Environmental Protections by

Question 1

K_french — 2025-03-27 22:19:56 UTC

Does Japan's choice to resume commercial whale hunting highlight a conflict between cultural tradition and international environmental norms? How?

Question 2

K_french — 2025-03-27 22:20:34 UTC

Does Japan's exit from the ICRW mean they can hunt whales without restriction or are they still bound by customary law ?

Question 3

K_french — 2025-03-27 22:21:44 UTC

Do international conventions like CITES, CMS, and UNCLOS provide enough legal mechanisms to protect whale species from over-exploitation, or do new, more specific agreements need to be created to address the issue of commercial whaling?

Other Thoughts?

K_french — 2025-03-27 22:25:53 UTC

Question 1

2025-04-03 20:06:14 UTC

Japans continuation of whaling hunting shows international norms fail to penetrate societies that have deeply engrained opposing norms, like Japans tradition of whale hunting, this is a theme throughout international law, it’s comparable to the use of child labour in some South American countries that view it as integral to their culture, international law relies on some basis of shared values, when values oppose each other, adherence to Int Law is weakened

-Charlie B

Q1

2025-04-03 20:06:27 UTC

I think Japans choice to continue commercial whale hunting did highlight a conflict between international law and cultural norms due to the "national pride" behind whaling. Yet due to international reactions, stating that we are stepping back... Therefor, we can point out a clear conflict between the two. - Hussein Dayekh

Question 2

2025-04-03 20:08:31 UTC

Since the rules prohibiting whale hunting are relatively recent and Japan has consistently objected to the rules, as highlighted by their withdrawal from the ICRW, the law would likely not be binding on Japan

-Charlie

Question 1

2025-04-03 20:12:37 UTC

Yes this case highlights the conflict between cultural traditions and western dominated international norms… it’s worth noting the key difference causing the conflict: the scale and purpose of the whaling. Indigenous whaling is seen as small scale, substance based, and essential to cultural survival, whereas Japan’s commercial whaling is often viewed as large scale and unsustainable. This is why international legal frameworks allow indigenous groups certain exemptions while restricting broader commercial whaling activities.

-Chloe Millar

Q2

2025-04-03 20:16:25 UTC

Since Japans exit from the ICRW allows them to conduct whaling without adhering to ICRW regulations, in tune with the recently introduced laws which may not be legally binding on Japan now... they may be held responsible under broader international laws protecting marine life - Hussein D.

Question 2

2025-04-03 20:17:03 UTC

They are still bound by customary international law in other ways outside of the ICRW. Japan’s exit from the ICRW allows it more freedom in its domestic whaling activities, but it is still constrained by customary international law, other treaties, and international legal precedents that can limit or regulate its actions, especially when it comes to endangered species and environmentally protected areas. They are still subject to criticism and reputation damage.

-Chloe Millar

question one

2025-04-03 20:17:16 UTC

after WW2, whale meat became a central food source for Japan’s communities so Japan’s continuation of commercial whale hunting shows a clear conflict between cultural tradition and international environmental norms. International norms set out by the IWC and other organizations push for whale protection in concern for the protection of the species. By resuming commercial whale hunting in 2019, Japan showed its prioritization of cultural and economic interests over what is ethically right. - momna

Q1

2025-04-03 20:17:52 UTC

Japan joining the ICRW, which prohibits the commercial whaling - an integral part of Japanese culture- reflects a conflict between their actions and culture. This conflict is further highlighted by the reactions of Japanese people, who saw the ban as infringing on their culture and history - Basmalh Al

Q1

2025-04-03 20:18:36 UTC

I think Japan’s decision to resume commercial whale hunting creates a clear conflict between cultural tradition and international environmental norms. While I understand that whaling has been a part of Japan’s history, I believe that global conservation efforts should take priority over tradition, especially when species survival is at risk. By leaving the (IWC), Japan chose to prioritize its national interests over international agreements, which I think damages its reputation and weakens global cooperation on environmental issues. Even though Japan argues that its whaling practices are sustainable, I find it hard to justify killing whales when so many countries have moved toward stronger environmental protection. To me, this situation reflects a larger issue of balancing tradition with modern ethical and environmental responsibilities.

-Aaliyah Mustapha

Question 2

2025-04-03 20:19:45 UTC

Japan’s exit from the ICRW means they’re no longer bound by its rules but they’re still under international pressure which expects sustainable practices. So, I don’t think that Japan can hunt whales without restriction but it definitely has more freedom to do it. Camila Silva

Question 1

2025-04-03 20:20:30 UTC

the choice of Japan to resume commercial whale hunting does highlight a conflict between cultural traditions and international norms since their choice in continuing whale hunting is majorly said to be done because of culture tradition. Since their claim in continuing whale hunting Is done by cultural reason they’re actions conflict with international norms given that whale hunting isn’t viewed favourably.

