Letter to the Dutch House of Representatives on request relating to Sea Shepherd
26-06-2009 | Parliamentary document | Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
We are writing to you, also on behalf of the Minister of Justice, in response to your
urgent request dated 23 June (2009Z12143/2009D31789) for more information on
the results of the inquiry instigated by the Netherlands in the wake of the Sea Shepherd organization’s campaign against Japanese whalers in the vicinity of the South Pole. We are also responding to your question as to whether the incident in 2008 involving the Sea Shepherd vessel Steve Irwin and the report of Australia’s intention to summons Japan to appear in court if diplomatic efforts should fail, give rise to an amendment to the Certificates of Registry Act (Zeebrievenwet).
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is an American NGO that uses, inter alia, vessels in its campaigns against whaling. Since 2007, the SSCS has registered two vessels in the Netherlands and therefore the Inspectorate of
Transport, Public Works and Water Management has issued declarations of nationality and certificates of registry for these vessels. The certificate of registry was issued after the SSCS provided the Dutch government with written confirmation that the organization would refrain from the use of violence and abide by international legislation on maritime safety.
In previous years, there have been several incidents between SSCS vessels and in
particular Japanese whalers in the Southern (Antarctic) Ocean. The most recent example occurred on 6 February 2009 between the SSCS’s Steve Irwin and the Yushin Maru 3, a Japanese whaler. The Netherlands, in its’ capacity as flag State, was called to account by Japan in particular, as well as in several multilateral
organizations, on the behaviour of the ships’ masters.
The Inspectorate of Transport, Public Works and Water Management has investigated the above incident on the basis of the information available. With regard to the Steve Irwin, the Inspectorate is of the opinion that this was a case of unlawful behaviour on the part of the SSCS and a contravention of the international rules on good seamanship and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,
1972 (COLREGs). Furthermore, the masters of the Japanese ships also breached rules.
On 16 February 2009, the Inspectorate of Transport, Public Works and Water Management submitted details of the contraventions by SSCS it had identified to the Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office for possible criminal prosecution. After examining the case, the Public Prosecutor indicated that it considered criminal prosecution neither feasible nor effective.
The Cabinet is of the opinion that effective options in administrative law are needed
in order to be able to act in these kinds of cases. For this reason, the Cabinet has
decided to expand the options for withdrawing certificates of registry. To achieve this,
an amendment to the Certificates of Registry Act is currently under urgent preparation.
Furthermore, the intention of Australia to summon Japan, if diplomatic efforts in
halting whaling prove unsuccessful, bears no relation to the planned amendment to the Certificates of Registry Act.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, M.J.M. Verhagen
Vice-Minister of Transport, Public Works and Water Management,
J.C. Huizinga-Heringa

Wonder how long until the Sea Monkeys run out of countries willing to register their "private yachts"?

I was wondering about what had happened to this as well.

I also wonder what has happened to the investigation by Australian police on the suspected illegal activities by Sea Shepherd against Japanese whaling fleet. Last time I heard, Aus rep to the IWC saying that the investigation is still ongoing.

I am also curious to know if AP could be sued for supporting SS.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:
I was wondering about what had happened to this as well.

I keep looking on the internet but nothing new has been posted since the letter was written.

quote:

I also wonder what has happened to the investigation by Australian police on the suspected illegal activities by Sea Shepherd against Japanese whaling fleet. Last time I heard, Aus rep to the IWC saying that the investigation is still ongoing.

I keep looking for this as well. I think waiting until all the evidence is reviewed is the wisest course.

quote:

I am also curious to know if AP could be sued for supporting SS.

Not really. You'd have to have a mountain of evidence before a lawsuit could be brought. It would have to be brought in an Australian court. The Australian Federal Court (similar to the United States Supreme Court) has already told the Japanese to stop whaling in Australian waters and the Japanese ignored the order.

Not really. You'd have to have a mountain of evidence before a lawsuit could be brought. It would have to be brought in an Australian court. The Australian Federal Court (similar to the United States Supreme Court) has already told the Japanese to stop whaling in Australian waters and the Japanese ignored the order.
_____________________________________________

The reason Japan ignores Austailian law and rulings is that they mean nothing. Austrailia has no enforcement provisions in their laws. So laws that are not or can not be enforced by Austrailia or anyone are not laws but only suggestions or requests at best. All the Treatys and Moratoriums in the world mean nothing if there is not a government who will enforce them. And the Sea Monkeys are not it.
The same reasons apply to the Dutch. They find the SS acted unlawfully but wont charge them.
However it seems they are moving forward with revoking the SS registry(s). I guess we will see if and when that happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
The reason Japan ignores Austailian (sic) law and rulings is that they mean nothing.

The reason Japan ignores Australian law and rulings is because they are poachers and scofflaws.

quote:

Austrailia has no enforcement provisions in their laws.

