さあ！諸君！捕鯨問題だ！

（国際捕鯨委員会第33回年次報告（1983）20頁ー 　　 つづき）

6. ENDING OF COMMERCIAL WHALING

The Commission had five proposals, from the Seychelles,
UK, USA, France and Australia, seeking an end to
commercial whaling. In the Technical Committee the
Seychelles' proposal in the form of a new clause to
paragraph 10 of the Schedule which had the effect of
introducing a three-year period for the industry to
accommodate to zero catch limits. was discussed
extensively. Topics covered included the need for rational
management and sustained utilisation, the scientific
uncertainty and lack of data in assessments, past
over-exploitation and the decline in the whale stocks, the
large size of some whale stocks at present, the humaneness
of whaling, compatibility of the proposal with the intents
and purposes of the Convention, the distinction drawn
between commercial and aboriginal whaling, coastal state
sovereignty in 200 mile exclusive economic zones, and the
present situation in the Law of the Sea. An amendment for
a two year phasing-out period was put forward and the
proposal as amended was approved by a majority vote.
In the Commission, the Technical Committee
recommendation was seconded by the UK but was then
amended by the Seychelles, and seconded by Sweden,
St Lucia, Australia, New Zealand and Oman to restore
the three year period before implementation, to allow
for the setting of catch limits other than zero under
scientific advice, and with provision for a full review of
the effects of the decision within five years.

(REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 33. 1983. p. 21)

Japan recalled that the Scientific Committee had
stated in the past that there is no scientific justification
for a blanket moratorium. There are large numbers in
some whale stocks, and the Commission is prepared to
allow aboriginal catching of very small stocks. Japan
believes that this proposal violates the Convention as
well as infringing sovereign rights in coastal waters.
Norway commented that in the absence of a scientific
recommendation for the proposal, it believes its
adoption would entail the effective abdication of
management responsibilities by the IWC. It queried the
distinction created between various types of whaling
operation, which it believes is not compatible with the
Convention. Norway would prefer to negotiate a
revision of the present management procedures, and
reserved its rights under the Convention.
Spain spoke of the need for careful management and
a uniform approach for all types of whaling, while
Iceland and the Republic of Korea both opposed the
proposal because of the lack of a scientific basis as
required under the Convention.
Uruguay, whilst supporting the proposal, expressed
its concerns with respect to the sovereign rights of
coastal states to the resources within their 200 mile
exclusive economic zones. Similar views were shared by
Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Brazil, Chile and Costa Rica.
Antigua and Barbuda, and the UK both indicated
their concern over the lack of humane killing methods
in the whaling industry. Further support for the
proposal was also voiced by St Lucia, which noted the
strength of world public opinion on the issue and the
ecological uncertainties outlined in the World
Conservation Strategy. Australia believed that the
proposal was a good solution to the various interests of
the whaling industry and the conservation of whales.
Before the vote was taken, Switzerland explained
that it would abstain because it believed the proposal
did not fulfil the Convention requirement of being
based on scientific findings.

（つづく）