Nope. The Japanese are abiding by the terms of the convention by not commercially whaling and instead whaling for research purposes and then not wasting hte meat.
I think that is a whale size load of crapola, but the fact remains that the extant Japanese whaling in the sanctuary is not illegal.
A question.
Could or did the Japanese whaling ship have treated the rescued crew like captured pirates/criminals due to their behavior prior to the accident? Like handcuff them and lock them in a room until land was reached or they were transferred to another ship? I know I sure as hell wouldnt want those loons running free on my ship when they had previously been trying to frack it up.
If the Australian Antarctic Territory is internationally recognized, then a UNCLOS 200 mile exclusive economic zone would apply to the sanctuary. Presently, New Zealand, France, Norway and the UK recognize the Australian Antarctic Territory, which is not much in the way of international recognition.
Since Japan and most of the rest of the worlds does not recognize the AAT, Australia’s claim to an EEZ is tenuous at this time. In other words, five nations in the world think Australia has the right to enforce economic controls in the sanctuary, and all but five nations in the world do not think that Australia has the right to enforce economic controls in the sanctuary.
Why do people in threads like these insist upon discussing what is “OK” and what is not “OK”? We are dealing with an interaction in international waters between people from different countries. There is no such thing as “OK” and “not OK.”
Sure:
So I guess it depends where the whalers are. If they are within Australia’s exclusive economic zone then that is recognized under international law. If it is in the disputed area, well, might makes right and that is Australia’s back yard. If their navy stopped the whalers I doubt Japan would go to war over it and would just make a lot of noise about it. Maybe withdraw their ambassador for a few weeks or something in protest.
It is only dumb luck those guys weren’t hurt worse or killed. A 500 ton ship is a pretty unwieldy tool for putting the hurt on someone with some kind of precision.
If you prefer use the snipers to take out the boat’s engine. Sure someone might get shot but then someone might get squished under 500 tons of ship too.
I am really not OK with that sorta thinking 
If Australia thinks that it is their territory then they should enforce their laws including using their Navy to do so. Yet, they aren’t. I wonder why? Could it be that they know they are on shaky ground if they do so? Or could it be that they really don’t care about the issue (at least in relation to other issues that they might have with Japan, like trade, etc) no matter how much noise they make over it.
WaM, why can’t you be satisfied with your own conclusion that you don’t like what the Japanese whalers did? Why must you try to bootstrap that conclusion into the idea that it violated international law (a substance only slightly more substantial than a fart in a breeze) or some kind of universal norm?
Too bad so sad if a pirate had been killed, but as it stands, no one was killed, so your positions on whether or not ships should carry snipers, whether or not snipers are reasonably capable of taking out large boat’s motors, and whether or not a whaler in calm water is unwieldy, are all moot. The simple fact is that the whaler took out the pirates’ bow and did not kill anyone in the process, thus disabling the pirates boat and putting an end to the pirate’s assaults.
This is a great analogy except it’s missing some important factors. First, the harassment isn’t because of the color of your skin, it’s because you’ve been sticking lit firecrackers up cat asses and leaving the corpses everywhere, you’re not driving in the street but rather in the park set up for the cats to live in peace and harmony minus firecrackers. I set up a lawn chair in the park where I’ve been sitting in the hopes that it will deter people from messing with the cats and you ran it over. But other than that, spot on.
Frankly, fucking with whaling boats is ok by me.
See post #101: the Japanese were in compliance with the sanctuary’s rules against commercial whaling, so the Australian navy had no reason to stop them.
See post #101: the Japanese whalers were in compliance with the Australian law.
Yeah, I know, but I was addressing the contention that the Australian navy could act with the same authority of the Japanese navy. The Japanese navy would probably have far more authority in removing threats to their ships than the Australian navy would in enforcing some dubious claim to territory. If they had a claim, they should enforce it. If not then don’t. They aren’t, so they either believe they have no claim, or they have no leg to stand on legally to enforce international laws.
Assert sovereignty by protecting whalers in a whaling sanctuary? Nah. That would be silly.
Are you so determined to stick to your misguided opinion that you wouldn’t even bother reading your own quote?
Even in internqtional waters there are a certain (limited) number of things that most nations will permit or forbid. The point of arguing in this manner is to persuade enough other people to one’s position so as to encourage governments to take some sort of action. International law, however frail it is, was not written by academics in the 18th century and then set aside; it is constantly being reshaped by the agreements of various nations.
Arguing that it is pointless to discuss an issue because you do not believe in a resolution fails on the grounds that your perspective is equally pointless.
. . . which only has consequences if the country actually chooses to exercise jurisdiction over the people who engaged in action they forbid.
If one of your (or WaM’s) posts on an internet message board ever convinces France or Australia or whoever to take any action, please do be sure to let us all know.
Sure, but it still doesn’t matter one bit if they can’t or won’t exert jurisdiction over the specific person at issue.
I bet you thought that sounds a lot smarter than it really does.
Often, certain activities are legal and immoral. To stop them, you may often have to undertake illegal, yet moral actions. I would support the Sea Shepherds if they were effective. But they are really, really ineffective.
And Paul Watson is a mouth breather.
We agree completely on SS and Paul Watson.
But please explain why whaling is immoral. Please show me TV shows of people ramming whaling boats from Norway and Iceland. Please show me people protesteing and setting fire to the ships owned by the Alaska communities.