Japan says it has made no decision on 2015-16 whaling

"Tokyo said it would abide by the judgement...."

In order to take time to form panels to decide on research teams to think up excuses as to how to continue supporting a hunt that is not only NOT science, but produces a product no one wants to eat, either, and at billions to the tax payers.

Japan on Monday insisted it had made no decision on whether to resume whaling in the Southern Ocean next year so why the need for a permanent injuction again SS, they wont be in Antartica if the whalers arnt. why is it that a group of recalcitrant illogical xenophobic geriatric bureaucrats in Tokyo keep making Japan look bad and at the same time blame other countries like China Korea for doing so.

Literal eyerolls at this article. Those ICR workers need to start job hunting.

"Tokyo said it would abide by the judgement...."

In order to take time to form panels to decide on research teams to think up excuses as to how to continue supporting a hunt that is not only NOT science, but produces a product no one wants to eat, either, and at billions to the tax payers.

Well, the ICJ ruling didn't tell them to stop outright. They basically said Japan needed to change how they went about it.

I'm sure most people were waiting for this action from the ICR and J-Gov. The ruling only stated Japan's 'current' practice of so-called 'research' was in breech of the IWC charter. I'm guessing they will propose a smaller quota, which will only result in more money wasted by the j-gov on a false belief that this is culture. If eating whale is such a cultural thing, why is there thousands of tons of whale meat rotting away I freezers that they cannot even give away? I'd like to see the Aus PM revoke some of the concessions he gave japan in the recent trade agreement until Japan gives up this farce, including cutting the cost of coal by nearly a third after Japan cried poor. Yeah, they might be in financial straights cos of the cost of fossil fuels, but if they can afford to waste millions of public funds on hunting whales they should not receive any concessions from other countries.

why is it that a group of recalcitrant illogical xenophobic geriatric bureaucrats in Tokyo keep making Japan look bad

Exactly. But not just them.

I was with my in-laws when this news was released, and to be honest I was underwhelmed by their response. They showed a distinct disinterest in the whole thing, and the only comment they really offered was to say that they felt that Japan should not be whaling in places like the Antarctic 'because it upsets other countries'.

But they were just so passive about it - no real fire, no real position, just a kind of passive acceptance of the decision one way or another. And this is the problem, and why the geriatric bureaucrats get away with this rubbish - the Japanese people just don't oppose things strongly enough. They don't voice their opinions and concerns, and even if they think these idiots are making the rest of them look bad, they do nothing about it. It's a very, very poor attitude to things that concern you.

Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) has filed court briefs in the United States stating it intends to return to hunt whales in the Southern Ocean for the 2015-16 season with a newly designed “research” program and will seek a permanent injunction against Sea Shepherd USA, the group said.

If Japan circumvents the ICJ ruling to continue hunting whales, it stand to lose a lot of credibility in the international community, not to mention undermining their efforts to have a certain territorial dispute heard in the ICJ.

"Japan says it has made no decision on 2015-2016 whaling"

The international community has already made that decision. With the Tokyo Olympics a few years away, Japan will likely have too.

I was with my in-laws when this news was released, and to be honest I was underwhelmed by their response.

that is perhaps because no one gives a rats butt about killing whales besides westerners with free time. from a logical point of view, whales are just animals that can be eaten, but in some people's eyes, they are some glorified sentient beings that deserve personhood. if you remove emotion from the picture, you might get a clearer point of view.

Why keep wasting money which could be better spent elsewhere? hint Tohoku

@rickyvee whales are just animals that can be eaten and that is exactly why many of the worlds species are becoming extinct. to have the view that if it moves then humans have the right to eat it is total BS. whales and many other species are not easily farmed like cow, pigs chickens etc. bluefin tuna is a perfect example of overfishing of a species, and today countires cant even decide on what reduced quota there should be to preserve them. whales are much slower breeders and would be much more difficult to preserve if commercial whaling was introduced again on a large scale

Hey wtfjapan! Do you live in Japan? Are you happy to see your tax money wasted I this farce? Regardless of that stale argument of 'whales are food' the fact still remains that, nobody eats this stuff and these fools are poring millions of dollars of tax payers' money into this farce every year. That is the true idiocy of the Japanese whaling program. They are researching whale stocks to confirm the viability of commercial whaling, but there is no market to sell the meat even of they do kill them. That is just plain stupid! It's like harvesting ice to sell to Eskimos.

Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) has filed court briefs in the United States stating it intends to return to hunt whales in the Southern Ocean for the 2015-16 season with a newly designed “research” program and will seek a permanent injunction against Sea Shepherd USA, the group said.

