Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Other Australia/Japan Living Marine Resources Dispute

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

Inferences on the Merits of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration in Light of the Whaling Case

image of Brill Research Perspectives in the Law of the Sea

In 2000 an arbitral tribunal formed under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea denied its own jurisdiction to hear the case brought against Japan by Australia and New Zealand over Japan’s unilateral experimental fishing programme for southern bluefin tuna. Despite the criticism the tribunal’s reasoning attracted, it was widely supposed that the applicants would have failed on the merits because of the reluctance of international courts and tribunals to delve into scientific matters, as would have been necessary with the dispute’s underlying cause being the parties’ scientific disagreements regarding both the tuna stock itself and the nature and risks of the programme. In 2014, however, the International Court of Justice showed no such reticence in deciding in Australia’s favour the case against Japan’s scientific whaling, based partly on flaws it identified in the design of that experiment. Reviewing the evolution in the tuna experiment’s design, the propositions it was designed to (dis)prove and the use to which Japan proposed to put that proof, this paper suggests that similar factors were at play in both disputes and that a similar outcome of the tuna case, though not inevitable, would have been amply justified.

Affiliations: 1: Faculty of Business, Law and ArtUniversity of Southampton A.L.Serdy@soton.ac.uk

10.1163/24519359-12340001
/content/journals/10.1163/24519359-12340001
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/24519359-12340001
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. "Agreement Establishing the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission" unts 1993 November 25Vol 1927 329 Rome
2. "Agreement for the Establishment of the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council" unts 1948 February 26Vol 120 59 Baguio
3. "Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks" unts 1995 August 4Vol 2167 3 New York
4. "Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan" unts 1979 October 17Vol 1217 3 Canberra
5. "Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Japan" unts 1978 September 1Vol 1167 441 Wellington
6. Armstrong C.W."‘Co-operative Solutions in a Transboundary Fishery: The Russian-Norwegian Co-Management of the Arcto-Norwegian Cod Stock’" Marine Resource Economics 1994Vol 9 329 [Crossref]
7. Boyle A. Stokke O.S."‘Problems of Compulsory Jurisdiction and the Settlement of Disputes Relating to Straddling Fish Stocks’" Governing High Seas Fisheries: The Interplay of Global and Regional Regimes 2001 Oxford University Press 91 [Crossref]
8. Boyle A."‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration’" International and Comparative Law Quarterly 2001Vol 50 447 [Crossref]
9. Bureau of Rural Resources Reports of the Trilateral Scientific Discussions among Australia, Japan and New Zealand on Southern Bluefin Tuna 1982–1991 1992 Bureau of Rural Resources Working Paper No. WP/10/92;
10. Burke W.T. The New International Law of Fisheries: unclos 1982 and Beyond 1994 Clarendon Press
11. Butterworth D.S., Ianelli J.N., Hilborn R."‘A Statistical Model for Stock Assessment of Southern Bluefin Tuna with Temporal Changes in Selectivity’" African Journal of Marine Science 2003Vol 25 331 [Crossref]
12. Butterworth D.S., Penney A.J. Payne A.I.L., O’Brien C.M., Rogers S.I."‘Allocation in High Seas Fisheries: Avoiding Meltdown’" Management of Shared Fish Stocks 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 165
13. Campbell H., Herrick S.F. Jr, Squires D."‘The Role of Research in Fisheries Management: The Conservation of Dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific and the Exploitation of Southern Bluefin Tuna in the Southern Ocean’" Ocean Development & International Law 2000Vol 31 347 [Crossref]
14. Caton A., McLoughlin K., Williams M.J. Southern bluefin tuna: scientific background to the debate 1990 Australian Government Publishing Service
15. Churchill R.R., Lowe A.V. The Law of the Sea 1999 3rd edn Manchester University Press
16. Clark C.W. Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources 1990 2nd edn John Wiley & Sons
17. Collette B.B., Nauen C.E. FAO Species Catalogue Vol. 2: Scombrids of the World: An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Tunas, Mackerels, Bonitos and Related Species Known to Date 1983Vol 2 125 FAO fao Fisheries Synopsis
18. Colson D.A., Hoyle P."‘Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Did the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal Get It Right?’" Ocean Development & International Law 2003Vol 34 59 [Crossref]
19. "Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna" unts 1993 May 10Vol 1819 359 Canberra
20. "Convention on Conservation and Management of the High Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific Ocean" un 2009 November 14 13 July 2015 Auckland registration no 50553 <>
21. "Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea" International Legal Materials 1994 June 16Vol 34 67 Washington dc
22. Cushing D.H. Science and the Fisheries 1977 Edward Arnold
23. de Yturriaga J.A. The International Regime of Fisheries: From UNCLOS 1982 to the Presential Sea 1997 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
24. "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea" 2002 November 4 2 April 2016 Phnom Penh <>
25. "Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)" itlos 2012 (Judgment) Rep 4
26. "Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America)" icj (Judgment) Rep 1984 246
27. Everhart W.H., Youngs W.D. Principles of Fishery Science 1981 2nd edn Cornell University Press
28. Foster C.E."‘The “Real Dispute” in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case: a Scientific Dispute?’" International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2001Vol 16 571
29. Fox W.W. Jr"‘An Exponential Surplus-Yield Model for Optimizing Exploited Fish Populations’" Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1970Vol 99 80 [Crossref]
30. Fu C., Mohn R., Fanning L.P."‘Why the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stock off eastern Nova Scotia has not recovered’" Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2001Vol 58 1613 [Crossref]
31. Fujinami N. Doulman D.J."‘Development of Japan’s Tuna Fisheries’" Tuna Issues and Perspectives in the Pacific Islands Region 57 (Pacific Islands Development Program 1987)
32. In Proceedings Conducted by the Review Panel Established under Article 17 and Annex II of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of the High Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific Ocean with regard to the Objection by the Russian Federation to a Decision of the Commission of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 2013 July 5 24 July 2015 Findings and Recommendations of the Review Panel <>
33. In the Matter of an Arbitration before an Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China) 2 April 2016 (Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Order of 29 October 2015) pca Case No. 2013–19, <>
34. Industries Assistance Commission Report on Southern Bluefin Tuna 1984 Australian Government Publishing Service
35. "International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas" unts 1966 May 14Vol 673 63 Rio de Janeiro
36. "International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling" unts 1946 December 2Vol 161 72 Washington
37. Kambona J.J., Marashi S.H. Process for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (fao Fisheries Circular No 913; fao 1996)
38. Kawano M."‘L’affaire du Thon à nageoire bleue et les chevauchements de juridictions internationales’" Annuaire Français de Droit International 2003Vol XLIX 516 [Crossref]
39. Kaye S.B. International Fisheries Management 2001 Kluwer Law International
40. Kennedy J.O.S., Davies L., Cox A. Joint Rent Maximisation and Open Access Competition in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery 6 August 2015 (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics Conference Paper 99.1) <>
41. Kirkwood G.P."‘Estimation of von Bertalanffy Growth Curve Parameter using both Length Increment and Age-Length Data’" Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1983Vol 40 1405 [Crossref]
42. Koers A.W. International Regulation of Marine Fisheries: A Study of Regional Fisheries Organizations 1973 Fishing News (Books) Ltd
43. Kwiatkowska B."‘The Australia and New Zealand v. Japan Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award of the First Law of the Sea Convention Annex vii Arbitral Tribunal’" International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2001Vol 16 239 [Crossref]
44. Kwiatkowska B."‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal Did Get It Right: A Commentary and Reply to the Article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle’" Ocean Development & International Law 2003Vol 34 369 [Crossref]
45. Maguire J-J. Nordquist M.H., Norton Moore J."‘Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute’" Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2000 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 201
46. Majkowski J., Arrizabalaga H., Carocci F., Murua H."‘Tuna and Tuna-like Species’" fao, Review of the state of world marine fishery resourcesVol 227 (fao Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 569, fao 2011)
47. Mansfield B."‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration: Comments on Professor Barbara Kwiatkowska’s Article’" International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2001Vol 16 361
48. Mansfield B. Oude Elferink A.G., Rothwell D.R."‘Compulsory Dispute Settlement after the Southern Bluefin Tuna Award’" Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses 2004 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 255
49. Matsuda Y. Doulman D.J."‘Postwar Development and Expansion of Japan’s Tuna Fishery’" Tuna Issues and Perspectives in the Pacific Islands Region 71 (Pacific Islands Development Program 1987)
50. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China ‘Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines’ 2014 December 7 2 April 2016 <>
51. Morgan D.L. Nordquist M.H., Norton Moore J."‘A Practitioner’s Critique of the Order Granting Provisional Measures in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases’" Current Marine Environmental Issues and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 2001 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 173
52. Morgan D.L."‘Implications of the Proliferation of International Legal Fora: The Example of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases’" Harvard International Law Journal 2002Vol 43 541
53. "mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom)" itlos 2001 (Provisional Measures) Rep 95
54. Munro G.R., Scott A.D. Kneese A.V., Sweeney J.L."‘The Economics of Fisheries Management’" Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics 1985Vol vol II Elsevier 623 [Crossref]
55. Nordquist M.H. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary (Editor-in-Chief) vol ii (S.N. Nandan, S. Rosenne (vol eds) and N.R. Grandy (assistant ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993); vol iii (S.N. Nandan and S. Rosenne (vol eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995); vol v (S. Rosenne and L.B. Sohn (vol eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989)
56. Orrego Vicuña F."‘From the 1893 Bering Sea Fur Seals Case to the 1999 Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases: A Century of Efforts at Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas’" Yearbook of International Environmental Law 1999Vol 10 40 [Crossref]
