Australia v Japan: The 2014 ICJ Ruling on Antarctic Whaling

On 31 March 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled in a case brought by Australia that Japan's Antarctic whaling programme, known as JARPA II, was not being carried out "for purposes of scientific research" as the whaling treaty requires. By 12 votes to 4, the judges ordered Japan to revoke all existing permits under the programme and to issue no new ones. It was a clear legal win for Australia and for anti-whaling campaigners, though, as later years showed, it did not end Japanese whaling.

Japan Factory Ship Nisshin Maru Whaling Mother and Calf

This photograph, released by the Australian government on 7 February 2008 after a customs surveillance voyage in the Southern Ocean, shows a whale and her calf being hauled aboard the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru. Images like this one fuelled public pressure in Australia that eventually led to the court case.

What the court decided

Australia filed the case on 31 May 2010, and New Zealand joined as an intervening state in February 2013. The core question was narrow but decisive. Article VIII of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling lets member states issue special permits to kill whales for scientific research, outside the normal catch limits. Japan argued that JARPA II fell under that exception. Australia argued that it was commercial whaling in a lab coat.

The court agreed with Australia on the main points. Reports of the judgment summarised its concerns: the programme had an open-ended time frame, produced limited scientific output, had not seriously considered non-lethal research methods, did not justify its large sample sizes and did not coordinate with other research. The judges therefore concluded that the permits were not issued for scientific purposes. The four dissenting judges were Hisashi Owada, Ronny Abraham, Mohamed Bennouna and Abdulqawi Yusuf.

The ruling covered JARPA II specifically. It did not ban whaling as such, and it did not decide whether any future research programme could qualify for a permit.

How "scientific whaling" came about

Whale hunting in Japan has a long history, with coastal hunts reaching back centuries. Industrial whaling, using modern ships and harpoons and ranging far beyond Japanese waters, began in the late 19th century, and Japan became one of the major whaling nations of the 20th century alongside countries such as Norway and the Soviet Union.

When the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling took effect in 1986, Japan shifted to hunting under the research exception. The hunts were run through the Institute of Cetacean Research, a non-profit body funded partly by government subsidies, and the meat was sold commercially afterwards, which the treaty allows as a by-product of research. Critics, including most IWC members, saw this as a loophole. The permit for JARPA II was described as covering around 850 Antarctic minke whales a year, plus 50 fin and 50 humpback whales.

Why the case mattered

Disputes over whaling had long been fought through diplomacy, protest ships and the IWC's annual meetings. This was the first time a country had taken another to the world's highest court over the issue. A binding judgment gave the debate something it had lacked: an independent legal test of whether a hunt described as science really was science.

The reasoning also had value beyond whales. The court set out what it would look for when judging whether a programme is genuinely scientific: whether its design and sample sizes are reasonable for its stated goals, whether alternatives were considered and whether it produces real research. That test gives anyone weighing a future research permit a clear set of questions to ask.

What happened next

Japan said it would not take part in the 2014–15 Antarctic season. It then redesigned its programme. Under a new plan called NEWREP-A, a fleet returned to the Southern Ocean in December 2015 with a target of about 333 minke whales a year, over objections from Australia and New Zealand.

In December 2018 Japan announced that it would leave the International Whaling Commission. On 1 July 2019 it resumed openly commercial whaling, limited to its own territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, and stopped hunting in the Antarctic. In 2024, catches reported for Japanese waters included Bryde's, minke, sei and fin whales. So the court's decision ended Japanese whaling in the Antarctic in the long run, but not whaling itself.

Common misunderstandings

"The ICJ banned whaling." It did not. It ruled on one programme and ordered those permits revoked.

"Japan ignored the ruling." Japan complied with the order on JARPA II, then created a new programme and later left the IWC altogether. Many critics argued this sidestepped the spirit of the judgment, but it was not a direct defiance of the order.

"Most Japanese people eat whale." Whale meat was common in the years after the Second World War, including in school lunches, but polling in recent years has found that few Japanese people eat it regularly.

Where things stand for whales

For people who care about whales, the 2014 case shows both the power and the limits of international law. A court can test a government's claims and set a clear standard. It cannot stop a country from changing its approach or leaving a treaty. Much of the lasting protection whales enjoy today comes from public pressure, falling demand for whale meat and the steady work of scientists who study whales without killing them, using methods such as biopsy darts, photo identification and acoustic monitoring.

Sources: Wikipedia: Whaling in Japan; Opinio Juris, 31 March 2014: ICJ rules against Japan; Animal Welfare Institute, spring 2014: ICJ declares Japanese Antarctic whaling illegal; CNBC, 26 December 2018: Japan withdraws from the IWC; first shared via True Activist. Photo: Australian government, 2008.

Related: