Political Science

Whaling, the hunting of whales, have been a controversial practice globally more so in the view that some counties are pro while others are anti-whaling. The regulation of whaling under the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has itself resulted to the whaling wars when viewed from the international moratorium perspective which allows controlled whaling for scientific purposes. This paper looks into the implications of whaling on international relations.

Pro versus anti-whaling
The whaling regulatory body (IWC) is does not have a common stand regarding whaling. Within the commission is an alliance of those who support whaling specifically Japan, Iceland and Norway among other small developing countries like Togo and Nauru. Japan is the strongest advocate for whaling to be allowed and in fact it propagates the practice on scientific claims as allowed by the 1987 moratorium. On the other side of the whaling issue is the anti-whaling countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the United States. This alliance condemns whaling especially as practiced by Japan. There are other bodies that are anti-whaling such as the Greenpeace International and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society whose work is mainly to actively combat whaling in the oceans.

The whaling war is fought alliance-wise. Each alliance seeks to have a larger membership for it to make their case strong in the IWC. As such, it is a common practice to woo countries into the respective alliances through bribes and sanctions. Specifically, Japan as a pro-whaling country attracts support from small developing countries like Barbuda and Antigua by giving them bilateral aid mainly in form of grants. The anti-whaling side also responds by such means and also withdraws aide from those countries that support commercial whaling. Even when countries have joined IWC, switching sides still occurs under bribing.

Resolving this impasse has not been easy. For one, Japans propagation of whaling is pegged on the allowed scientific whaling which makes it somewhat legal. Nevertheless, the anti-whaling alliance presents evidence that this whaling is done for commercial purposes. Such a born of contention has prompted countries such as Australia to file a case against Japan in the International Criminal Court at The Hague if the impasse is not resolved by September 2010. New Zealand however thinks that a diplomatic approach to reach a common ground is better but it does not rule out The Hague option if the diplomatic talks fail. Recently, the IWC proposed a condoning commercial whaling for ten years in an attempt to reduce the number of whales killed annually but the debate is not yet over.

The recent war between Japan whalers and Sea Shepherd Conservations Societies in the Antarctica waters would seem justifiable to anti-whaling groups as it is supposed to make whaling unfavorable. The approach however seems controversial as it involves throwing stink bombs tangling ropes and making high-the noises. This may therefore justify Japans claim that it is piracy. However, these claims are baseless if Japan whales in the restricted species and waters.

In conclusion, the parties to the IWC need to stick to the moratorium agreement. To curb Japan from commercial whaling in the name of scientific whaling, expansive scientific evidence ought to be presented on why scientific whaling ought to be carried through non lethal means and lethally in inevitable circumstances. As such, it would even be possible to file court cases against violators of such a regulation thus improving international relations.