57. Orrego Vicuña F. The Changing International Law of High Seas Fisheries 1999 Cambridge University Press
58. Otani Y. Ando N., McWhinney E., Wolfrum R."‘Quelques réflexions sur la juridiction et la recevabilité vis-à-vis de l’Affaire du thon à nageoire bleue’" Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda 2002 Kluwer Law International 731
59. Oxman B.H."‘Complementary Agreements and Compulsory Jurisdiction’" American Journal of International Law 2001Vol 95 277 [Crossref]
60. Peel J."‘A Paper Umbrella Which Dissolves in the Rain? The Future for Resolving Fisheries Disputes under unclos in the Aftermath of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration’" Melbourne Journal of International Law 2002Vol 3 53
61. Pitcher T.J., Hart P.J.B. Fisheries Ecology 1982 Croom Helm
62. Polacheck T. Shomura R.S., Majkowski J., Langi S."‘An overview of interaction issues among the fisheries for Southern Bluefin Tuna’" Interactions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries: Proceedings of the First FAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries 1991 December 3–11Vol vol 1 264 (fao Technical Paper 336/1, fao 1994)
63. Polacheck T."‘Experimental catches and the precautionary approach: the Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute’" Marine Policy 2002Vol 26 283 [Crossref]
64. Polacheck T., Klaer N.L., Millar C., Preece A.L."‘An initial variation of management strategies for the southern bluefin tuna fishery’" ices [International Council for the Exploration of the Sea] Journal of Marine Science 1999Vol 56 811 [Crossref]
65. "Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) Judgment" icj 2010 Rep 14
66. Ricker W.E."‘Stock and Recruitment’" Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1954Vol 11 559 [Crossref]
67. Röben V."‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases: Re-Regionalization of the Settlement of Law of the Sea Disputes?’" Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 2002Vol 62 61
68. Romano C."‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute: Hints of a World to Come . . . Like It or Not’" Ocean Development & International Law 2001Vol 32 313 [Crossref]
69. Rothschild B.J., Suda A. Gulland J."‘Population Dynamics of Tuna’" Fish Population Dynamics 1977 John Wiley & Sons 309
70. Schaefer M.B."‘Some Considerations of Population Dynamics and Economics in Relation to the Management of Commercial Fisheries’" Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1957Vol 14 669 [Crossref]
71. Scheiber H.N."‘Origins of the Abstention Doctrine in Ocean Law: Japanese-U.S. Relations and the Pacific Fisheries, 1937–1958’" Ecology Law Quarterly 1989Vol 16 23
72. Serdy A."‘One fin, two fins, red fins, bluefins: some problems of nomenclature and taxonomy affecting legal instruments governing tuna and other highly migratory species’" Marine Policy 2004Vol 28 235 [Crossref]
73. Serdy A."‘The Paradoxical Success of UNCLOS Part XV: A Half-Hearted Reply to Rosemary Rayfuse’" Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 2005Vol 36 713
74. Serdy A."‘Accounting for Catch in Internationally Managed Fisheries: What Role for State Responsibility?’" Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 2010Vol 15 23
75. Serdy A."‘Implementing Article 28 of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement: The First Review of a Conservation Measure in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation’" Ocean Development & International Law 2016Vol 47 1 [Crossref]
76. Serdy A. The New Entrants Problem in International Fisheries Law 2016 Cambridge University Press
77. "Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan)" riaa 2000 August 4Vol XXIII 1 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
78. Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) 5 August 2015 Government of Japan, Cases Concerning the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna [sic] (Memorial on Jurisdiction of Japan) <>
79. Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) 6 August 2015 Reply on Jurisdiction [of] Australia and New Zealand <>
80. "Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan)" itlos 1999 (Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999) Rep 280
81. Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) 6 August 2015 Statements of Claim under art 1 of Annex vii to unclos <>
82. "Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan)" itlos 14 August 2015 Response and Counter-Request for Provisional Measures submitted by Japan doc F4/155/198 <>
83. Stephens T."‘The Limits of International Adjudication in International Environmental Law: Another Perspective on the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case’" International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2004Vol 19 177 [Crossref]
84. Tanaka N."‘Some Observations on the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration Award’" Japanese Annual of International Law 2001Vol 44 9
85. Thorogood J."‘Age and Growth Rate Determination of Southern Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus maccoyii, Using Otolith Banding’" Journal of Fish Biology 2006Vol 30 7 [Crossref]
86. "Treaty of Peace with Japan" unts 1951 September 8Vol 136 45 San Francisco
87. "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" unts 1982 December 10Vol 1833 3 Montego Bay
88. "Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)" icj 2014 (Judgment) Rep 226
89. Williams S."‘Understanding Japanese seafood markets’" Australian Fisheries 1992Vol 51 2 32
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/24519359-12340001
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/24519359-12340001
2017-01-16
2018-06-24

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Brill Research Perspectives in the Law of the Sea — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation