Sea Shepherd Shut Down Japanese Whaling 2013


Antonio C. S. Rosa, editor – TRANSCEND Media Service

Aggressive Nonviolence on High Seas

(Read 21 Mar 2013 Press Release HERE: Victorious Return for Sea Shepherd Fleet)

The Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin Sea Shepherd ships block the slipway of the whale processor Nisshin Maru, preventing a whale from being loaded, the only one believed to have been killed this season. The harpoon ships have now stopped whaling, as the whales cannot be processed.

For latest updates on Sea Shepherd’s campaign to stop Japanese whaling like this Facebook page:…

Subscribe to Sea Shepherd videos on YouTube.


This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 25 Mar 2013.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Sea Shepherd Shut Down Japanese Whaling 2013, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

2 Responses to “Sea Shepherd Shut Down Japanese Whaling 2013”

  1. […] (Watch Related Video HERE: Sea Shepherd Shut Down Japanese Whaling 2013) […]

  2. satoshi says:

    I suggest that relevant parties (in the context of this paragraph, the government of Australia and/or that of New Zealand) bring the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Although Paul Watson, the interviewee of the above video, says that Japan will ignore the decision of the ICJ, I can hardly think so, because the judgment of the ICJ has the legal effect, meaning that the judgment legally binds the contesting parties. In other words, the judgment of the ICJ constitutes a part of international law, regarding the disputing case. Therefore, to ignore the decision of the ICJ means to ignore international law. The Japanese government knows all that. If Japan will still ignore the judgment of the ICJ, it means Japan’s violation of international law. Then, relevant parties should bring the case to the UN General Assembly and/or to the UN Security Council for further (possible) necessary actions.

    On the other hand, if Japan believes that their whale hunting is justifiable, the Japanese government should argue as such in front of the international community/public. It is rare that the Japanese government argues their case in front of the international community/public. Or Japan should bring the case to the ICJ in order to prove Japan’s legality in whale hunting. In that regard, it might not be a bad idea for Japan, prior to stepping up to the legal contest, to ask the ICJ’s advisory opinion through the UN, for instance. Upon the UN’s request, the ICJ is to provide the UN with an advisory opinion on the legal issue of the subject in question. (See Article 65, paragraph 1., of the Statute of the ICJ.)

    In any case, Japan should stop the cunning way of whale hunting in the name of “research”. If Japan wishes to protect their century-old traditional “culture” of whale hunting, avoid any cunning manners for it. The crafty manners of whale hunting in the name of “research” create only a negative impression for Japan. Stand up, Japan, and argue in front of the international community/public and/or bring their case to the ICJ. Speak out more frequently, not only when the International Whale Committee is convened. Argue, Japan, its own case. Is Japan a fair player? That country is being tested now.

    If the whale hunting issue comprises a part of the issue of the conservation and protection of nature and wild creatures, its whole picture must be a big one. How about buffalo hunting, for instance? How about tiger hunting, for instance? Bears? Elephants? Eagles? Hawks? Any other birds? Deer? Wild geese? Foxes? Gorillas? Monkeys? Snakes? And so on and so forth. Any other endangered species? As Japan wishes to protect its whale “hunting culture”, other countries also might wish to protect their own “hunting cultures”. Which wild creatures are we, humans, allowed to hunt, then? Who decides it? On what criteria? According to relevant international treaties? The issue is not only a matter of whale hunting. It is not only a matter of conservation of wild animals. It is also a matter of “hunting cultures” overall. On top of that, the purpose of hunting should also be discussed. Hunting for food? Hunting for a hobby/amusement? Hunting for safety? Hunting for protecting one’s livelihood? (What if local villagers killed endangered aggressive wild animals for the safety of the local residents, for instance? What if local farmers killed endangered wild animals for saving the local agriculture (i.e. agricultural land, products, property, etc.) from these animals’ wandering and/or attack, for instance?) Discuss all that. The issue of whale hunting consists of a relatively small part of an extraordinarily huge picture of the various aspects and issues of the conservation and protection of nature and wild creatures. Look not only at one tree. Look also at the whole part of the forest. It is a huge forest.

    By the way, can Green “Peace” stop the war the way they are trying to stop Japan’s whale hunting vessel? Couldn’t Green “Peace” (or any other NGO) stop the Iraq War the way Green Peace is doing to the Japanese ship, for instance? War destroys not only human lives but also nature and wild creatures. Remember that the name of that organization is composed of those two words, “Green” (= implying the environment and/or nature) and “Peace”. To work for “peace” is out of the mandate of Green “Peace”?