Exploitation of Natural Resources

The exploitation of whales has been a fact for many centuries, from coastal to international waters, from one side of the pole to the other. Despite excessive devastation of species it was not until quite recently that states and non-governmental organisations attempted to regulate whaling on an international level.
Intergovernmental agreements closely followed the 1930s competition between whaling companies that competed in the Antarctic. These agreements together culminated the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946 which created the International Whaling Commission.


The term ‘common interest’ appeared quite early in international treaties and mainly dealt with the exploitation of natural resources. The Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states in its preamble “the interest of the world in safeguarding for the future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks” and that it is beneficiary for all of mankind to achieve restore the level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible (Segger, 2004:121).
The exhaustion of fish resources started off as a local issue, but in the late twentieth century it gained ground and grew in dimensions and has since then caught the attention of the states whom have acknowledged that it is in the interest of all to measure and maintain a maximum sustainable yield (Ibid:122).
The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes states that “water resources shall be managed so that needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

The Law of Sea Convention 1995 (LOSC) brought with it a number of radical elements its’ core purpose was still to implement the 1982 Convention. Article 117 imposes on all member states the individual and joint duty to take the necessary measures for the conservation if the living resources of the high seas.
Article 118 imposes a correlative duty on states to cooperate in the conservation and management of high seas living resources.
There is a general consensus that the position of the duty in conservation is a primary duty. This is strengthened by Article 119 which provides the means and structure for the member states to act in a way which is compatible with the primary obligation (Boyle, 1999:146). This same Article requires the member states to take measures to ‘maintain and restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield’. The problem with this is that these measures are based on the scientific evidence, which at its best according to E.D Brown is “rather vague figures” (Ibid: 147).

Statistics show that whales reproduce between 1 per cent and 4 per cent of the total population every year, while the money from a dead whale would most likely reap approximately 10 per cent interest in the bank (Gillespie, 1997:58).

If we were to look at this purely economically, it would be more logical for the whaling industry to hunt and kill as many whales as possible, reinvest the proceeds and with that maximise the profit, sustainable harvesting could not compete (Ibid.).
Therefore in striking a balance one could not look to the heads of the commercial industry for incentives for conservation as the outcome would at its best be minimal.
Furthermore, there is a major problem with ecological economies that result in ‘interchangeable natural capital’ de to fluctuating economic value. Such problems highlight the reality that ‘nature’s services will be at times made redundant or substituted’ (Ibid: 50).
Fluctuation in economic value may also be damaging in other ways, an example is; in the mid 1980s when the whaling moratorium entered the market the price of whale teeth went from next to nil to over two hundred dollars each and it is these prices that are the driving force behind the process of extinction (Ibid.).


The protection and maintenance of culture is recognized as a legitimate pursuit by the international community (ibid: 99). Notably, the international community and their representing diplomats have openly promoted widening participation within culture and gone further to demand respect for diversity and its enhancement. It has strongly been argued that as the result of cultural consideration, special arrangements should be made to exempt certain states from environmental objectives. This has mainly been argued by the Inuit, Norwegians and the Japanese in the area concerning whaling (Ibid: 100).

Japan has accumulated a questionable reputation and created protest within the international community due to its whaling program in the Northern Pacific Ocean. It is anticipated that a full scale trade war will set off as a response to Japans refusal to reform its whaling practises. The conservationists alongside the international community allege that Japan is violating the conventional and environmental regulations/laws. Japan is denying defiance and is defending its whaling practises as compatible with the regulations set by the International Whaling commission which is the body that has been given the role to govern international whaling policy.
In September 2004 the US responded to the public outrage by attempting to pressure Japan to re-examine its whaling policy by limiting Japanese fishing rights within the American exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The US went even further and considered imposing trade sanctions but never enforced it; the suggestion is however still on the table. The Japanese diplomats have contested the potential US sanction and have argued that it would be in breach of the requirements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

If a party state grants permission for scientific whaling research, the IWC does not explicitly need approve. However, the IWC has passes numerous resolutions criticizing Japans whaling activities. Japanese diplomats stick to their early justification that the main purpose for whaling is to examine the impact of whales on the resources of fisheries in the North Pacific where whales and humans compete for the same fish. They claim they have legitimate claim as it is interfering with the business of human resources for food. Furthermore, they argue that non-lethal tests and photography would not provide them with the sufficient data required to carry out that research. Japan has continued to object the critique regarding its whaling practises by stating that bryde’s whales and a small take of sperm only will have a negligent impact on the whale stocks.