Whales of the Southern Ocean will live without human predation for the first time in almost three decades. After years of international protests, and even an Animal Planet series, Japanese whaling has taken a blow from the United Nations’ highest court.

On Monday, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled to halt a long-standing Japanese program that has captured more than 10,000 minke and other whales since 1988.

While this ruling will bring benefits to whale populations and oceanic conservation, it is important to remember the differences among cultures when working toward conservation.

Though Japan said that it would abide by the ruling, adding that it “regrets and is deeply disappointed by the decision,” the country argues that the suit was in truth an attempt to impose foreign cultural norms on Japan.

Within international decision-making, there must be a middle ground between impositions and working toward the common good. It takes respect on both sides to come to a compromise.

Although the International Whaling Commission has declared a moratorium on commercial whaling worldwide since 1986, a number of countries have lodged formal objections and declared themselves exempt, as the IWC is a voluntary international organization with no ability for enforcement. Two such countries are Iceland and Norway, which continue commercial whaling in their respective countries.

Apart from formal objections to the IWC, other countries or groups of people continue whaling through legal means — via scientific research or aboriginal subsistence.

Japan is a signatory on the 1986 moratorium, but has continued whaling under legal scientific research. This will come to an end with Monday’s ruling.

In 2010, Australia sued Japan within the International Court of Justice, citing that though the Japanese government claimed it was whaling for scientific purposes, it was really commercial whaling in disguise. The main evidence supporting the ruling is Japan’s limited scientific output from said research, when thousands of whales were captured for research.

The meat from slaughtered whales is sold commercially in Japan after scientific use of the captured whales.

In the case of Japan’s “scientific research” whaling, the court ruling was necessary to end this pretense and falsity. But the end goal of this debate should not be an outright ban of whaling in Japan. A compromise is needed to balance cultural norms and whale conservation.

Every organism on this planet, including humans, must utilize resources to grow and prosper. Coupling this with complex social histories and demographic characteristics, people across the globe use a variety of different resources. For Japan, its people have historically eaten whale meat.

If Japan can sustainably and humanely hunt whales in and around their country, it should be able to do so. A transparent process can quell international backlash and sustain cultural norms.

Japan does have other options to continue its whaling industry. By accepting this ruling, it can no longer whale in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, but may continue in other parts of the Pacific, which it should.

Also, Japan can continue whaling if it revises its scientific program and submits it to the IWC. The country also has the option to withdraw from the IWC.

As Japan should accept the ruling and continue whaling to a lesser degree, the international community must be accepting of cultural norms that may seem out of the ordinary within our own culture. Without creating compromises, we will not be able to come together as one world on broad-scale issues such as international whaling and oceanic conservation.

Meg Callaghan is a senior environmental studies major at SUNY-ESF. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at mlcallag@syr.edu. 

Published on April 3, 2014 at 1:08 am