This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/10/mark-dreyfus-whaling-japan-court

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Dreyfus dismisses Japanese claims of Australian collusion with Sea Shepherd Dreyfus dismisses Japanese claims of Australian collusion with Sea Shepherd
(2 months later)
Japanese allegations of Australian collusion with the anti-whaling vessel Sea Shepherd are "ridiculous" and distract from the country's breach of international whaling rules, federal attorney general Mark Dreyfus said.Japanese allegations of Australian collusion with the anti-whaling vessel Sea Shepherd are "ridiculous" and distract from the country's breach of international whaling rules, federal attorney general Mark Dreyfus said.
Speaking to Guardian Australia from the international court of justice in The Hague, where Australia and New Zealand are contesting the basis of Japan's whaling activity, Dreyfus rejected Toyko's suggestion that Australia has "outsourced Antarctic maritime enforcement to Sea Shepherd".Speaking to Guardian Australia from the international court of justice in The Hague, where Australia and New Zealand are contesting the basis of Japan's whaling activity, Dreyfus rejected Toyko's suggestion that Australia has "outsourced Antarctic maritime enforcement to Sea Shepherd".
Dreyfus said: "Australia has a longstanding position, along with other nations, that vessels in the Southern Ocean comply with international law. We've called for proper conduct [in the Southern Ocean]. Japan isn't entering into a proper debate. It's a ridiculous suggestion that isn't relevant to this case."Dreyfus said: "Australia has a longstanding position, along with other nations, that vessels in the Southern Ocean comply with international law. We've called for proper conduct [in the Southern Ocean]. Japan isn't entering into a proper debate. It's a ridiculous suggestion that isn't relevant to this case."
"This case is about science and whether Japan's whaling is scientific or not. Regrettably, Japan has decided to raise matters not relevant to this.""This case is about science and whether Japan's whaling is scientific or not. Regrettably, Japan has decided to raise matters not relevant to this."
Dreyfus said that Australia would continue "diplomatic efforts" to stop whaling should it lose the ICJ case, but he wouldn't be drawn on how Australia would respond to any repeat of clashes between Sea Shepherd and the Japanese fleet, should whaling resume.Dreyfus said that Australia would continue "diplomatic efforts" to stop whaling should it lose the ICJ case, but he wouldn't be drawn on how Australia would respond to any repeat of clashes between Sea Shepherd and the Japanese fleet, should whaling resume.
"We've called on both Japan and the Sea Shepherd to comply with international law during whaling seasons," he said. "We are very hopeful we will get a result before the next whaling season [in September]. Japan is a very good international citizen and I'm sure it will comply with the court's ruling.""We've called on both Japan and the Sea Shepherd to comply with international law during whaling seasons," he said. "We are very hopeful we will get a result before the next whaling season [in September]. Japan is a very good international citizen and I'm sure it will comply with the court's ruling."
Dreyfus, a QC, is personally leading the second round of Australia's legal presentations to the ICJ.Dreyfus, a QC, is personally leading the second round of Australia's legal presentations to the ICJ.
In a strongly worded speech to the court, Australia's attorney general said that Japan had made "offensive and untrue" allegations, accusing counsel Alain Pellet of making an "extensive and unfounded derogatory attack upon Australia" by portraying countries that oppose Japan's whaling as being "puppets" of Australia.In a strongly worded speech to the court, Australia's attorney general said that Japan had made "offensive and untrue" allegations, accusing counsel Alain Pellet of making an "extensive and unfounded derogatory attack upon Australia" by portraying countries that oppose Japan's whaling as being "puppets" of Australia.
Japan's claim that Australia's case was based on a "moral crusade" was also erroneous, according to Dreyfus.Japan's claim that Australia's case was based on a "moral crusade" was also erroneous, according to Dreyfus.
"This case is not about civilising missions or whether the Australian government or the Australian public like or dislike the consumption of whale meat," he told the court."This case is not about civilising missions or whether the Australian government or the Australian public like or dislike the consumption of whale meat," he told the court.
"This case is about the failure of one country to comply with its international legal obligations not to conduct commercial whaling, an obligation which that country accepted voluntarily but then immediately began to subvert."This case is about the failure of one country to comply with its international legal obligations not to conduct commercial whaling, an obligation which that country accepted voluntarily but then immediately began to subvert.
"Australia will not be dissuaded from pursuing what it regards as a clear breach of international law by unfounded and untrue statements that it is seeking to impose Australian culture on Japan.""Australia will not be dissuaded from pursuing what it regards as a clear breach of international law by unfounded and untrue statements that it is seeking to impose Australian culture on Japan."
Dreyfus's robust response follows an opening round of submissions to the court that saw Japan claim Australia had embarked on "an emotional anti-whaling moral crusade that in the name of zero-tolerance tolerates Sea Shepherd's violent extremism".Dreyfus's robust response follows an opening round of submissions to the court that saw Japan claim Australia had embarked on "an emotional anti-whaling moral crusade that in the name of zero-tolerance tolerates Sea Shepherd's violent extremism".
Japan claims that article eight of the international convention for the regulation of whaling allows individual states to set the terms of scientific whaling programs.Japan claims that article eight of the international convention for the regulation of whaling allows individual states to set the terms of scientific whaling programs.
Japan currently offers permits to slaughter a quota of 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales. Permits to kill a further 50 humpback whales have been suspended.Japan currently offers permits to slaughter a quota of 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales. Permits to kill a further 50 humpback whales have been suspended.
Australia contends that more than 10,000 whales have been unnecessarily killed by Japan since it began its JAPRA program in 1988, a year after an international moratorium on commercial whaling was introduced.Australia contends that more than 10,000 whales have been unnecessarily killed by Japan since it began its JAPRA program in 1988, a year after an international moratorium on commercial whaling was introduced.
Australia argues that Japan has used article eight as a fig leaf for commercial whaling, claiming that the JAPRA program has little in the way of scientific objectives or outcomes. Japan disputes this.Australia argues that Japan has used article eight as a fig leaf for commercial whaling, claiming that the JAPRA program has little in the way of scientific objectives or outcomes. Japan disputes this.
"Prior to the moratorium, Japan found no need to engage in lethal scientific research on anything like this scale and no other nation before or since has found the need to engage in lethal scientific research on anything like this scale," Justin Gleeson, Australia's solicitor general, told the court last week. "This is a disguised commercial whaling program, not science.""Prior to the moratorium, Japan found no need to engage in lethal scientific research on anything like this scale and no other nation before or since has found the need to engage in lethal scientific research on anything like this scale," Justin Gleeson, Australia's solicitor general, told the court last week. "This is a disguised commercial whaling program, not science."
Dreyfus and the rest of Australia's legal team will make a further appearance in court on Wednesday before Japan gets the opportunity to respond on Monday and Tuesday next week, bringing the case to a close.Dreyfus and the rest of Australia's legal team will make a further appearance in court on Wednesday before Japan gets the opportunity to respond on Monday and Tuesday next week, bringing the case to a close.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.