The international convention for the regulation of whaling and international whaling commission–conservation or preservation–can the Gordian Knot be cut (or untangled)?
Abstract
This article analyses the developments in the implementation of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. It first considers the historical background of the Convention and discusses the shortcomings of the Whaling Convention; then focuses on how various types of whaling covered by the Convention developed according to the changes in attitudes of states – parties to the Whaling Convention along the development of international law and international environmental law. The article covers the developments in commercial whaling; aboriginal (subsistence) whaling; and scientific whaling. It emphasises conflicts between the state-parties to the Convention and also in this context analysis the role of the International Whaling Commission. The complex and conflicting issues concerning whaling are not only of legal but political, cultural and ethical nature. Therefore, it appears that that there is no easy solution to existing conflicts in the near future, as the states appear to be intransigent in their views on all types of whaling, especially scientific whaling and the possibility of the resumption of commercial whaling.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The IWC was considered largely ineffective until additional multi-lateral environmental agreements were adopted and the US used unilateral action through the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson Amendments.
“The IWC was considered largely ineffective until additional multi-lateral environmental agreements were adopted (Fitzmaurice, 2013) and the US used unilateral action through the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson Amendments (Caron, 1995 and see further discussion below).”
From Institutional navigation of oceans governance: Lessons from Russia and the United States Indigenous multi-level whaling governance in the Arctic (2022) · cites this paper as Fitzmaurice, 2013
CITES and UNCLOS both regulate trade of whales and their conservation.
“The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) both regulate trade of whales and their conservation (Fitzmaurice, 2013).”
From Institutional navigation of oceans governance: Lessons from Russia and the United States Indigenous multi-level whaling governance in the Arctic (2022) · cites this paper as Fitzmaurice, 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
York, A. M., Zdor, E., BurnSilver, S., Degai, T., Monakhova, M., Isakova, S., Petrov, A. N., & Kempf, M. (2022) · Earth System Governance · doi:10.1016/j.esg.2022.100154 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fitzmaurice, M.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Fitzmaurice, Malgosia
- Venue
- The Yearbook of Polar Law Online
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 451-490
- ISSN
- 1876-8814 (ISSN-L)
- 2211-6427
- OpenAlex
- W2084676456
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Yearbook of Polar Law Online (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › International Environmental Law and Policies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › International Maritime Law Issues
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
- Keywords
- International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, International Whaling Commission, whaling regulation, commercial whaling, subsistence whaling, scientific whaling, international environmental law
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review