The Australian court rule over Kyodo Senpaku is internationally invalid, Dr. Troy Coyle.

Dr. Troy Coyle(FB / LinkedIn) is a Sea Shepherd and former Cove Guardian. She got a PhD degree in fishery at University of New South Wales(her doctoral thesis) but now she works for New Zealand Steel. And she often comes to Covie Monitor Project, the Facebook page against eco-terrorism on Taiji. Eco-terrorists including Sea Shepherd, Dolphin Project, and so on harass dolphin fishery of Taiji. So CMP watches those eco-terrorists’ activity and post our public opinions about whaling, dolphin fishery, eco-terrorism, and so on. And she usually face their refutations.

On the post about Project exhibition “The Whalers”, she refers the Australian federal court rule against our Kyodo Sempaku around 17 Nov. 2015.(the article of the Age, an Australian newspaper.) But the court have no jurisdiction over Antarctic waters. In Japan, everyone knows UNCLOS and Antarctic Treaty that freezes any claims of territory on Antarctica.(For example, you can find that by seeing 中学校社会 公民/国際社会における国家 – Wikibooks, a neutralized source of Japanese civil studies textbooks for the public and private Japanese middle schools.) So her ignorance is childish to us, Japanese people. In addition, according to the album of Tricia Wiles, Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary of the Australian law(* Correctly, Australian Whale Sanctuary) is out of any of the Australian claim of territory or of EEZ. So the court rule rather shows that Australia is no aware of international law. (To be honest, I got to know Tricia Wiles’ album very later, though. And notice also that Tricia Wiles is an Australian, too.)

Seeing our refutations to her, she runs away from this discussion by blocking us. I wonder why she couldn’t learn these points before starting this Australian court rule issue.

Troy Coyle Today we have a ruling that Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (Kyodo) is in contempt of Court and has been fined $1 million dollars.

17 November at 18:56

Emmanuel Chanel So what? We don’t catch whales in Australian waters but in open ocean. Just you, Australia cause that some area is your territory.
Don’t you know Antarctic Treaty? The world’s countries including USA don’t admit your cause because of that. Don’t you know the treaty without degrees of law? In Japan, it cannot be an excuse of your ignorance since everyone knows the treaty.

2 · 18 November at 04:50

Troy Coyle Emmanuel, clearly it is Japan who is not aware of International Law as it is continuously found in breach or contempt. Also, just for your information, I did study International Law of the Sea at University. Did you?

18 November at 12:06

Yamamoto San “International Law” – what international law is that? could you please quote me the law that says whaling is illegal.

“I did study International Law” – then I guess you must be very familiar with UNCLOS. Since you studied law, brush yourself up with the IWC charter as well, know full well about the legalities of the commercial whaling moratorium.

Sea Shepherd refused to pay their fines to the Faroese court (and they broke the law in Faroe’s territory), so do you think Japan will be any different? Australian courts do not have jurisdiction over Japan or any Japanese entity, given the fact that Japan hunts in international waters.

4 · 18 November at 13:54

Troy Coyle I love the irony.

18 November at 14:40

Yamamoto San We are all the same Troy Cole 🙂

1 · 18 November at 15:21

Emmanuel Chanel Troy Coyle:
LoL! So name the Australian sea area where we catch whales first! You just referred your court rule that have no meaning except you, Australia just cause the territorial rights on Antarctica. Do you think it proves this?
>Emmanuel, clearly it is Japan who is not aware of International Law as it is continuously found in breach or contempt.
The answer is NEVER. ICJ rule doesn’t say that, neither. How can we expect you to plot our hunting points in Australian waters? Clear thing is that you just expose the racial prejudice against Japan without any factual evidences.
>Also, just for your information, I did study International Law of the Sea at University. Did you?
Do you mean that Australians don’t learn Antarc Treaty or UNCLOS without learning them in the university and that you don’t know Antarctic Treaty or UNCLOS even with studying International Law of the Sea in the university? Gee! I’ve advised you not to say that you have a doctor degree before since being Sea Shepherd with doctor degrees itself is damage impartiality on doctors. You add another case, heh.
If you wanna cause that we violated the international law on the court rule issue, why couldn’t you refute us instead of telling that reply? Especially, UNCLOS is what even very poor people learn in Japanese public middle schools. And as I’ve said, everyone Japanese knows Antarctic Treaty without degrees of laws. You show your ignorance with asking me by “Did you?”. What a poor Dr Phil! This discussion is rather like one with a kid than like one with a Dr Phil.

2 · 18 November at 15:32 · Edited

Troy Coyle Little bit riled up Emmanuel?

18 November at 15:33

[Source Image FTP / HTTP]

Emmanuel Chanel Oh, Troy Coyle blocks me. LoL

3 · 18 November at 16:31

[Source Image FTP / HTTP]

Yamamoto San Another Sea Shepherd coward bites the dust 🙂

3 · 19 November at 04:06

[Source Image FTP / HTTP]

Additional Source: USA doesn’t recognize the Australian sovereignty over Antarctic waters.

As it’s often pointed, Australia’s claim of sovereignty over Antarctic waters is not internationally recognized. Soon after we pointed that, Kristen Connelly, another Sea Shepherd from Minneapolis, MN repeats the same issue on another CMP post. So I posted this including the quote of US court’s rule.

Emmanuel Chanel Kristen Connelly:
LoL! Do you think that it’s internationally valid judgement? The court rule have no meaning except Australia just cause the territorial rights on Antarctica. But except few, the world’s countries including USA don’t admit that cause because of Antarctic Treaty. So the Australian courts has no jurisdiction over our whaling vessels since our whaling is all out of internationally recognized Australian waters. So it’s natural that we ignore it. So do the US courts in ICR vs Sea Shepherd.
>Additionally, comity applies only if the foreign court has competent jurisdiction. Id. at 1011. But the United States doesn’t recognize Australia’s claims of sovereignty over Antarctic waters.
Don’t you know that, huh? In Japan, everyone knows the treaty. So your ignorance is not excused by the word: “I don’t have degree of law!”, “I didn’t go to college.”, or so. Or did you intentionally show a childish mistake in public primary school level with looking us down, huh? If you were Japanese, we cannot believe you serious!
Looks that you need to turn eyes not only to the world but also to your US government.

Like · Reply · 6 · November 22 at 5:32am

[Source Image FTP / HTTP]

Other Related Articles about the court rule issue.

Correction about SOWS and AWS(Added around 12:28 12 Dec. 2015)

I had a mistake about SOWS and AWS on this entry.

Atsokan Wilson I think that what becomes confusing to people is which sanctuary is under discussion? The IWC created Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (SOWS) or the Australian created Au Whale Sanctuary (AWS). To add to the confusion, the Antarctic portion of AWS lies entirely within SOWS.

Both have been involved in recent court cases. SOWS is created by international treaty and was touched upon in the ICJ case.
AWS is created under Au domestic law and was the subject of the recent contempt hearing in Au Federal Court.

The Au Federal Court ruling really has nothing at all to do with SOWS or the IWC. Au has no authority over SOWS, per se.
The contempt ruling is not based on international law, as your opponent seems to suggest. It is based on Au domestic law. And you are correct in pointing out the contested nature of these waters. Four nations recognize Au’s claim to these waters; the rest consider them to be international waters not subject to Au laws.

Good luck trying to explain the facts to them.

9 hrs · Unlike · 1

[Quote from ]

6 thoughts on “The Australian court rule over Kyodo Senpaku is internationally invalid, Dr. Troy Coyle.”

  1. Reducción al mínimo de las multas y termine con la suplantación de
    identidad al marcar asistencia en sus instalaciones
    (la huella digital es única e intransferible).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *