UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific" 188
First time accepted submitter Nodsnarb (2851527) writes "The UN's international Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program is not for scientific purposes. In a statement, the court said that Japan's programme involved activities which 'can broadly be characterised as scientific research.' However, it said that 'the evidence does not establish that the programme's design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives.' It added: 'The court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not 'for purposes of scientific research' pursuant to [the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling].'"
It all winds up on a dinner table (Score:5, Funny)
So I'm shocked....just shocked, I say, that there was no scientific objective .
Perhaps the science part was developing more efficient harpoons.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, more efficient grilling and seasoning techniques.
The Japanese mastered that years ago, you do not get much more efficient cooking than eating it raw :)
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table (Score:5, Funny)
What You Meant:
Cooked food contains more calories per gram.
What I Heard:
Cooking food makes you fatter.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're thinking from a perspective of a shipwreck victim stuck on an island then cooking food (especially meat or starchy food) is a very good idea, because you'll need much less of it.
Re: (Score:2)
You just don't get as much nutrition, not just calories, from raw food.
It is true that cooking does 'destroy' some of the nutritional value, but if eaten raw, you still receive far less than if you'd have eaten the cooked food.
If you want to lose weight, sure you could eat raw food and exercise, or you could eat less cooked food and exercise, or just exercise more.
Re: (Score:2)
While you're mostly correct, the nutrients destroyed by cooking are generally different ones than are made available by cooking, so the over-simplification as stated is slightly misleading.
Generally what is destroyed is provided by greens, and so it makes sense that humans have traditional practices of eating some of their greens raw.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you think of "calories" as "makes you fatter," my advice is just say no to calories. It solves the problem for both of us.
Re: (Score:2)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.... [discovermagazine.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05... [nytimes.com]
http://www.sciencefriday.com/s... [sciencefriday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Those are three book reviews of the same book. Do you have a primary or secondary source?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have Google on your computer?
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table (Score:5, Insightful)
I've tasted whale, it isn't tasty.
Apparently most younger Japanese aren't much into it themselves either, and the "tradition" isn't, really. From this report [bbc.co.uk]:-
For [Mitoshi Noguchi] there is nothing wrong with eating whale, it reminds him of school lunch.
"When we were growing up we didn't have ample supply of food, so this was meat for us, our protein," he says. "So when we eat it now it's very reminiscent. It's delicious."
Mr Noguchi is in late middle age, but on the same table is one of his much younger colleagues, Yoshitaka Takayanagi, born after the meat was phased out in Japanese schools. Few Japanese eat whale regularly these days, especially the young, and he has only eaten it twice before.
This covers the phenomenon in general in more depth [bbc.co.uk]:-
So why does Japan exert so much diplomatic effort on this issue? The official line is that whaling is an integral part of Japanese culture, a practice dating back hundreds of years.
That isn't quite true. A few coastal communities, like Wakayama, have been hunting whales for centuries, traditionally with hand-held harpoons.
But the rest of Japan only became familiar with eating whale during the 20th Century, as modern ships with harpoon-guns became available. Whale meat was especially widespread in the difficult years after the Second World War, when it was seen as a cheap source of protein.
But as incomes rose, people switched to imported beef, or fish like tuna and salmon. With such an abundance of high-quality protein available these days, few Japanese see the point in eating whale, which doesn't taste that special.
There are other reasons for Japan's determined campaign.
"If the current ban on hunting whales is allowed to become permanent," says Hideki Moronuki, at the Fisheries Agency, the government department leading the campaign, "activists may direct their efforts to restricting other types of fishing."
As Japan consumes more fish than any other nation, it worries about possible curbs on its fishing activities in open seas for species like tuna.
Officials also like to claim that whales damage fish stocks because of the quantities they eat, although this is largely dismissed by scientists in the rest of the world.
But perhaps the biggest factor is resentment of being told by other countries what Japan can and cannot do.
"Why do people in the west make such a big deal about our very limited hunting of whales?" asks Hideki Moronuki.
"How would they feel if we told Americans they couldn't hunt deer, or if we told Australians to stop hunting kangaroos?"
Re: (Score:3)
General Douglas MacArthur encouraged the surrendered Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe).[35][36] The Japanese whaling industry quickly recovered as MacArthur authorized two tankers, converted into factory ships (Hashidate Maru and Nisshin Maru), with whale catchers to once again take blue whales, fins, humpbacks and sperm whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere.[35]
Wiki If you object to the US telling you to stop eating whale meat, remember that it was the US who told you to start. Maybe start by rejecting that first order we gave you and refuse to eat whale meat?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That Hideki Moronuki fellow doesn't know what he's talking about: at least in the American case, deer are overpopulated to the point of becoming a pest (mostly because their natural predators, e.g. wolves, are endangered). When there aren't enough interested hunters to go kill
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad someone picked up on that quote. Deer in the US (and I believe Kangaroos in Australia) exist in massive quantities. Hunting deer for hundreds of years has yet to endanger their populations.