Poaching laws do exist on the books in Australia and they have enforcement provisions. Done right, the Australian Navy would intercept the fleet outside the Antarctic Treaty Zone, send over boarding parties, and take all the ships into an Australian port. (This is provided for in the UNCLOS under seizure of pirate vessels. Poaching is a type of plundering.) All ships and contents to be held as evidence and their officers placed under arrest for poaching. No charges will be filed against the rest of the crew. Japan would be asked to send a plane to pick them up and take them home.

quote:

So laws that are not or can not be enforced by Austrailia (sic) or anyone are not laws but only suggestions or requests at best.

I'd love to hear you argue that in a court of law!! I can hear the howls of laughter now.

quote:

All the Treatys (sic) and Moratoriums in the world mean nothing if there is not a government who will enforce them. And the Sea Monkeys are not it.

Doesn't need to be a government. It can be an individual or a private group. The UN Charter for Nature has an enforcement section and it's not a "suggestion", it's a "shall". And, yes, it does apply in this case for two reasons: Whaling in violation of the IWC moratorium. Whaling (poaching) in Australian waters.

quote:

The same reasons apply to the Dutch. They find the SS acted unlawfully but wont charge them.

I find no place where the Dutch found the Sea Shepherds acted unlawfully. It's a letter not a finding.

quote:

However it seems they are moving forward with revoking the SS registry(s). I guess we will see if and when that happens.

They're not going to. That's why there's been no mention since the letter requesting the change in the law.

From Article IV of the Antarctic treaty

quote:

No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

Which makes Australian EEZ extension claims illegal under international law

Note what Australian Judge Alsop says in his ruling

quote:

First, the Government considers that the Government of Japan would regard any attempt by Australia to enforce Australian law against Japanese vessels and its nationals in the Antarctic EEZ to be a breach of international law on Australia’s part and would give rise to an international disagreement with Japan.

Secondly, enforcement of Australian domestic law against foreigners in the Antarctic EEZ, based as it is on Australia’s claim to territorial sovereignty to the relevant part of Antarctica, can be “reasonably expected to prompt a significant adverse reaction from other Antarctic Treaty Parties”.

quote:

The submissions on behalf of the Attorney-General reveal that Australia’s claims to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory .. are recognised by only a small number of countries. Formal recognition of Australia’s claim is limited to four countries,

quote:

The UN Charter for Nature has an enforcement section

Utter nonsense.

The UN Nature Charter gives no rights for any such action. The UN General Assembly cannot give such authority to any group of civilians to act against a member of the UN or to violate International law.

You need to read the UN Charter. Note the powers of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Note the Chapter 7 enforcement provisions and who may authorize same.

Note that the UN Nature Charter is an expression of principles, not an actual treaty.

Here is an extract from the UN Charter for Nature

quote:

10. Natural resources shall not be wasted, but used with a restraint appropriate to the principles set forth in the present Charter, in accordance with the following rules:

(a) Living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regeneration;

Japanese Whaling actually upholds the UN Nature Charter. Its quota on Minke whales is in accordance with the above section. The Factory Ship ensures no wastage.

And this part

quote:

Constant efforts shall be made to increase knowledge of nature by scientific research and to disseminate such knowledge unimpeded by restrictions of any kind.

So.. Scientific Research Whaling should not be impeded!

Well I guess Agni99 beat me to it...Right on.
Good posts.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:

quote:

The UN Charter for Nature has an enforcement section

Utter nonsense.

The UN Nature Charter gives no rights for any such action.

Utter nonsense.

Read:

quote:

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,
international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common
activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and
consultations;

(b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that
may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for
assessing these effects;

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the
conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not
cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States over their
natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the
present Charter through its competent organs and in co-operation with other
States.

23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall
have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the
formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall
have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or
degradation.

That includes poaching.

Continuing the Charter:

quote:

24. Each person has a duty to act[b] in accordance with the provisions of
the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or
through participation in the political process, [b]each person shall strive to
ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

The charter was passed by the UN General Assembly and has enforcement provision.

The UN General Assembly has no powers of enforcement and no rights to delegate any such power.

This is the exclusive preserve of the UN Security Council

From Animal Planet's own website

http://animal.discovery.com/tv...legal-authority.html

quote:

"Now it's my understanding that this World Charter for Nature has been cited by Sea Shepherds as a basis for their authority, to undertake their actions. And that is simply not at all in that charter. The charter talks about duties on states. It does not say anything about who may enforce them. [...] That is the classic taking the law into your own hands. And there is no basis — no basis at all — in the World Charter for Nature for their doing so."

quote:

"So the World Charter for Nature is a declaration that was made by the international community through the United Nations General Assembly, back in the 1980s. It's quite a general text. It basically tells us that we ought to protect nature for future generations, but it's not really a legally binding text. You can't really say that it's a law. It's more of a kind of policy document. A very important policy document, don't get me wrong, but it's not really a kind of charter in the sense we might understand it in terms of some kind of constitution or binding legal system. It's just a very general aspirational document that tells us what we ought to be aiming for in terms of protecting nature. "Now, Sea Shepherd is absolutely right in terms of emphasizing the importance of the World Charter for Nature, but it only gets them so far. It tells us that we should protect nature. It doesn't tell us how we protect nature, and it certainly doesn't tell us that we can do certain vigilante type actions on the high seas, or in any other waters, for that matter, to protect nature. So it's quite a nonspecific document that doesn't really get Sea Shepherd where it wants to be.

