community.
94. Triggs G, International Law Contemporary Principles and Practices (Butterworths, 2006) p 256.
95. Charney, For the view that "Antarctica is not subject to the ordinary legal regime of land territory, and rather than res nullius it is res communis" in "The Antarctic System and Customary International Law" in Francioni and Scovazzi, n 18, p 58.
96. Kay S, Australia's Maritime Boundaries (Centre for Maritime Policy, Wollongong, 1995) p 198.
97. Cited in Environment Australia, n 21, Recommendation 3, Ch 1, Pt 1.
98. Environment Australia, n 21, emphasis added.
99. Environment Australia, n 21, Recommendation 5(a)(iii).
100. Second Reading Speech - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 (29 June 1999) available online at www.deh.gov.au/epbc/about/secondreading.html (viewed 9 November 2006).
101. Australia, Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 & Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 available online at www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/bio/report/c09.htm (viewed 9 November 2006).
102. Australia, Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee, n 84.
103. Australia, Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee, n 84.
104. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), s 3(1)(e).
105. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), s 225.
106. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), s 225(2).
107. McGrath C, "Swirls in the Stream of Australian Environmental Law: Debate on the EPBC Act" (2006) 23 EPLJ 165.
108. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), ss 224(2) and s 5(3).
109. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), s 5(4).
110. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), s 479.
111. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 551; [2004] FCA 1510.
112. Federal Court Rules, O 8, r 2(2); Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 551 at 552.
113. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 551.
114. Allsop J held that in addition to s 475(1) of the EPBC Act, the court had jurisdiction in civil matters under a law of the Commonwealth Parliament (s 39B(1A(c)). The case was held to have fallen within one or more of the relevant grounds of Federal Court Rules, O 8, r 1, on the grounds that it the proceedings were founded upon a cause of action and contravention of an act in the Commonwealth. The phrase "in the Commonwealth" was held to include the waters of Australia's EEZ adjacent to the AAT, which is an external territory of Australia. Sections 5, 224, and 225 of the EPBC Act extend the application of that Act to the EEZ of the external territories.
115. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 551 at 557.
116. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 551 at [75] Note
117. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 551 at [72].
118. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [13].
119. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [13].
120. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [16].
121. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [19].
122. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [4].
123. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [12].
124. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [6]-[7].
125. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [27].
126. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [28].
127. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [33].
128. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [34].
129. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [35].
130. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 per Black CJ, Moore and Finkelstein JJ.
131. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [10].
132. Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 at 239; 62 ALJR 389.
133. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [7].
134. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [14].
135. Helicopter Utilities Pty Ltd v Australian National Airlines Commission (1961) 80 WN (NSW) 48 at 51.
136. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at 15.
137. Hospital for Sick Children (Board of Governors) v Walt Disney Productions Inc [1968] Ch 52 at 71.
138. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at 16 re Liddell's Settlement Trusts (1936) Ch 365 at 373-374.
139. Castanho v Brown & Root (UK) Ltd [1981] AC 557 at 574.
140. Haiti v Duvalier (No 2) [1990] 1 QB 202 at 216; South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558 at 580.
141. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [26].
142. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [21].
143. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [22].
144. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [23]-[25].
145. Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562; 78 ALJR 1099. This is of course an issue that has risen in a number of cases before the courts.
146. Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 513 at 657-661.
147. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 at 383-386 at paras [95]-[101] and 417-419 at paras [166]-[167]; Re East.
148. Ex parte Nguyen (1998) 196 CLR 354 at 380-381 at para [68].
149. Austin v Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185 77 ALJR 491 at 543-544 at para [257]; 195 ALR 321 at 392.
150. Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 14-15.
151. Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 219 CLR 486; [2004] HCA 36 at [126].
152. Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Mines Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 363 per O'Connor J.
153. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 at 384 at para [97], per Gummow and Hayne JJ.
154. Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 219 CLR 486; [2004] HCA 36 at [126].
155. Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Mines Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 363 per O'Connor J.
156. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 at 384 at para [97], per Gummow and Hayne JJ.
157. Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 at para [41].
158. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [7].
159. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [10].
160. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 at [17].
161. Humane Society International v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664.
162. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Australian Law in Antarctica: The report of the second phase of an inquiry into the legal regimes of Australia's external Territories and the Jervis Bay Territory (AGPS, 1992), pp 15-18.
163. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [13].
164. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [12].
165. Australian Antarctic Territory, Coral Sea Islands Territory, Norfolk Island, Territory of Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island, Territory of Heard and McDonald Islands, Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Territory of Christmas Island.
166. Australia, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Australian Law in Antarctica: The Report of the Second Phase of an Inquiry into the Legal Regimes of Australia's External Territories and the Jervis Bay Territory (AGPS, 1992), pp 15-18.
167. Behrooz v Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 36 at [127].
168. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [12] (with corrigendum dated 27 May 20 2005).
169. Madrid Protocol, Art 24.
170. Environment Australia, n 21, Recommendation 3.
171. Environment Australia, n 21, Recommendation 4.
172. Environment Australia, n 21, Recommendation 7.