Another point I'd like to mention is that these land animals live their entire lives within the borders of a single country (unless they're right on the Canadian or Mexican borders). Hunting deer in America will have no effect on deer populations in Asia or anywhere else in the world. Wales are a migratory oc
Kangaroo... (Score:3)
Well I don't trip over whales every time I take a step into the ocean. Kangaroo is more akin tuna. There are millions of them around. In many places they are considered a pest and are culled not for eating but because they destroy the ecosystem. If whales were that prevalent that you had to kill them to maintain a balanced ecosystem I'm sure we wouldn't have a problem with the Japanese killing them for food, err I mean research.
Re:It all winds up on a dinner table (Score:5, Informative)
I'd had it twice. The first time raw in Japan it was okay.
The second time, seared, in Iceland, it was sublime. Like a combination of the best bits of sashimi and the best bits of high quality steak, somehow unexpectedly combined in one delicious whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fish oil soaked beef" is how I've seen the taste described most of the time. I once also heard it described as "fishy liver."
Irony (Score:5, Funny)
In the USA, a large quantity of peanut butter is now being destroyed because it comes from a plant that had experienced Salmonella contamination, although supposedly not at the time this particular lot was made.
In the mean time, Japan - a country notoriously obsessed with cleanliness and purity - is eating discarded remains of scientific experiments.
Not Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
In the mean time, Japan - a country notoriously obsessed with cleanliness and purity - is eating discarded remains of scientific experiments.
There is not and never was any science involved. This was a fig leaf to protect commercial interests, nothing more. These were obviously fishing vessels for commercial purposes and everyone has known that from day one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just got an image in my head of a yoga class turning into a Bleach/DBZ-style fight scene XD
"This will be the end of you! I have eaten whale for extra spirit energy! YUUUAAAAAAAA!!!!"
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be right back, the illegal enemy combatants in administrative detention are causing trouble again.
Re:Japan, a land filled with lies ! (Score:5, Interesting)
There is an east-west cultural difference here.
In the West, we have "plausible deniability", where we can't be 100% sure they knew they were telling lies.
In the East, a plain-as-day outright lie is more polite than saying "no, we withdraw from your treaty.".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If somebody isn't a soldier and commits a crime in civilian cloths (as civilians are wont to do), can you argue that he violated the Geneva convention? Hardly, it only applies to soldiers.
That is the big lie of 'illegal enem
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And the whales are *NOT* the only animal that they killed. They kill dolphins too !
If the reason for the exclamation mark is that dolphins are considered cuter than whales then I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd.
This article is already a bit off by being posted on Slashdot rather than to pages that specializes in wildlife, environment or Japanese food.
Please don't make me take the side of Japanese whalers just to spite you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're most probably smarter, self-aware communicators too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting enough that it's worth a link. [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sales statistics indicate that much more meat is being sold as whale meat than is actually caught.
The word "actually" is false there. Sales statistics indicate more meat labeled as whale is being sold than the amount of whale meat declared under their supposed "scientific" quota.
One theory is that other types of meat are being substituted. Another is that they're not declaring all of their whale catch.
Excellent, but .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent, but .... (Score:5, Funny)
Whale Wars: UN Edition?
Re: (Score:2)
Japan exports a lot of products, particularly consumer electronics. They also depend heavily on imports for things like food. Any sort of tariffs or sanctions related to those would certainly make an impression.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. We know how the Japanese have responded to economic sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excellent, but .... (Score:5, Informative)
How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.
Japan has agreed to abide by the UN courts rulings, which have asked for am immediate stop to the practice
Re:Excellent, but .... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not so much how the UN can enforce it, it's the fact that it makes it legal for other countries to take action against Japan over it without themselves becoming victims of legal cases from Japan.
For example, Japanese ships entered New Zealand's exclusive economic zone earlier this year - something boats are normally allowed to do without needing explicit permission. Now however there's nothing to stop the New Zealand coast guard from arresting them and seizing their ship for carrying out an illegal activity if they were to pass through that zone again. Effectively Japan could no longer call such act an act of piracy which would be the risk of New Zealand or similar decided to go ahead and do that without this ruling.
This is why Japan has said it will abide by the ruling, because whilst it's embarassing for them to lose their whaling argument at long last, it'd be even more embarassing if they said "fuck the UN" and then got their ships legally seized by a foreign government and the Japanese crew paraded on TV as arrested for engaging in illegal activity. They'd then have to stop whaling for the reason that their ships had been seized, rather than that they'd accepted the ruling and given it up themselves - this is the least embarrassing route for them now, hence why they're taking it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, they can always ask Sea Shepherd.
Re:Excellent, but .... (Score:5, Interesting)
How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.
