Whaling Diplomacy
Show Less

Whaling Diplomacy

Defining Issues in International Environmental Law

Alexander Gillespie

Whaling Diplomacy is the only book that addresses all of the substantive issues relating to the conservation of whales through the International Whaling Commission (IWC). It covers the law, policy, science and philosophy at the heart of each element of the debate, discussing how it has developed, the current problems that beset it and what is necessary for the future. Together, all of the issues involved in whaling form a single crucible through which the future of conservation in international environmental law is being debated.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 10: Small Cetaceans

Alexander Gillespie


1 INTRODUCTION Small cetaceans (small whales – porpoises or dolphins) are currently struggling for adequate protection in international law. This is despite being on the agenda of a number of international forums since the early 1970s. This argument has become increasingly strong in recent years as a number of countries argue that the most obvious body to supervise such species – the IWC – should not have jurisdiction over these creatures. The primary argument in support of this contention is that small cetaceans were not included in the original nomenclature of the ICRW, and to subsequently add them would require the consent of all the signatories to the convention. I believe that this view is mistaken for a number of reasons. These relate to the actual language of the convention, a simplistic view that the nomenclature was somehow a pivotal dividing mechanism within the convention, and a general misunderstanding of the way that treaties evolve and change through the mechanisms within them which allow entrenched majorities to modify treaties within the realms of what was broadly agreed originally (that is, it is not an amendment of the treaty), if necessary. Closely aligned to the argument that the IWC does not have competence over small cetaceans, is the assertion that coastal states have near absolute competence over them. This contention is typically bolstered by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, I contend that this view is also mistaken as the UNCLOS does not accord to coastal states a complete...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.