Melbourne University Up Close Episode 60

Harpooning the Myths: Japan and Whaling

quote:

But the reality is in 1959 when the Antarctic Treaty was signed it put in abeyance any existing claims in Antarctica. It said that we’re not going to challenge them, we’re not going to affirm them, but one thing that was very, very clear in article four of the Antarctic Convention is that no further territorial claims were made on Antarctica. The 1994 extension of this 200 mile Economic Exclusive Zone is a new claim.

quote:

The claim that they’re doing something that the Australian Government should do is ridiculous because the Australian Government, if they intervened and stopped whaling on the grounds that this is their waters, I’m sure Japan would immediately take it to the International Court of Justice. And for all intents and purposes Australia would likely lose.

Transcript from Australian Senate Hearing

quote:

Senator SIEWERT-Exactly. But that is not done when there are foreign vessels whaling in Australian waters.

Mr Campbell-If what you are suggesting is that Australian vessels that normally enforce fisheries laws do not enforce those laws in our proclaimed exclusive economic zone off the Australian Antarctic Territory, the answer is: yes, they do not board the vessels.

Senator SIEWERT-That is because those waters are not recognised internationally?

Mr Campbell-It is partly because relatively few countries recognise our sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory and hence our sovereign rights over the adjacent waters, but also because of sensitivities within the Antarctic Treaty system.

Senator SIEWERT-What happens where those waters are near our bases? Are those waters recognised as our waters near our bases?

Mr Campbell-I think it comes back to the basic point that it is a question of recognition of our sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory. Whilst Australia firmly believes that it has sovereignty over it, that is a view that is not shared by a lot of other countries.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
From Animal Planet's own website

http://animal.discovery.com/tv...legal-authority.html

quote:

"Now it's my understanding that this World Charter for Nature has been cited by Sea Shepherds as a basis for their authority, to undertake their actions. And that is simply not at all in that charter. The charter talks about duties on states. It does not say anything about who may enforce them. [...] That is the classic taking the law into your own hands. And there is no basis — no basis at all — in the World Charter for Nature for their doing so."

quote:

"So the World Charter for Nature is a declaration that was made by the international community through the United Nations General Assembly, back in the 1980s. It's quite a general text. It basically tells us that we ought to protect nature for future generations, but it's not really a legally binding text. You can't really say that it's a law. It's more of a kind of policy document. A very important policy document, don't get me wrong, but it's not really a kind of charter in the sense we might understand it in terms of some kind of constitution or binding legal system. It's just a very general aspirational document that tells us what we ought to be aiming for in terms of protecting nature. "Now, Sea Shepherd is absolutely right in terms of emphasizing the importance of the World Charter for Nature, but it only gets them so far. It tells us that we should protect nature. It doesn't tell us how we protect nature, and it certainly doesn't tell us that we can do certain vigilante type actions on the high seas, or in any other waters, for that matter, to protect nature. So it's quite a nonspecific document that doesn't really get Sea Shepherd where it wants to be.

Don't know who you are quoting but the UN Charter says in section 24:

quote:

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

Sounds pretty specific to me.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
Transcript from Australian Senate Hearing

quote:

Senator SIEWERT-Exactly. But that is not done when there are foreign vessels whaling in Australian waters.

Mr Campbell-If what you are suggesting is that Australian vessels that normally enforce fisheries laws do not enforce those laws in our proclaimed exclusive economic zone off the Australian Antarctic Territory, the answer is: yes, they do not board the vessels.

Senator SIEWERT-That is because those waters are not recognised internationally?

Mr Campbell-It is partly because relatively few countries recognise our sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory and hence our sovereign rights over the adjacent waters, but also because of sensitivities within the Antarctic Treaty system.

Senator SIEWERT-What happens where those waters are near our bases? Are those waters recognised as our waters near our bases?

Mr Campbell-I think it comes back to the basic point that it is a question of recognition of our sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory. Whilst Australia firmly believes that it has sovereignty over it, that is a view that is not shared by a lot of other countries.

Do you have a link?

quote:

Sounds pretty specific to me.

Right, I can't find use of force or violence anywhere.

Thats because he convieniently left out the part where the judge says basically "whaling is illegal but it is futile to try and enforce it, so we aren't going to."

Read it it's in there.
And no there is nothing about force, violence, or even consequences.