Since Japan is using UN resolutions/verdicts against China in its geo-political battles, they do not want to be seen as flouting UN verdicts themselves.
Also, whale meat is actually not that popular in Japan, so much so that the whalers have to dump their stocks: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/op... [japantimes.co.jp]. The reason Japan has persisted in whaling despite all the protests is a mixture of lobbying, nationalist sentiments, and fears that banning whaling will open the door to more restrictions of fishing rights.
I'm sure some Japanese politicians will thank the gods of their choice for this verdict.
Re: (Score:2)
Good question. Personally I think Australia should just send a destroyer down there and sort it out, but I doubt we'll have the guts.
Re: (Score:2)
How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.
Simple, the UN Anti-Whaling commission will be called together. Japan will serve as Chair of this commission.
Re: (Score:2)
The UN won't enforce it. Volunteers will enforce it.
Re:Excellent, but .... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Chinese eat dogs, are responsible for the death of countless sharks killed just for their fins, and are the endpoint of the majority of illegal ivory trade which kills thousands of endangered animals each year. I hardly think they will be the ones taking Japan to task on this.
Re:Excellent, but .... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely correct, but hypocrisy has never stood in the way of politics
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, they can always claim (esp to their own people) 'but that is different!'. The US does it with our farm animals and fishing after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's both, numbnuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Given that it was Australia who launched the court challenge in the first place, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, Australia does next.
On the one hand, Australia doesn't like the Japanese whale slaughter. But on the other hand, Australia has good relations with Japan as a trading partner that they need to maintain (Japan buys a lot of Australian beef for example)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because economic warfare is the only course of action you have available if you don't want to be party to actual warfare which is generally looked down upon without an obvious aggressor.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, just dope the whales with some radioactive materials. Not enough to harm the whales but enough so the japanese will be too scared to eat them.
You're too late. The Japanese already thought of that idea [huffingtonpost.com].
one word can come out off my throat : (Score:3)
My throat can only make one sound :
DUH !
Zero Fin (Score:5, Funny)
Somebody set up us the harpoon.
All your whale are belong to us.
For great justice.
Thankfully, we can still do research in simulation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL nice! XD
Buried the lede (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia had sued Japan at the U.N.’s highest court for resolving disputes between nations
Hold the phone--you mean there are ways to solve disputes between nations that *don't* involve firing artillery, invasion or threatening sanctions? Has anyone told North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine or the United States?
Re: (Score:2)
The UN court is basically non-binding arbitration.
Re:Buried the lede (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Once you actually look, you find out the UN does a lot of productive stuff like peacekeeping and conflict monitoring, elections, health and welfare, education etc. It's just that sometimes the UN doesn't do as the American government tells it to do so it is by definition ineffective and unproductive.
http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Re:Buried the lede (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the problem is for it to work you need civilised nations that actually listen. Unfortunately that doesn't apply to any of those you listed (and I add my own nation to the list - the UK).
Getting Putin to listen though when he's off on a paranoid rant about how the EU wants to make him eat croissants is a no-go, much less Kim Jong Un who actually thinks he's a good leader and the whole of the rest of the world is always wrong about everything.
This is one of those rare occasions where it's actually worked because the loser has accepted the ruling rather than saying "Okay, I lost, but I don't care, I'm going to carry on as I was anyway" or alternatively, "Fuck that, I'm not even going to go to that court because deep down I know I'm wrong and know I'll lose", the latter of which is what Argentina has done each time the UK has offered to let the court rule on the Falklands for example.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those rare occasions where it's actually worked because the loser has accepted the ruling rather than saying "Okay, I lost, but I don't care, I'm going to carry on as I was anyway" or alternatively, "Fuck that, I'm not even going to go to that court because deep down I know I'm wrong and know I'll lose", the latter of which is what Argentina has done each time the UK has offered to let the court rule on the Falklands for example.
Why do you imagine that Japan is going to give a shit about this ruling? I don't see any reason to believe that anything is going to change.
Re:Buried the lede (Score:5, Informative)
Because they've said they will?
That was kind of a big pointer. It does require you to RTFA though.
The quote in question from TFA:
"Japan said it would abide by the decision but added it "regrets and is deeply disappointed by the decision"."
Re: (Score:2)
Or even just the headline of TFA (if the A itself is too much to handle):
"Japan accepts court ban on Antarctic whaling"
(Emphasis mine.)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Because whale meat is not that popular.
2. Not abiding by it causes them more trouble than abiding by it.
3. Most importantly, Japan has been fighitng this issue as the frontline of the battle for fishing rights. It was a battle that was going to be lost eventually so it was serving as a delaying action.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
NO country complies with such rulings, unless it's in their interest do so, or unless they are compelled.
