

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

While a section of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling allows for the taking of whales 'for purposes of scientific research,' 16-judge panel ruled today that "the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II" are not for those purposes.
The ruling marks a victory for marine wildlife campaigners who have long challenged Japan's claims behind its whaling program.
Among the reasons the Court cited is the lack of evidence of Japan of looking for non-lethal means as way of meeting its supposed research objectives, the overlapping goals of JARPA II and its predecessor program, JARPA, that don't substantiate an increased number of lethal samples, the open-ended time frame of the program, and its limited scientific output to date.
Marine wildlife conservation organization Sea Shepherd--which has confronted Japan's whaling on the open seas--cheered ICJ's ruling.
"With today's ruling, the ICJ has taken a fair and just stance on the right side of history by protecting the whales of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the vital marine ecosystem of Antarctica, a decision that impacts the international community and future generations," stated Captain Alex Cornelissen of Sea Shepherd Global, who was in the courtroom to hear the verdict.
"Though Japan's unrelenting harpoons have continued to drive many species of whales toward extinction, Sea Shepherd is hopeful that in the wake of the ICJ's ruling, it is whaling that will be driven into the pages of the history books," Cornelissen stated.
Japan said it was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling but that "as a state that respects the rule of law, the order of international law and as a responsible member of the global community, Japan will abide by the decision of the court."
_________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

While a section of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling allows for the taking of whales 'for purposes of scientific research,' 16-judge panel ruled today that "the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II" are not for those purposes.
The ruling marks a victory for marine wildlife campaigners who have long challenged Japan's claims behind its whaling program.
Among the reasons the Court cited is the lack of evidence of Japan of looking for non-lethal means as way of meeting its supposed research objectives, the overlapping goals of JARPA II and its predecessor program, JARPA, that don't substantiate an increased number of lethal samples, the open-ended time frame of the program, and its limited scientific output to date.
Marine wildlife conservation organization Sea Shepherd--which has confronted Japan's whaling on the open seas--cheered ICJ's ruling.
"With today's ruling, the ICJ has taken a fair and just stance on the right side of history by protecting the whales of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the vital marine ecosystem of Antarctica, a decision that impacts the international community and future generations," stated Captain Alex Cornelissen of Sea Shepherd Global, who was in the courtroom to hear the verdict.
"Though Japan's unrelenting harpoons have continued to drive many species of whales toward extinction, Sea Shepherd is hopeful that in the wake of the ICJ's ruling, it is whaling that will be driven into the pages of the history books," Cornelissen stated.
Japan said it was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling but that "as a state that respects the rule of law, the order of international law and as a responsible member of the global community, Japan will abide by the decision of the court."
_________________

While a section of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling allows for the taking of whales 'for purposes of scientific research,' 16-judge panel ruled today that "the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II" are not for those purposes.
The ruling marks a victory for marine wildlife campaigners who have long challenged Japan's claims behind its whaling program.
Among the reasons the Court cited is the lack of evidence of Japan of looking for non-lethal means as way of meeting its supposed research objectives, the overlapping goals of JARPA II and its predecessor program, JARPA, that don't substantiate an increased number of lethal samples, the open-ended time frame of the program, and its limited scientific output to date.
Marine wildlife conservation organization Sea Shepherd--which has confronted Japan's whaling on the open seas--cheered ICJ's ruling.
"With today's ruling, the ICJ has taken a fair and just stance on the right side of history by protecting the whales of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the vital marine ecosystem of Antarctica, a decision that impacts the international community and future generations," stated Captain Alex Cornelissen of Sea Shepherd Global, who was in the courtroom to hear the verdict.
"Though Japan's unrelenting harpoons have continued to drive many species of whales toward extinction, Sea Shepherd is hopeful that in the wake of the ICJ's ruling, it is whaling that will be driven into the pages of the history books," Cornelissen stated.
Japan said it was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling but that "as a state that respects the rule of law, the order of international law and as a responsible member of the global community, Japan will abide by the decision of the court."
_________________