* Reuben B. Ackerman is the Senior Executive Editor of the Boston College International & Comparative Law Review.
1 E.g., Jitendra Joshi, Japan, U.S. Agree on Whaling Workshop but Sanctions Fate Unclear, Agence Fr. Presse, Jan. 11, 2001, available at 2001 WL 2318791.
2 Danielle Knight, Pressure Mounts on Japan to End Whaling Program, Inter Press Serv., Nov. 14, 2000, available at 2000 WL 28919729.
3 Id.; Doug Struck, U.S. Fishing Sanctions Gall Japan; Clinton’s Response to Whaling is Seen as Election-Year Ploy, Wash. Post, Sept. 16, 2000, at A15.
4 Mark Rowe, U.S. Threatens Trade War with Japan, Indep. (London), Sept. 24, 2000, at 24.
5 Dexter Van Zile, Op-Ed: As You Were Saying . . . It’s Time for Administration to Lift Moratorium on Whaling, Boston Herald, Oct. 1, 2000, at 26.
6 Id.
7 See David H. Feldman, Stop Japan’s Whale Killing, Baltimore Sun, Dec. 28, 2000, at 13A.
8 Sue Fisher, Saving Whales, World Today, July 1, 2001, at 25, available at 2001 WL 13346504; Int’l Fund for Animal Welfare, Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling (Feb. 4, 2001), available at http://www.stopwhalingnow.com/info_japan1.html [hereinafter Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling].
9 See Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling, supra note 8, at 3.
10 Id. at 3.
11 Id. at 1.
12 Steven Pearlstein, Clinton Presses Japan to Halt Whale Hunts, Wash. Post, Sept. 14, 2000, at A31.
13 See, e.g., Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling, supra note 8, at 3.
14 Id. at 1.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Bandar Seri Begawan, Japan, U.S. Near Deal on Whaling Dispute, Japan Pol’y and Pol., Nov. 20, 2000, available at 2000 WL 29267352.
18 Id.
19 Joshi, supra note 1.
20 Id.
21 See id.
22 Kathy Gambrell, Clinton Skips Japan Sanctions, United Press Int’l, Dec. 29, 2000, at 1.
23 See Feldman, supra note 7, at 13A.
24 U.S. Reiterates Objection to Japan’s Whale Hunt, Japan Pol’y & Pol., Aug. 13, 2001, available at 2001 WL 24327338.
25 U.S. Lawmakers Making Anti-Whaling Noises Ahead of Japan-U.S. Summit, Asia Pulse, June 28, 2001, available at 2001 WL 20126665.
26 See Daily Press Briefing, U.S. State Dept. (May 15, 2001), available at 2001 WL 20824385.
27 Anthony D’Amato & Sudhir K. Chopra, Whales: Their Emerging Right to Life, 85 Am. J. Int’l L. 21, 28–29 (1991).
28 Id. at 28. The total number of whales killed increased from over 10,000 in 1910 to 54,664 in 1938. Anthony Matera, Note, Whale Quotas: A Market-Based Solution to the Whaling Controversy, 13 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 23, 37 (2000). The United States began commercial whaling in the eighteenth century utilizing whales as an important source of oil. Sarah Suhre, Note, Misguided Morality: The Repercussions of the International Whaling Commission’s Shift From a Policy of Regulation to One of Preservation, 12 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 305, 307–08 (1999). With the development of the U.S. petroleum industry, the U.S. whaling industry gradually declined. Id.
29 D’Amato & Chopra, supra note 27, at 30.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.; Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Sept. 24, 1931, 49 Stat. 3079, T.S. No. 880, 155 L.N.T.S. 349.
33 D’Amato & Chopra, supra note 27, at 30.
34 Id. at 31.
35 Id. at 31, 32.
36 Id. at 33.
37 II A Guide to the United States Treaties in Force 777 (Igor I. Kavass ed., 1999). Today, the parties to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling include Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominica, Finland, France, Germany, Grenada, Guinea, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Int’l Whaling Comm’n, List of Member Nations, available at http://ourworld. compuserve.com/homepages/iwcoffice/iwc.htm#members (last modified Mar. 24, 2001).