The problem with the US (who has since WW2 largely complied even with rulings against itself, contrary to your implication above) is that moronic recent political leaders don't understand that following such rules (except in extremis) IS in the US's broader long-term interest in fortifying the legal conduct of all other states.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if its political calculus that makes recent political leaders work this way, or if it's whatever's in the water that seems to make everyone, especially the rich and powerful, just assume that they can blatantly disregard all the rules, all the time.
Usually the ones on top flavor it with "on advice of legal counsel" or "based on our interpretation of the rules" and then something about how they have chosen to define up as down or black as white.
Maybe it's *always* been this way, but it sure feels li
Re:Buried the lede (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold the phone--you mean there are ways to solve disputes between nations that *don't* involve firing artillery, invasion or threatening sanctions? Has anyone told North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine or the United States?
Nations aren't ignorant of other means of settling disputes. They just believe the dispute is more likely to be settled in their favor if they break out the artillery.
For example, Russia would risk the loss of Sevastopol as a naval port, if they were to resort to a UN court. By merely taking over the Crimea, they don't have that risk. It's simply the better move for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From the Washington Post version [washingtonpost.com],
Australia had sued Japan at the U.N.’s highest court for resolving disputes between nations
Hold the phone--you mean there are ways to solve disputes between nations that *don't* involve firing artillery, invasion or threatening sanctions? Has anyone told North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine or the United States?
That crap gets rated as Insightful and gets 5 points? Wow. Tell you what. Name ONE, just one, UN resolution considered to be against North Korea that they have willingly obeyed. In fact, to be blunt, the whole reason that there are two Koreas instead of one unified and horribly backwards united Korean under Kim family despotism is because the UN Security Council authorized the use of force against North Korea's invasion when the Soviet Union infamously boycotted the meeting, only to find out the Securit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone tried to tell something to North Korea regarding their death camps but then they said "mind your own business," Russia and China supported them, and that was the end of that.
All I can say is "It's about fuckin' time." (Score:2)
Japanese "research" whaling has always been a wink and nod piece of bullshit propaganda.
I'm glad even an organization as spineless, dickless and useless as the UN actually stood up and realized it.
Now, will anything COME of this? Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is that the US and Russia will both leave the UN if their veto rights are revoked.
Why single out the US and Russia? Do you think that China or France would stay if their veto rights were revoked?
Meanwhile back in reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile back away from moranity (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually that's a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Siberian tigers are even more rare than tuna, so Japan should be able to haul in as many bluefins as they can catch. Or something.
Background (Score:3)
I have said it before, but I think it's worth repeating:
When it comes to exploiting (other) natural resources in a high seas region it's important to prove that you have been economically active there for a long time, and still are. The whaling is an investment. This investment requires that the programme is pretty openly non-scientific. Just 'scientific' enough so a sufficient number of other countries in the International Whaling Commission can be convinced to allow it, where necessary through a bribe. But no more so, because at some point later Japan will have to prove that it was an economic activity, not research.
So I guess we'll never know... (Score:2)
Whaling bad, mass breeding cattle and pigs good? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok? It's not like our culinary preferences are not endangering other species and destroying their natural habitats.
But when it's whales, all of a sudden it matters?
Re: (Score:3)
1) It all matters. The same people who oppose rainforest devastation for food oppose whaling for food. The same people who don't give a shit about the rainforest don't, generally speaking, give a shit about whales.
2) They're a slow-breeding, unfarmed animal. Whaling has essentially been outlawed* because they can't sustain being hunted for food.
*Countries can go cap-in-hand to the UN to ask for a quota, for example to preserve small-scale traditional hunting. It goes without saying that Japan's present whal
Re: (Score:3)
Remember folks, the US does allow whaling. Alaska native tribes are still allowed a subsistence hunt [noaa.gov] for bowhead whales.
Re: (Score:2)
So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok?
Nobody is saying the former is bad and the latter is OK. It's not an either/or situation: both are bad and people are trying to do something about both. In theory, however, it should be easier to do something about the whales than something about the rainforests.
All those scientists will lose their jobs (Score:3)
One more reality TV show out of business... (Score:2)
So much for "Whale Wars" and the gang of the Sea Shepard. Ah well.
Seriously though, laudable as the decision (that would require others to enforce) is, I'm baffled that it took this long (almost 4 years) to make a decision on something that clearly wasn't scientific in nature.
"Japanese Whaling Ban Won’t End the Whale Wa (Score:3)
> Norway and Iceland, two countries that continue to whale, get around the IWC’s 1986 moratorium by simply rejecting it.
http://time.com/43674/japanese-whaling-ban-wont-end-the-whale-wars/
Re: (Score:2)
not so much rooting for whalers, as rooting against the anti-whalers. an altruistic act does not make good a completely wretched person.
for example, being a dick doesn't invalidate what assange did, but at the same time, what he accomplished doesn't make him less of a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you are going with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's an Abe Simpson reference?