Whaling Law Violation: Understanding The Consequences And Ramifications

The consequences of breaking whaling laws vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific legislation being contravened. In the US, for example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) offer protections for whales, with the former prohibiting any person residing in the country from injuring or harassing whales, and the latter forbidding any activities that could destroy their habitats. Fines and penalties for violating these laws can reach up to $10,000, with additional punishments including the prohibition from whaling and the forfeiture of whales or whale products.

On an international level, the International Whaling Convention (IWC) was established in 1946 to manage the whaling industry and protect whales, with an indefinite ban on commercial whaling instituted in 1986. Countries that have broken this ban, such as Japan and Norway, face condemnation and can be pressured by other nations to comply. In the case of Japan, this eventually led to their withdrawal from the IWC in 2018.

Penalties for breaking the law include fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of whales and whale products

The penalties for breaking the law by whaling include fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of whales and whale products.

Fines

Fines are a common penalty for violating whaling laws. The amount of the fine can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the severity of the offence, but it is typically set to deter future violations. In the United States, for example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) imposes fines of up to $500 for failing to make, keep, or furnish the necessary records or reports related to whaling. The MMPA also sets a fine of up to $10,000 for any person who violates the International Whaling Convention (IWC) regulations or engages in illegal whaling activities.

Imprisonment

In addition to fines, individuals who engage in illegal whaling may also face imprisonment. The length of imprisonment can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the severity of the offence, but it is generally set to deter future violations and punish those who break the law. In the US, for instance, the MMPA provides for imprisonment of up to one year for violating the IWC regulations or engaging in illegal whaling.

Forfeiture of Whales and Whale Products

Another penalty for illegal whaling is the forfeiture of whales and whale products. This means that any whales or whale products obtained through illegal whaling activities can be confiscated by the authorities. The forfeited items may be disposed of or sold, with the proceeds going to the government or other designated entities. This penalty serves as a deterrent and also ensures that illegally obtained whales and whale products are not retained by those who break the law.

Other Penalties

While fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture are the most common penalties for illegal whaling, other consequences may also apply depending on the jurisdiction. For example, in some countries, individuals or companies found guilty of illegal whaling may face additional sanctions, such as the loss of whaling licenses or permits, or restrictions on their ability to operate in the industry. Civil lawsuits may also be brought against those who engage in illegal whaling, seeking damages or injunctions to stop the harmful activities.

International Enforcement

On an international level, there are also mechanisms in place to enforce compliance with whaling regulations. The IWC, for instance, can impose trade sanctions on countries that violate the International Whaling Convention. These sanctions may include restrictions on fishing rights in the waters of the country found to be in violation. Additionally, international treaties, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), provide further protections for whales and impose obligations on signatory countries to conserve and protect these species.

The US Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act protect whales

The US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are two key pieces of legislation that protect whales and other marine mammals in the United States.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

The MMPA was enacted in 1972 to address the declining populations of marine mammals, including whales, due to human activities such as hunting and fishing. The Act makes it illegal to "take" marine mammals, which includes harassing, hunting, capturing, collecting, or killing them, without a permit. It also prohibits the import of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the US without authorisation. The MMPA established the Marine Mammal Commission to oversee the conservation policies and programs implemented by federal regulatory agencies.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The ESA, passed in 1973, protects both endangered and threatened species. All great whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, making it illegal to kill, hunt, collect, injure, or harass them, or to destroy their habitats. Additionally, it is unlawful to buy or sell any whales under the ESA.

International Whaling Laws

On an international level, the International Whaling Convention (IWC) was established in 1946 to manage the whaling industry and address the rapid decline in whale populations. The IWC instituted an indefinite ban on commercial whaling in 1986, which is still largely in effect today. However, countries like Japan, Norway, and Iceland have continued commercial whaling operations, arguing for the sustainable hunting and management of whale stocks.

Enforcement and Challenges

The US government agencies, such as NOAA Fisheries and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, are responsible for enforcing these laws and protecting whales within US waters and by US citizens on the high seas. However, challenges remain, including illegal whaling, bycatch, and the impact of human activities on whale habitats. International cooperation and conservation efforts are crucial to ensure the protection of whales on a global scale.