Christopher Gutierrez

Q1

2025-04-03 20:22:32 UTC

Japan supports its hunting tradition but such practices oppose the International Whaling Commission's protections meant to safeguard whale species. The dispute shows how different forces between sovereign control and collective environmental duties overlap with cultural attachment to traditions.

-Reem

Question 1

2025-04-03 20:22:55 UTC

Yes, Japan resuming commercial whale hunting shows a direct conflict between tradition and international law. Japans history of whaling provided the argument that commercial whaling was rooted in tradition and hunting was justified. However, established organizations saw that Japan breached international law where regulations were demanded.

Daniela Aguilar

Question 1

2025-04-03 20:23:51 UTC

Japan’s choice to resume commercial whale hunting depicts how cultural tradition and international environmental laws do not always align and cause many legal questions to arise. Whale hunting factored into the tradition of consuming whales for Japan. However, it also supported a large portion of Japans economy. While Japan did agree to the limits on commercial whale hunting they were not supportive of an absolute ban. The only reason they eventually agreed was due to pressure from the international community. Nevertheless, these communities did not have the ties to whale hunting like Japan does. Therefore, international environmental norms threatened both cultural practices in Japan and its economy.

- mia

Q2

2025-04-03 20:24:42 UTC

Since Japan has left they are not bound by IRCW or its law, but they are not free to hunt whales anyhow as Japan is still bound under other International treaties that may have similar laws.

-Aaliyah Mustapha

question two

2025-04-03 20:25:27 UTC

japan exiting the ICRW means that it is no longer bound by its regulations. however, under international customary law, japan must work towards aiding in the conservation of marine species which is outlined in UNCLOS - without IWC overseeing that such steps are taken, it seems japan would be self-regulating - momna

Question 3

2025-04-03 20:25:46 UTC

International conventions like CITES, CMS, and UNCLOS provide important protections for whales but are not enough to fully prevent commercial whaling. While CITES regulates trade, CMS focuses on migratory species, and UNCLOS manages ocean resources, these frameworks don't directly address or prevent hunting. Stronger, more specific agreements may be needed to effectively stop commercial whaling and ensure long-term whale conservation.

-Katie Murray

Q2

2025-04-03 20:26:03 UTC

Since Japan withdrew from the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) the nation gained freedom to operate whale hunts outside the limits set through international convention. Japan remains constrained by customary international law that incorporates two essential principles which bar pollution harm and mandate biodiversity conservation. Japan has left the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling yet still experiences international pressure to follow environmental norms which shape its operations.

-Reem

Grace Philemon Q3 Response

2025-04-03 20:26:14 UTC

I believe the drawback with specific treaties is that states are resistant to them due to how restrictive they can become in the face of unexpected crises. Broad treaties are more appealing because it allows for flexibility in situations where a state does not have the capacity to uphold the treaty. In relation to the Japan’s whaling, they may be resistant to specific treaties on whaling because they may be seen as intervening in the continuation of their culture and heritage. as such, it is neither flexible nor appealing.

Question 1

2025-04-03 20:26:22 UTC

Yes, Japan’s choice to resume commercial whale hunting highlights a conflict between cultural tradition and international environmental norms. Japan views whaling as an important cultural practice, while international organizations like the IWC prioritizes conservation and the protection of whale populations. This creates tension between preserving cultural heritage and complying to global efforts to protect endangered species.

-Vinicya

Q2

2025-04-03 20:26:53 UTC

While the ICRW rules explicitly prohibit the hunting and exiting might enable japan to no longer be bound to the law, it still must comply with general international principles and customary law, such as conservation obligations and not hunting in foreign or international waters. However, as the law is still fairly new, it is not clear if it's part of customary law.- Basmalh Al

Question 2

2025-04-03 20:26:55 UTC

Although they may have left the ICRW they still have restriction in where they can still hunt. Since other states don’t approve whale hunting this limits Japan ability to hunt whale only within their own water since other states disprove their action. Other treaties can be applied that may limit Japan ability to hunt whales so Japan is still limited in where and how they can hunt.

