International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is an international treaty aimed at managing whale populations and ensuring sustainable whaling practices. Opened for signature in 1946, the ICRW was designed to consolidate earlier agreements and promote the whaling industry in post-World War II nations. Although it established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to oversee whaling regulations, the convention has faced significant challenges, particularly regarding the conservation of whale stocks and compliance by its signatory nations. In 1986, a global moratorium on commercial whaling was adopted, yet this has sparked ongoing debates about ethical considerations and sustainable practices, especially between pro-whaling countries like Japan and Norway and conservation-led nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom. While the ICRW allows for certain exemptions, including scientific whaling and aboriginal subsistence whaling, these provisions have been controversial and often criticized for potentially undermining conservation efforts. Additionally, noncompliance by some nations has further complicated the effectiveness of the treaty. Despite these issues, the ICRW continues to be the primary framework for international whaling regulations, expanding its focus to tackle other threats to whale populations, such as environmental changes and pollution.
On this Page
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
THE CONVENTION: International agreement setting limits on the hunting of whales
DATE: Opened for signature on December 2, 1946
Intended to balance the conservation of whales with benefits from their exploitation, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling failed to prevent the collapse of many of the world’s whale populations. Since its adoption of a ban on all commercial whaling in 1986, the convention has been a focal point for controversy.
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was established to consolidate several previous whaling agreements and to encourage rapid development of the whaling industry of countries ravaged by World War II. The ICRW created the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which has power to amend the ICRW’s schedule (a document that limits which whales can be taken and under what conditions), although the IWC cannot amend the ICRW itself.
The foremost controversial issues facing the ICRW have been its inability to prevent the collapse of the world’s great whale stocks during the 1950s and 1960s and its inability to force compliance by its signatory states—these problems have continued to serve as backdrops to debates over whaling. While Japan, Norway, and some other nations argue that a sustainable harvest of some whale stocks has robust scientific support, others—led by the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand—contend that historical overexploitation counsels a more precautionary approach and that the killing of whales is unethical. Dissatisfaction with the ICRW and the whaling moratorium implemented by the IWC in 1986 has encouraged the creation of the rival North American Marine Mammal Commission, which Iceland, Norway, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands established in 1992 so that they might regulate their own whaling operations.
The ICRW is also challenged by noncompliance occurring either explicitly outside IWC guidelines or within the guidelines but against the spirit of the regulations. The most explicit noncompliance occurred when the Soviet Union engaged in illegal whaling for banned stocks during the Cold War. More recently, meat from whale species that are banned from harvest by the IWC was allegedly found in the markets of Japan and South Korea.
The IWC allows for three types of exemptions to the whaling moratorium, the uses of which are sometimes interpreted to be against the intent of the moratorium, though within IWC guidelines. First, a member state can file a general reservation to the moratorium, an exemption Norway has used to engage in limited commercial whaling. Second, a scientific exemption allows for the taking of whales for research purposes. Only Japan practices scientific whaling, and it has been accused of using this exemption as a cover for commercial operations. Finally, an exemption for aboriginal subsistence whaling allows harvesting by Indigenous peoples with strong historical whaling cultures. Japan, Norway, and Iceland have objected to the exemption for aboriginal subsistence whaling, asserting that it is inconsistent with restrictions placed on their own whaling communities.
Because the ICRW lacks effective enforcement mechanisms, compliance must often be negotiated externally. Notably, Japan agreed to comply with the whaling ban after the United States threatened to bar Japan from lucrative American fishing grounds, and Norway has received similar threats regarding its whaling expeditions. Despite these controversies, the ICRW remains the premier global whaling treaty, and the IWC has extended its scope of responsibility to other kinds of threats to whale populations, such as competition with fisheries, chemical and acoustic pollution, ozone depletion, and global warming.
Bibliography
Burns, William C. G., and Alexander Gillespie, eds. The Future of Cetaceans in a Changing World. Ardsley, N.Y.: Transnational, 2003.
Gillespie, Alexander. Whaling Diplomacy: Defining Issues in International Environmental Law. Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar, 2005.
"International Whaling Commission." NOAA Fisheries, 14 Aug. 2023, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international-affairs/international-whaling-commission. Accessed 18 July 2024.
Tønnessen, J. N., and A. O. Johnsen. The History of Modern Whaling. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.