Fréttatilkynning frá sendinefnd Íslands. 24.07.01
Press Release
by Iceland
Today (23 July), the International Whaling Commission (IWC), at its 53rd annual meeting, moved to reject the adherence of Iceland to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (the Convention) by voting down its reservation. Iceland considers this decision to be invalid as it is in contradiction with international law, both procedurally and substantively. Accordingly, Iceland will continue to participate as a party to the Convention.
Few countries in the world are more dependent on the sea and its resources than Iceland. Conservation and sustainable utilisation of all living marine resources, therefore, is a matter of the highest priority in every Icelander}s mind and is of continuous concern to Icelandic authorities. Iceland}s history, with regard to responsible management of fisheries and whaling, has for decades been recognized as one of few examples of successful resource management. As a result, the whale stocks that have been exploited in Icelandic waters in recent decades are in very healthy condition and can in no way be considered threatened or endangered.
Iceland was a member of the IWC for more than 40 years until it withdrew from the Commission in 1992. Icelandic whaling all these years, until the so-called moratorium on commercial whaling came into force in 1986, was within the catch limits recommended by scientists and adopted by the IWC after they were established in 1976. Beyond IWC recommendations, Iceland established national restrictions and standards for the regulation of whaling. Recent scientific assessments within the IWC and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) support the notion that Icelandic whaling was an example of sustainable utilisation.
A blanket ban on commercial whaling is of course impossible to justify, since it is disruptive to the marine ecosystem. The management of whaling must be carried out on a stock by stock basis and individual quotas must be set for each species and each stock. The so-called moratorium agreed upon at the IWC annual meeting in 1982 therefore had no scientific basis and was totally unwarranted in respect of the Icelandic whale stocks.
Iceland voted against the moratorium proposal, but after its adoption Iceland decided not to lodge a formal objection. This decision was taken in the good faith that the moratorium was a genuine gesture of conservation to eliminate uncertainties about the true state of whale stocks and that a new assessment of the stocks would lead to the resumption of commercial whaling no later than after the 1990 annual meeting as stipulated in the moratorium decision.
By 1991 it had become obvious that the majority of the IWC members had no intention of honouring their obligation to keep this provision under review, "based upon the best scientific advice, [would] undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision [the 0 quota for all stocks] and the establishment of other catch limits", and Iceland decided to withdraw from the IWC. Clearly, already then the deciding factors for not lodging a formal objection to the moratorium were irrelevant and Iceland, therefore, could not accept to be bound by the moratorium decision any longer.
Iceland remains, however, interested in and quotes from the Convention: "the proper conservation of whale stocks to make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" and has continued to respect the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the cooperation on management of whales through appropriate international organizations, being an active member of NAMMCO. Believing that the IWC possibly was about to wake up to its responsibilities, Iceland decided to rejoin a few weeks before the 2001 annual meeting. Of course, Iceland did so with a reservation with respect to the moratorium as it is entitled to as a sovereign State and in accordance with general principles of customary international law.
International relations are based on the rule of law. A majority of IWC members have now sidestepped this principle in favour of shortsigted political objectives. The fact that this has happened indicates that the States in question have allowed politics to dictate their policy rather than the rule of law. This does not only undermine the credibility of the IWC but also international relations in general.
At this 2001 annual meeting the majority of the IWC members have decided to go against the Convention and general principles of international law by refusing to accept Iceland as a member. While it was expected that some IWC members, who are determined never to allow whaling to be resumed (which is totally inconsistent with their obligations under the Convention), would object individually to Iceland}s reservation, it came as a surprise that they should force a decision by the IWC itself with a majority vote. This procedure is illegal and unprecedented in the IWC.
There are three recent cases of States joining the IWC with a reservation and none of them were addressed by the IWC itself. These reservations were only subject to acceptance by individual IWC members. Several IWC States followed these clear examples and expressed their opinions with regard to Iceland}s reservation by way of unilateral declarations. There was no legal basis for IWC to treat the reservation by Iceland any differently.
This illegal decision of the IWC to deny Iceland its right to participate at this annual meeting makes the proceedings and eventual decisions invalid. It must certainly be regarded as a blow to the credibility of the IWC as a responsible management organization. It has reinstated the ineffectiveness of the IWC for fulfilling the responsibilities laid down in its Convention at this time and the fact that it is not presently an organization for whale management, but for whale protection regardless of the status of individual whale stocks. Iceland is without any doubt legally still a Contracting Party to the Convention and will carefully consider its future position in that light.
London, 23 July 2001