Christopher gutierrez

Question 2

2025-04-03 20:27:42 UTC

as a rule, for a state to be exempt from customary international law, they would have had to persistently object to the rule during and after its formation. in joining the ICRW and IWC, japan acknowledged the necessity of the rules regarding the regulation of whaling. therefore, even by exiting and removing the obligation of following the ICRW and IWC’s specific rules, japan does not relieve itself of the responsibilities set out under customary international law, nor are they protected from the backlash that comes from committing transboundary harm.

reegan picard

Question 1_Ethan Sasson

2025-04-03 20:27:46 UTC

Japan’s decision to resume commercial whale hunting highlights a clear conflict between cultural tradition and international environmental norms. For Japan, whaling is tied to cultural identity and historical practices, particularly in coastal communities. However, international norms, upheld by organizations like the International Whaling Commission, emphasize whale conservation and view commercial whaling as a threat to marine biodiversity. This clash reveals tensions between respecting national traditions and enforcing global environmental standards.

2025-04-03 20:28:34 UTC

Question 3

Success of international conventions ultimately depend on who participates and buys in, if the main offenders continue to evade regulation then the success will be limited even if many countries are party to the treaty

-Charlie

Question 2_Ethan Sasson

2025-04-03 20:28:51 UTC

Japan’s exit from the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) means it is no longer bound by the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling. However, this does not give Japan unrestricted freedom to hunt whales. It is still bound by customary international law, including duties to protect marine biodiversity and avoid overexploitation of species. These broader legal norms constrain Japan’s actions even outside formal treaty obligations.

Question 2

2025-04-03 20:28:53 UTC

Japan's exit from the ICRW does not in anyway imply that they can hunt whales without restrictions. Technically, they are still bound under international law, specifically the principle of transboundary harm which falls under environment protection law. This principle outlines avoiding actions that threaten another state's environment. This principle is considered as customary international law, meaning that Japan was still meant to avoid hunting whales on that basis. Also, the process of hunting whales goes against the principle of transboundaty harm and violates environment protection laws. By Oluwadunbarin Akinwande.

Q3

2025-04-03 20:29:27 UTC

Existing conventions like CITES and UNCLOS help provide a foundation for marine life law, yet clearly aren't strict enough. New whale agreements should be brought in to effectively regulate the gaps between whaling laws - Hussein Dayekh

question 1

2025-04-03 20:29:57 UTC

japan’s choice to resume commercial whale hunting demonstrates the friction seen between international environmental law and culture. it is important within the sphere of international law to make sure different cultures are respected and accommodated for, however, this does not resolve them of the international responsibility of sustainability and the fight against climate change. global warming affects everyone and the negative effects are and will continue to be devastating, and national interest does not take precedence over these principles

reegan picard

Question 3_Ethan Sasson

2025-04-03 20:30:03 UTC

While conventions like CITES, CMS, and UNCLOS offer important legal protections for whale species, I personally think they aren’t quite enough to fully tackle the complexities of commercial whaling today. These agreements cover broad environmental concerns, but they lack the focused enforcement and clarity needed for the unique challenges of whaling. In my view, we need updated, more specific agreements that directly address commercial whaling practices and ensure better international cooperation. That way, both conservation goals and cultural perspectives can be more fairly balanced.

Q1

2025-04-03 20:30:32 UTC

Yes, Japan’s decision to resume commercial whaling in 2019 reflects a clear tension between cultural tradition and international environmental norms. On one hand, Japan defends whaling as a deep-rooted cultural practice and a matter of national sovereignty. On the other, much of the international community sees it as a violation of modern conservation efforts aimed at protecting whale populations. This clash raises broader questions about how far cultural traditions should be preserved when they conflict with global ethical and environmental standards. It’s a classic case of tradition meeting modernity, with no easy resolution in sight.

Madeline McC

Question 3

2025-04-03 20:30:51 UTC

Conventions like CITES, CMS, and UNCLOS help protect whales, but they have limits, especially in enforcing restrictions on commercial whaling. CITES regulates trade but doesn’t ban whaling, CMS relies on voluntary commitments, and UNCLOS only requires cooperation. With countries like Japan leaving the IWC, its influence is weaker, making it easier to exploit loopholes. I think a stricter, legally binding treaty with real enforcement is needed to stop over-exploitation and hold countries accountable.

-Aaliyah Mustapha

Q2

2025-04-03 20:31:33 UTC

Japan’s return to commercial whaling in 2019 highlights a clash between cultural tradition and global conservation efforts. While Japan sees whaling as a cultural right, much of the world views it as an environmental threat. This tension raises tough questions about balancing tradition with modern ethical standards, with no clear solution in sight.

Madeline McC

Question 2

2025-04-03 20:31:38 UTC

As the ICRW has entered the territory of customary law, as a treaty Japan signed, the even using the argument that the ICRW is in conflict with cultural tradition means that they are still bound by customary as their pulling out of the treaty after decades of being part of it does not give them status of a persistent objector.

