さあ！諸君！捕鯨問題だ！

＞官でない国際司法の専門家が論評する分には、↑より「立場を弁えぬ不見識な」が取り除かれるｗ

「官」である日本政府代表の国際法解釈例を挙げておきます。

すさまじい条文原理主義と局所利益中心主義ですね。
２ちゃんなんかの法律論議でよく見かけるタイプです。

(REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 31, 1981. p.17)
【Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting】

1. DATE AND PLACE
The thirty-second Annual Meeting of the Commission was
held at the Metropole Hotel, Brighton, 21-26 July 1980.
The proceedings were conducted by the Chairman of the
Commission, Mr T. Asgeirsson (Iceland).
．．．
(REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 31, 1981, p.18)
．．．
8. MORATORIUM ON ALL COMMERCIAL 　 WHALING

After extensive discussions the Technical Committee, by
a majority vote, recommended an amendment to the
Schedule drafted by the USA on a proposal from France
which was designed to implement a moratorium on all
commercial whaling.
Statements supporting this proposal because of the past
failures of the IWC to prevent over-exploitation of whale
stocks, the uncertainties in the assessment of stocks and
sustainable yields and the belief that the killing methods
employed are far from satisfactory, together with the need
to increase research effort, were made by France, the
Seychelles and the UK.

(REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 31, 1981, p.19)
Japan stated its view that this proposal is in
contravention of Article V(2) of the Convention, since it
is not based on scientific findings nor takes into
consideration the interests of the consumers of whale
products, and would create serious unemployment
problems in the whaling industry. The Commission cannot
act in a manner which is contradictory to the
Convention.
Iceland noted its claim to be a leader in conservation of
marine resources. Its policy on whales is no exception and
as Iceland is totally dependent on the resources of the sea,
it believes that a stock by stock approach is the most
appropriate policy to adopt. Canada and South Africa also
spoke in favour of a policy which recognises whales as a
harvestable resource subject to the needs of conservation,
while New Zealand saw reason for a pause in whaling to
develop management and research procedures.
The USSR commented on the division apparent
between the countries supporting moves to end whaling in
the name of conservation and those engaged in whaling
and research.
Sweden, seconded by the Seychelles, put forward an
amendment to the proposal which would delay its
implementation for two years, so that the moratorium
would become effective from the 1982/83 pelagic season
in the Southern Hemisphere and the 1983 coastal seasons.
This received 13 votes in favour with 9 against and 2
abstentions and thus failed to achieve the three-quarters
majority necessary to become effective. The original
proposal for an immediate moratorium then received the
same number of votes for and against, and therefore also
failed to become binding on members.
Brazil indicated that it is working towards a cessation of
whaling but it needs sufficient time to alleviate the
nutritional and economic problems which will be caused
in one of the poorest regions of its country.

9. MORATORIUM ON THE TAKING OF SPERM WHALES
...