Why am I not surprised ?

The Judgment does say the following:

"In the view of the Court, as that obligation already applies to all States parties, it is to be expected that Japan will take account of the reasoning and conclusions contained in this Judgment as it evaluates the possibility of granting any future permits under Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention."

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18160.pdf

SS is out of luck if they thought this was a final ruling against whaling.

As for the AFP, I have to wonder if anyone over there actually read the judgment.

the U.N.‘s top court declared the annual Antarctic whaling hunt was a commercial activity disguised as science

It doesn't say that anywhere. You have to dig into the individual judges' comments to find even a mention of the word "disguise", and one of the judges who mentioned it was actually a dissent in favour of Japan. The other judge was in favour of Australia, but suggested quotas were set for fund-raising purposes rather than commercial reasons.

If Japan circumvents the ICJ ruling to continue hunting whales,

They don't have to circumvent it, the ruling didn't forbid future whaling. It only said the way the current expedition was executed wasn't up to par.

The only way Japan will completely stop whaling is to loose face in the world arena, it is getting very close to this in many arrears..

Someone needs to paint some quotation marks on the whaling ship so it reads "Research".

rickyvee

No, it's about conservation and Japan playing it's part as a responsible member of the International community, not deifying whales.

It's also about an apathetic Japanese public who don't eat whale meat and probably don't really care much for the 'culture' and 'tradition' of whaling. But whom remain silent, when they should kill it off once and for all.

That's all.

Once again, we ask readers to please use the words "loose" and "lose" correctly.

The J-government has the chance to do the right thing and stop whaling without losing face (they can refer to the court decision), so I hope they do it.

The ICR refused Monday to comment on the report, while an official at the government’s fisheries agency said “there has been no decision yet” on what to do in the 2015-16 season and beyond.

I thought just last week that Abe said that Japan would abide by the ruling. What happened? Is this another example of Japan back-tracking on commitments, or trying to find creative ways to get around those commitments?

Obviously many people either did not read the ICJ ruling or understand it. It did not prohibit Japan from conducting Research Whaling, it simply prohibited them from doing so under the current program guidelines. The ruling left open the possibility of Japan continuing Research Whaling under different guidelines that would satisfy the ICJ's ruling. This is NOT "getting around the ruling". This is called "complying with the ruling".

which ever way you look at it Japan will have to reduce the quota to meet the ICJ ruling. this will just make the whole research BS just that much more of a waste of public taxes. pride and culture has no illogical limits

“I thought just last week that Abe said that Japan would abide by the ruling. What happened? Is this another example of Japan back-tracking on commitments, or trying to find creative ways to get around those commitments?”

jerseyboy, it seems to me that you might not understand Japanese mindset.:)

From American standpoint of view, the ICJ’s ruling is pretty much cut-and-dry not to mention there is no appeal process allowed. But to Japan, any defeat (big or small)would be hard to swallow due to their deep rooted national pride. It may call this phenomenon the Japanese thing if you live in Japan for awhile.

I wouldn’t bet on that Japan would resume its current whaling program without significant modifications if there is one in 2015-2016. The fact of matter is the commercial whaling programs in Japan are losing its viability given the consumers’ sentiments on whale meats.

EthanWilberApr. 14, 2014 - 10:28PM JST

“I thought just last week that Abe said that Japan would abide by the ruling. What happened? Is this another example of Japan back-tracking on commitments, or trying to find creative ways to get around those commitments?”

jerseyboy, it seems to me that you might not understand Japanese mindset.:) From American standpoint of view, the ICJ’s ruling is pretty much cut-and-dry not to mention there is no appeal >process allowed. But to Japan, any defeat (big or small)would be hard to swallow due to their deep rooted national >pride. It may call this phenomenon the Japanese thing if you live in Japan for awhile.

Ethan Wilbur that's really the most ridiculous anti-JP comment I've seen. The ICJ ruling is cut-and-dry to anyone of any nationality; Japan can not continue it's Research Whaling as it is, and the door has been left open to continuing it if modified to meet the ICJ standards. To follow suit, if they so choose, is compliance with the ruling.

Please use no more taxpayer money you parasites...

militant environmental group said Tokyo intended to evade an international court ruling

I like the play on the word MILITANT is this to draw attention to the world!! If you play with fire you get burned is this what Japan is asking for.

Japan should not officially backpedal on this one. They need the good will of Oz and NZ more than they need whale meat.