Spencer Anderson

Other thoughts_Ethan Sasson

2025-04-03 20:32:03 UTC

Japan’s stance on whale hunting raises some really interesting questions beyond just legality and conservation. It brings up the broader issue of how far international norms should go in influencing domestic cultural practices, especially when those practices have deep historical roots. There's also a strong national identity element at play—some in Japan view international criticism as a form of cultural imperialism, which only strengthens their resolve to continue whaling.

Question 1 by Ezinwanne Onyebuchi

2025-04-03 20:32:05 UTC

Yeah, Japan resuming commercial whaling is a clear clash between cultural tradition and global environmental norms. Japan sees whaling as part of its heritage and a sovereign right, while the international community views it as harmful and outdated. By leaving the International Whaling Commission in 2019, Japan rejected global conservation efforts to prioritize its own traditions. It’s a debate over cultural identity versus environmental responsibility.

question three

2025-04-03 20:32:35 UTC

international conventions like UNCLOS do provide some legal mechanisms to protect whale species but they have limitations on them in regard to domestic hunting and the enforceability but there is a need for new agreements that are more targeted towards addressing commercial whaling with stronger enforcement mechanisms - momna

Q3

2025-04-03 20:32:47 UTC

Existing conventions like CITES, CMS, and UNCLOS offer legal protections for whales, but gaps remain. Loopholes and national exemptions allow commercial whaling to continue, raising concerns about enforcement. Stronger, more specific agreements may be needed to close these gaps and ensure better protection.

Madeline McC

Question 3

2025-04-03 20:33:24 UTC

given the example of Japan, they can still hunt whales, just limited within their waters. All the different treaties do limit Japan just they don’t outright protect them. A more targeted binding international agreement needs to be made if the need to protect whale has to be made. With how the other legal mechanism arnt properly hard with their enforcement explotes can be found to continue whale hunting.

.Christopher Gutierrez

Question2

2025-04-03 20:34:51 UTC

Japan’s exit from the ICRW means they are no longer bound by IWC rules, allowing them to hunt whales without those specific restrictions. However, they are still subject to international environmental laws and could face pressure from other countries and organizations.

-Vinicya

Question 1

2025-04-03 20:36:23 UTC

Japan's decision to resume commercial whale hunting highlights a stark conflict between their cultural tradition and environmental norms or lawa. The act of commercial whaling was a longstanding cultural tradition or norm for Japan, so putting an end to this was disrespecting their culture. This speaks to the concept of relativism, meaning that environment laws need to make more provisions for special situations, relating to countries like Japan who participate in commercial whaling to preserve their cultural heritage. I belive it speaks to the intersection of laws and cultural traditions. By Oluwadunbarin Akinwande

Question 2

2025-04-03 20:37:12 UTC

Since Japans withdrawal from the ICRW, its restrictions have lessened from what it was bound by. However, restrictions are still present and they show themselves differently. Ex. Customary law can bind them and regulations set in place for endangered species and sea life preservation.

Daniela Aguilar

Question 2 by Ezinwanne Onyebuchi

2025-04-03 20:37:14 UTC

No, Japan can’t just hunt whales without limits. Leaving the ICRW (International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling) means they’re no longer bound by its rules, but they’re still under customary international law. That means they have to follow general conservation principles and avoid overexploitation. Plus, they can only hunt in their own waters now, not the high seas like before.

Question 1

natalijacrvenkovski1 — 2025-04-03 20:39:13 UTC

It is a complicated issue for sure, especially when you bring in the argument that if Indigenous groups are allowed to hunt whales, why are the Japanese people not allowed to? I believe the answer to this is the sheer scale of hunting (especially hunting for commercial gain); Indigenous groups seem to hunt on a lesser scale, often using every last part of the whale (which would satiate them longer and create other uses) whereas Japan seems to largely hunt whales for commercial purposes and on a grander scale than the former. It shifts from a wholly cultural tradition (which may have been more relevant in the past) to mainly a financial gain, currently. - Natalija

Maddison Mendonca Q2

2025-04-03 20:40:28 UTC

Japan remains bound to some level of conservation, if not by the ircw anymore, but by the other laws and customs of the other three treaties they've ratified. Though international pressure remains high, and pressure from the younger generations against whaling holds the government accountable even if customary law does not

Q3

2025-04-03 21:09:53 UTC

The ICJ’s decision in the Argentina-Uruguay pulp mill case sets a precedent where procedural breaches (like failing to consult) aren’t enough to enforce penalties unless there’s clear, immediate environmental harm. This could make it harder to enforce international environmental agreements in cases without direct damage. It highlights the need for stronger preventive measures and clearer processes in future agreements to ensure better compliance before harm occurs.

-Aaliyah Mustapha