38 Int’l Whaling Comm’n, List of Member Nations, supra note 37.
39 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Dec. 2, 1946, art. XI, 62 Stat. 1716, T.I.A.S. No. 1849, 161 U.N.T.S. 72, 4 Bevans 248, 249 [hereinafter Whaling Convention].
40 D’Amato & Chopra, supra note 27, at 33.
41 Whaling Convention, supra note 39, 4 Bevans at 250.
42 Id. at 250–51.
43 For a brief history of the IWC, see The Humane Soc’y of the U.S., It Won’t Be Smooth Sailing at the First IWC Meeting of the Millennium (Feb. 4, 2001), available at http://www.hsus. org/programs/wildlife/marine/iwc00.html [hereinafter First IWC Meeting]. See generally Johanna Matanich, A Treaty Comes of Age for the Ancient Ones: Implications of the Law of the Sea for the Regulation of Whaling, 8 Int’l Legal Persp. 37, 37 (1996).
44 Rowe, supra note 4, at 24.
45 Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling, supra note 8, at 5.
46 Id.
47 Id. Similarly, Norway has defied international pressures to cease lethal whaling in other restricted areas. Id. at 3.
48 Whaling Convention, supra note 39, 4 Bevans at 252. Exceptions also have been granted for certain aboriginal groups. D’Amato & Chopra, supra note 27, at 56. D’Amato and Chopra maintain, however, that the aboriginal exemption and Japanese whaling are wholly unrelated. Id.
49 The Humane Soc’y of the U.S., U.S. Threatens Sanctions Over Japan’s Extended Scientific Whale Hunt (Aug. 1, 2000), available at http://www.hsus.org/whatnew/whale0801000.html.
50 Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling, supra note 8, at 5; see also Simon Cunliffe, Japanese Whaling: Good Science of Bad Taste, The Press, at 5, Mar. 23, 2001, available at 2001 WL 14118565.
51 Id.
52 Blair Pethel, Japan Escapes Sanctions Over Whaling, The Record (Bergen Co., N.J.), Dec. 30, 2000, at A12. Pethel notes that Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries estimates that sales of whale products totaled $6.7 million in 1998, the last complete year for which data are available. Id.
53 Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling, supra note 8, at 1. For the details of this research of Japanese markets, see The Humane Soc’y of the U.S., Japan Kills a Bryde’s Whale (Aug. 11, 2000), available at http://www.hsus.org/whatnew/whale081100.html [hereinafter Japan Kills a Bryde’s Whale ].
54 Elizabeth Sullivan, Weeping and Whaling, Plain Dealer (Cleveland), July 2, 2000, at 5D.
55 See Whaling Convention, supra note 39, 4 Bevans at 252.
56 Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling, supra note 8, at 5.
57 Id.
58 Dan Goodman, U.S. Whaling Sanctions Smack of Hypocrisy, The Japan Times, Sept. 17, 2000, at 1.
59 The Humane Soc’y of the U.S., Japan Wants to Hunt Two More Whale Species (May 11, 2000), available at http://hsus.org/whatnew/japan051100.html [hereinafter Japan Wants to Hunt Two More Whale Species].
60 D’Amato & Chopra, supra note 27, at 54.
61 Id.
62 See id. at 54–55.
63 Goodman, supra note 58. Article VIII, section 3 of the Whaling Convention provides that, “[a]ny whales taken [for research purposes] . . . shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds . . . dealt with in accordance with the directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.” Whaling Convention, supra note 39, 4 Bevans at 252.
64 Goodman, supra note 58.
65 22 U.S.C.  1978(a) (2000).
66 18 U.S.C.  1821(e)(2)(A) (2000).
67 Gene S. Martin & James W. Brennan, Enforcing the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling: The Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson Amendments, 17 Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 293, 294 (1989).
68 22 U.S.C.  1978(a).
69 See id.
70 Feldman, supra note 7, at 13A.
71 Suhre, supra note 28, at 317–18.
72 18 U.S.C.  1821(e)(2)(A); Kazuo Sumi, The “Whale War” Between Japan and the United States: Problems and Prospects, 17 Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 317, 344 (1989). In addition to condemning the international community’s treatment of whaling nations, Sumi contends that the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson Amendments are of “dubious legality” under international law. Id. at 318. The utilization of the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment presumably provides the authority for the U.S. restriction of Japanese fishing rights in the EEZ. See 18 U.S.C.  1821(e)(2)(A).
73 See 18 U.S.C.  1821(e)(2)(A).
74 Feldman, supra note 7, at 13A.
75 See id.
76 Id. The author refers to a similar trade dispute resolution under the WTO between the United States and Mexico, where it was determined that the U.S. could not impose import restrictions on Mexican tuna despite Mexico’s use of dolphin-killing nets. Id. “So long as the product met U.S. health standards, the production process was beyond the reach of U.S. trade policy.” Id.; GATT Dispute Panel Report on U.S.--Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, DS29/R (May 20, 1994), 33 I.L.M. 839 (1994), available at 1994 WL 907620 [hereinafter Tuna II]; GATT Dispute Panel Report on U.S.–Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, Aug. 16, 1991, GATT B.I.S.D. (39th Supp.) at 155 (1993), available at 1991 WL 771248 [hereinafter Tuna I]. See generally GATT Appellate Body Report on U.S.—Imp. Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Prods., WT/DS58/AB/R (Oct. 12, 1998), available at 1998 WL 720123 [hereinafter Shrimp-Turtle].
77 Id.
78 Id.; Edward Alden, U.S. Takes Action on Japanese Whaling, Sanctions Threat Fleets Face Ban From American Waters, The Fin. Times (London), Sept. 14, 2000, at 11.
79 Id.
80 See id.
81 See Alden, supra note 78, at 11.
82 Id.
83 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, art. XX, 61 Stat. A-11, T.I.A.S. 1700, 55 U.N.T.S. 194 [hereinafter GATT].
84 See id.
85 Kuei-Jung Ni, Contemporary Prospects for the Application of Principle 12 of the Rio Declaration, 14 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 1, 2, 31 (2001).
86 Id. at 28–29.
87 Id.
88 Id.
89 Id. at 29.
90 Ni, supra note 85, at 31.
91 Id. at 30.
92 See infra note 145 and accompanying text.
93 Knight, supra note 2.
94 Japan Whaling Ass’n, The Facts, Japanese Culture (Mar. 2, 2001), available at http://www.jp-whaling-assn.com/facts.html.
95 See, e.g., Japan Wants to Hunt Two More Whale Species, supra note 59.
96 Van Zile, supra note 5, at 26.
97 Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of United States  514 cmt. a (1987) [hereinafter RESTATEMENT].
98 Id.  514 cmt. c. The norms for the law of the sea derive from the Second United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Id. Although the United States did not sign or ratify that convention, the description of the EEZ, and many other provisions of the convention, have been assimilated to U.S. practice under customary international law. Id. cmt. a.
99 Id.  511 cmt. b.
100 Id.  514 cmt. d.
101 See Alden, supra note 78, at 11.
102 See RESTATEMENT, supra note 97,  514.
103 See id. In October, 2000, in response to the Japanese actions, members of the U.S. Congress introduced a resolution calling on the U.S. president to withhold support for Japan’s efforts to gain a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Knight, supra note 2.
104 See, e.g., Humane Society of the United States Says New Leadership Provides Opportunity to End Japanese Whaling, U.S. Newswire, June 28, 2001, available at 2001 WL 21895384; Japan Kills a Bryde’s Whale, supra note 48.
105 Pethel, supra note 49, at A12.
106 See id.
107 Japan Kills a Bryde’s Whale, supra note 53. Others dispute that the particular species of whales being killed by Japan actually are endangered. Van Zile, supra note 5, at 26. Van Zile suggests that the population is large enough to support an annual commercial harvest, and that the conservationists’ concerns are not well founded. See id.
108 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Species List, Species Profile, available at http://ecos.fws. gov/species_profile/species_profile.html (last visited Mar. 15, 2001).
109 Japan Kills a Bryde’s Whale, supra note 53.
110 Japan Wants to Hunt Two More Whale Species, supra note 59.
111 Id.
112 See D’Amato & Chopra, supra note 27, at 29.
113 22 U.S.C.  1978(a).
114 See id.
115 18 U.S.C.  1821(e)(2)(A).
116 Martin & Brennan, supra note 67, at 314–15.
117 See Rowe, supra note 4, at 24. Rowe describes the use of sanctions as a “nuclear trade weapon” that rarely has been threatened or used. Id.; see also Martin & Brennan, supra note 67, at 314–15 (concluding that the imposition and threat of sanctions under the Pelly Amendment have been relatively successful in encouraging whaling nations to comply with the Whaling Convention).
118 See Alden, supra note 78, at 11.
119 See Feldman, supra note 7, at 13A.
120 See Knight, supra note 2. See generally Tuna I, supra note 76; Tuna II, supra note 76; Shrimp-Turtle, supra note 76.
121 See First IWC Meeting, supra note 43.
122 See Matanich, supra note 43.
123 See First IWC Meeting, supra note 43.
124 Id.
125 Id.
126 See Japan Whaling Ass’n, Why was the International Whaling Commission established? (Mar. 2, 2001), available at http://www.jp-whaling-assn.com/qa/why_iwc.html.
127 See id.
128 Id. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that treaties shall be interpreted in good faith in light of the treaty’s object and purpose. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Jan. 27, 1980, art. 31, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 340.
129 Matera, supra note 28, at 37.
130 Id.
131 Id. For this proposition, the author relies upon the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which provides that states are to recognize the identity, culture, and interests of indigenous people and their communities.
132 Matera, supra note 28, at 40–41.
133 First IWC Meeting, supra note 43.
134 Id.
135 Id. The push for a Revised Management Scheme comes from both sides of the whaling debate. World Wildlife Fund, WWF’s Policy on Whaling, available at http://www. worldwildlife.org/species (last visited Mar. 8, 2002). Conservationists cite a need for a new, presumably more restrictive RMS in light of the increasing number of whales killed each year under the current regulations. Id.
136 See World Wildlife Fund, WWF’s Policy on Whaling, supra note 135.
137 See id.
138 See Whaling Convention, supra note 39, 4 Bevans at 250.
139 See Japan Kills a Bryde’s Whale, supra note 53.
140 Id.
141 Joshi, supra note 1.
142 See id.
143 Struck, supra note 3, at A15.
144 See 22 U.S.C.  1978(a).
145 See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, T.I.A.S. 1700, 55 U.N.T.S. 194; Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Apr. 15, 1994, art. XX, Legal Instruments—Results of the Uruguay Round vol. 1, 33 I.L.M. 1153 (1994). The chapeau provides that an exception “to protect human, animal or plant life or health” must not be “applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination . . . or a disguised restriction on international trade . . . .” Article XX is reprinted in International Trade Law Handbook 227 (Raj Bhala, ed. 2001).
146 See Japan Kills a Bryde’s Whale, supra note 53.
147 Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling, supra note 8, at 1, 5.
148 See Joshi, supra note 1.
149 See Struck, supra note 3, at A15.
150 Japan’s “Scientific” Whaling, supra note 8, at 5.
151 See id.
152 See Japan Kills a Bryde’s Whale, supra note 53.
153 World Wildlife Fund, Endangered Species, Minke Whales (Mar. 15, 2001), available at http://www/worldwildlife.org/species.