The International Whaling Convention banned commercial whaling in 1986

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1946 to oversee the management of the whaling industry worldwide. In 1982, the IWC voted to implement a pause on commercial whaling of all whale species from the 1985-1986 season onwards. This decision, often referred to as the commercial whaling moratorium, came into effect in 1986 and remains in place today.

The IWC's decision was made in response to the rapid and extreme depletion of most whale stocks. Whaling had become a very profitable industry in terms of trade and resources, with the number of whales killed annually reaching over 50,000 in the late 1930s. By the 1960s, the collapse of whale stocks due to overfishing led to the banning of whaling in many countries.

The moratorium on commercial whaling was not based on advice from the IWC's Scientific Committee, and several countries, including Japan, Norway, Peru, and the Soviet Union (later replaced by Russia), lodged formal objections. Japan and Peru later withdrew their objections, and in 1992, Norway became the only state in the world to resume commercial whaling after opting out of the moratorium. Iceland also resumed commercial whaling in 2006, having left the IWC in 1992 and rejoined in 2002 with a reservation to the moratorium.

The IWC is a voluntary international organisation and is not backed by treaty, which limits its authority. Member countries are free to leave the organisation and declare themselves not bound by its regulations. Additionally, any member state may opt out of specific IWC regulations by lodging a formal objection within 90 days of the regulation coming into force. The IWC also has no ability to enforce its decisions through penalty imposition.

Despite these limitations, the IWC ban on commercial whaling has been successful, with only Iceland, Japan, and Norway still engaging in and supporting commercial hunting. These countries, along with some indigenous communities, continue to hunt whales in the 21st century. However, anti-whaling countries and environmental activists oppose lifting the ban.

Scientific and subsistence whaling are permitted under the ban

Subsistence whaling, or aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW), is permitted for certain indigenous peoples to meet their subsistence needs. The rules for ASW are outlined in paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the ICRW, allowing recognised "aborigines" to hunt some baleen whale species "exclusively for local consumption." The IWC Scientific Committee advises on the allocation of ASW quotas in six-year blocks. Currently, the IWC permits indigenous communities in Denmark (Greenland), the Russian Federation, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States to engage in this type of whaling.

However, there are concerns that the conditions for ASW are not being adequately met and managed. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) highlights issues such as the use of inhumane techniques, inadequate documentation of needs, commercialisation of hunts, and wastage of whale products. While the IWC has adopted resolutions to improve the humaneness of ASW operations, these are not binding on parties, and efforts to enhance welfare have been ad-hoc.

The ban is not enforced by coercive means

The ban on whaling is not enforced by coercive means. This is because, in international law, the principle of state sovereignty takes precedence over all other rules. As such, there are no coercive means to prevent certain governments from violating the regulations in force.

Within the International Whaling Commission (IWC), countries have the opportunity to object to any decision within a period of 90 days. This is what happened to Norway and Iceland during the moratorium on commercial whaling, which explains why these states still continue to harvest whales and are not subject to the conditions stipulated by the IWC.

The IWC was established in 1946 to oversee the management of the whaling industry worldwide and to provide for the conservation of whales. The IWC's explicit objectives were, and remain, to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and the orderly development of the whaling industry. The IWC can only regulate whaling with the consent of each party to the Convention. When the IWC makes an amendment, any state can object to the amendment within ninety days, and it will not be bound by the amendment.

Since the ban went into effect, several pro-whaling nations, including Iceland, Norway, and Japan, have expressed their desire to continue hunting some species of whales. Some of these nations have withdrawn from the IWC, while others are no longer honoring the moratorium. These nations continue to engage in whaling. As a result, the future of the IWC is shaky, and it is likely that the IWC will have to reform its policies to ensure further protection of the whales.

The IWC has also designated specific areas of the ocean as ocean sanctuaries, where whales may not be hunted even if the moratorium should be lifted. The Indian Ocean, parts of the Pacific Ocean off the Mexican coast, and most of the ocean waters of the Southern Hemisphere have been designated as whale sanctuaries.

Frequently asked questions