Abe really needs to get all the fools on the same page or kick some butt. There are too many loose canons in this government. Shut up and sit down already!

Ossan: "Ethan Wilbur that's really the most ridiculous anti-JP comment I've seen."

Because that's all you see, Ossan. You don't see the logic, you just take offense as a Japanophile. You argue about the science on one thread, then argue about how it's culture on another, forgetting all the while that the reason it was shut down is because it was never about science. But, hey, feel free to force feed kids the 75% meat rotting in freezers.

Ha ha! Everyone saw this coming a mile off, but I am surprised it has started so soon after the ruling.

that is perhaps because no one gives a rats butt about killing whales besides westerners with free time. from a logical point of view, whales are just animals that can be eaten, but in some people's eyes, they are some glorified sentient beings that deserve personhood. if you remove emotion from the picture, you might get a clearer point of view.

Seriously? Have you not seen 'Star Trek IV'?!!

Whaling is part of life for some people and it is their right to do it with reason. The world has gotten far too extreme in some cases of animal protection and far too careless about others. Whole species are being hunted to extinction because governments cannot or will not control poachers, taking a few whales each year for Japan is their right ..and is none of the world's business.

I agree with you, CrisGerSan, to a certain extent. Although I abhor the killing, if Japan wants to do it in Japanese waters, then who are we to complain. It's the huge distance to the Antarctic that is bothering a lot of people. Why do they need to go there? No one wants the meat. The foul smell that was left in places like Ishinomaki after the tsunami was due, I believe, to huge freezers of fish and whale products being scattered about and then rotting in the spring and summer that followed. Japan does not need this catch. I have tried it once, many years ago, and I wasn't keen.

DisillusionedAPR. 14, 2014 - 06:27PM JST Hey wtfjapan! Do you live in Japan? Are you happy to see your tax money wasted I this farce? Regardless of that stale argument of 'whales are food' the fact still remains that, nobody eats this stuff and these fools are poring millions of dollars of tax payers' money into this farce every year. That is the true idiocy of the Japanese whaling program. They are researching whale stocks to confirm the viability of commercial whaling, but there is no market to sell the meat even of they do kill them. That is just plain stupid! It's like harvesting ice to sell to Eskimos.

I eat whale. Please don't make things up. I don't really know why whaling is so bad compared to other culling.

It may call this phenomenon the Japanese thing if you live in Japan for awhile.

EthanWilber -- I lived in Japan for ten years, thanks. Which is why I concluded what I did. But thanks for "enlightening" me anyway.

Obviously many people either did not read the ICJ ruling or understand it.

Ossan -- actually, I think many posters here understand it very well. Which is why your post is so offensive. What you are saying is that, as usual, Japan will try to find a way to live up to the letter of the ruling, but not the intent/spirit of it. Which as an avowed Japanophile you should find just as repulsive. They were caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Time to take the high road, and move on, not find a sleezy way to get around it.

How else is the whaling industry going to spend all the millions of dollars that they received from March 11 disaster donations? - 二つの顔 Futatsu no kao

jerseyboy,

What you are saying is that, as usual, Japan will try to find a way to live up to the letter of the ruling, but not the intent/spirit of it.

See my thumbed down comment above! The quote I pulled was directly from the ICJ judgment summary, URL also provided.

How can anyone seriously claim that Japan designing a new research program is living up to the letter but not intent/spirit of the ruling? The ruling clearly only applies to JARPA II.

If I have missed the "intent/spirit" of the ruling somehow, please quote me some text from the judgment to support your view.

Calling OssanAmerica a Japanophile just because he disagrees and happen to be on Japan's side on this one issue is not really called for...

If I have missed the "intent/spirit" of the ruling somehow, please quote me some text from the judgment to support your view.

fxgai -- Yup, you have, and the quote you pulled makes that very clear:

it is to be expected that Japan will take account of the reasoning and conclusions contained in this Judgment as it evaluates the possibility of granting any future permits under Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention."

Do you understand the first 15 words or so? They are saying that they "expect" Japan to understand the "reasoning and conclusions". But you and Ossan missing that is no surprise.

jerseyboy,

I understand the first 15 words or so, and I also understand the words after it as well. Perhaps we are arguing about what is not written in that paragraph?

What I saw in the Judgment does not deny all lethal research. On the contrary it acknowledged the need for lethal research for certain types of research objectives. But they thought JARPA II wasn't justified well enough.

But you and Ossan missing that is no surprise.

Looks like I got on your wrong side. Sorry about that...