• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • ICJ's Decision in Australia v. Japan: Giving up the Spear or Refining the Scientifc Design?

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    AntonPUB1657.pdf (376.9Kb)
    File version
    Accepted Manuscript (AM)
    Author(s)
    Telesetsky, Anastasia
    Anton, Donald K
    Koivurova, Timo
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Anton, Don K.
    Year published
    2014
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    After learning on 31 March 2014, that the International Court of Justice had voted twelve votes to four1 to find that Japan was not in compliance with its international obligations under the International Convention to Regulate Whaling,2 former Australian Green Party leader Bob Brown called the decision “a whale of win.”3 The Japanese delegation at The Hague tersely indicated that Japan could abide by the Judgment.4 Of course, sometimes victories are Pyrrhic and the rigors of commitment to honor an adverse judgment are dependent on what it requires. In this sense, the outcome in the Whaling in the Antarctic case is not so ...
    View more >
    After learning on 31 March 2014, that the International Court of Justice had voted twelve votes to four1 to find that Japan was not in compliance with its international obligations under the International Convention to Regulate Whaling,2 former Australian Green Party leader Bob Brown called the decision “a whale of win.”3 The Japanese delegation at The Hague tersely indicated that Japan could abide by the Judgment.4 Of course, sometimes victories are Pyrrhic and the rigors of commitment to honor an adverse judgment are dependent on what it requires. In this sense, the outcome in the Whaling in the Antarctic case is not so straight-forward. In assessing whether the decision was a victory of form over function one needs to consider that Japan can still continue its whaling operations in the North Pacific and has the opportunity to develop a new scientific research plan solicitous of the Court’s concerns in order to resume whaling in Southern Ocean waters.5
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Ocean Development and International Law
    Volume
    45
    Issue
    4
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2014.957970
    Copyright Statement
    © 2015 Taylor & Francis. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Climate and Development on 12 May 2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2015.1041440
    Subject
    International Law (excl. International Trade Law)
    Law
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/172549
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander