This topic is not so new but still too many anti-whaling idiots are ignorant of these facts. Kyodo Senpaku’s scientific whaling is out of Australian jurisdiction as it’s proven by these. ( I decorated the text to make it easy to copy-and-paste.)
- The Australian court rule over Kyodo Senpaku is internationally invalid, Dr. Troy Coyle.
- John Thiel tries to delete his undesired history about our refutation of the Australian court’s jurisdiction over Antarctic waters.
The fact 1: Australia Whale Sanctuary within SOWS is out of the Australian territorial waters, of EEZ, and of Antarctic claim.
Tricia Wiles from Australia has posted that on where is, her Facebook album on WhaleWars-UNMODERATED.(I got to know that fact by her album.)
In addition, even our scientific whaling in SOWS is legal even after the ICJ rule stopped JARPA II. We stopped JARPA II by the ICJ rule. And ICJ recognize our rights of scientific whaling under ICRW. So our scientific whaling in NEWREP-A is all legal under ICRW. First of all, out of ICRW, whaling is all legal because USA has aboriginal whaling in Alaska. ICJ rule is not the declaration to outlaw whaling.
The fact 2: Antarctic Treaty freezes any territorial claims on Antarctia
And US government’s official website shows the interpretation of Antarctic Treaty that freezes territorial claims.
>The Antarctic Treaty “freezes” the positions of both claimants and non-claimants and thereby permits its Parties to undertake cooperative activities and agree on collective regulation of those activities, without prejudice to their legal positions.
Full Text of the Antarctic Treaty is on http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp and its original is on http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf
USA and Australia are the original parties of Antarctic Treaty. So they can’t ignore.
The fact 3: The world doesn’t recognize Australian territorial claims over Antarctica
The most world countries including Japan, Russia, and USA are non-claimants about Antarctica. Australian territorial claims are recognized only by 4 countries: Britain, France, New Zealand, and Norway. Territorial claims aren’t ownership.
So for example, US courts in ICR vs Sea Shepherd ignores such an Australian court rule since the United States doesn’t recognize Australia’s claims of sovereignty over Antarctic waters.
>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.
An Australian associate professor of international law explains that the Australian federal court rule against Kyodo Senpaku is internationally invalid.
The article: https://theconversation.com/sea-shepherd-antics-make-a-great-story-but-the-real-whaling-news-is-elsewhere-4877
Update on 22 Jan. 2017
This arctile by PhD Candidate Indi Hodgson-Johnson, an Australian researcher of Antarctic law matches my explanation on this entry.
PhD Candicate Indi Hodgson-Johnston , an Australian researcher of Antarctic Law explains that ICJ rule doesn’t completely ban whaling, that our whaling fleet operates in international waters, that the Australian court doesn’t have jurisdiction with showing Antarctic Treaty and so on.
3 thoughts on “The sources of the truth that the Australian court rule to fine Kyodo Senpaku is internationally invalid”