When is a Sanctuary not a Sanctuary
I have just asked some colleagues this question but if anyone out there can work this one out for me please let me know, as its late here in the UK and I am not sure I am thinking this quite so straight.
I note that in reading the Chairman's package proposals that they contains the comments that,
‘Fundamental components of this consensus decision are to:
• suspend immediately for the 10-year period unilaterally-determined whaling under special permit, objections, and reservations.’
I read this as it does not mean that objections are suspended, but that whaling under these treaty rights are voluntarily suspended.Okay, if that's right, then...
I take it this applies to Japan’s objection to paragraph 7(b) to the extent that it applies to the Antarctic minke whale stocks. Japan is able to legally whale in the Southern Ocean using Article VIII (special permit) and because it launched an objection to the designation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. If Japan voluntarily suspends this whaling under objection and Article VIII, is not the Commission still bound by the Schedule requirements to honour the Southern Ocean Sanctuary?
I do not find any language in the proposal to suspend the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, but I do note that the deal proposes to allocate within the Sanctuary. How can the Commission allocate quotas in the Sanctuary without suspending the Sanctuary?
The proposal also allocates a fin whale quota for Japan in the Sanctuary, and Japan never took an objection to the Sanctuary for any species other than minke whale. So what are the authors of this proposal thinking? That they can corrupt the law as well as ethics and science?
Some one in the EU asked me yesterday whether the deal tries to make anything legal that is currently illegal? Well here is your example sir, but maybe we have reached the stage where the quislings are willing to breach the walls of illegality to deliver their deal.
WDCS on Twitter
WDCS on Facebook
WDCS on YouTube