Andry Lavigne Troy Coyle....This ship should no longer to go sailing. it will be a museum to commemorate the dark history of whaling in Japan. It is the decision of the International court of justice. and no more license from International whaling commission for the fake whale research ..
October 28 at 7:12am · 1
Covie Monitor Project You should read the decision of the International court of justice in detail.
ICJ does not forbid the whale research itself.
ICJ just pointed out that there were some incompleteness in Japanese whale research method. The whale research itself is no problem.
The whaling is a brilliant history of Japan. (CMT)
October 28 at 7:55am · 1
Andry Lavigne it is your interpretation ?
October 28 at 7:58am · 1
Yamamoto San @Andry Lavigne - The ICJ is very specific and simply say do not conduct JAPRAII whaling program in the southern ocean. Japan intention is to resume commercial whaling, which means none of the IWC or ICJ ruling will apply. There is no international law that bans whaling.
October 28 at 8:21am · 2
Andry Lavigne well, you forgot that the commercial whaling moratorium by International whaling commission is still valid today.
October 28 at 9:06am · 1
Andry Lavigne you think that the whale hunting for research purposes, then kill them and sell the whale meat on the Japanese market, is not a form of commercialization? it was prohibited in the commercial whaling moratorium by the IWC convention
October 28 at 9:10am
Andry Lavigne http://www.theguardian.com/.../iwc-extend-ban-japan...
October 28 at 9:13am
Emmanuel Chanel Andry Lavigne:
Huh... You tire us by your illiteracy, heh... If you say "yes, I can read letters!", read this! You refuse this fact in your present with your garbage brain, though. First of all, out of the convention, what law forbid to sell whale meats taken in whale research? None. Only in your delusion. :
Article VIII
2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.
October 28 at 9:35am · 2
Yamamoto San @Andry Lavigne - Do you know much about the IWC? The moratorium on whaling is a non-binding, non-enforceable agreement between member countries of the IWC. It is self-regulated, every member state has a right to reject the moratorium if they want to, and it is not international law.

Japan could quit the IWC and resume commercial whaling, nothing from the IWC will apply.
October 28 at 9:41am · 2
Emmanuel Chanel First of all, the moratorium itself is against the opposition of IWC/SC or of
science. So we can cancel ICRW for IWC's breach of its contract.
October 28 at 9:53am · 2
Troy Coyle Actually, the ruling was that the whaling Japan had been conducting was in fact not for the purposes of research.
October 28 at 9:58am · 1
Yamamoto San This is why in my opinion Japan should resume commercial whaling and stop whaling under the scientific banner
October 28 at 10:03am · 1
Emmanuel Chanel Troy Coyle: Oh! Very interesting. Explain this quote! I don't expect you to do actually, though.
>Based on the information before it, the Court thus finds that the JARPA II
activities involving the lethal sampling of whales can broadly be characterized as “scientific research”.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18136.pdf
October 28 at 10:35am · 1
Troy Coyle Ah Emmanuel, you must read a court ruling in its full context- you have quoted a very small part of the ruling and so I will do so too in response to your menial attempt to interpret international law: "The Court notes that the Research Plan uses a six-year period to obtain statistically useful information for minke whales and a 12-year period for the other two species, and that it can be expected that the main scientific output of JARPA II would follow these periods. It nevertheless observes that the first research phase of JARPA II (2005-2006 to 2010-2011) has already been completed (see paragraph 119 above), but that Japan points to only two peer-reviewed papers that have resulted from JARPA II to date. These papers do not relate to the JARPA II objectives and rely on data collected from respectively seven and two minke whales caught during the JARPA II feasibility study. While Japan also refers to three presentations made at scientific symposia and to eight papers it has submitted to the Scientific Committee, six of the latter are JARPA II cruise reports, one of the two remaining papers is an evaluation of the JARPA II feasibility study and the other relates to the programme’s non-lethal photo identification of blue whales. In light of the fact that JARPA II has been going on since 2005 and has involved the killing of about 3,600 minke whales, the scientific output to date appears limited."
October 28 at 11:41pm · 1
Troy Coyle Further, the Court stated: "Taken as a whole, the Court considers that JARPA II involves activities that can broadly be characterized as scientific research (see paragraph 127 above), but that the evidence does not establish that the programme’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives. The Court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not “for purposes of scientific research” pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention." So, sorry my initial statement stands as correct.
October 28 at 11:42pm
Troy Coyle Yamomato San- I do not agree that Japan should continue whaling but acknowledging that it is commercial whaling vs research would at least be honest.
October 28 at 11:46pm · 1
Andry Lavigne and you should read all the status of the whales in the CITES convention, all of them include in Appendix I CITES list. its mean all the whales are prohibited to hunt and to trade / there a trade ban for all whale meat!
October 28 at 11:53pm
Emmanuel Chanel Huh? This part means just that our research whaling isn't "for purposes of
scientific research" on the Convention's Article VIII. The court rule
doesn't say that it's all non-scientific or so. So my limited quote is
correct, heh.
>The  Court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the 
killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are
not “for purposes of scientific research” pursuant to Article VIII,
paragraph 1, of the Convention."
* Especially, who claimed that our research whaling isn't for research is
not IWC/SC but Australia. That fact alone signifies that how ICJ rule
is issued in very funny situation.
October 29 at 2:09am · 1
Emmanuel Chanel We are criticized by lack of the samples like this. It matches your expanded quote, too, heh. Essays with peer reviews? It would be reliable if we could believe the referees completely fair on science. But the fact is no.
If you could prove that our whaling is not purpose for science on the court rule itself, we, people would feel that you are shameless by the fact that you, Sea Shepherd violated the enforcement of our projects, though.
--------
Patrick McCorkell "Yes but the decision in The Hague is legal and then WHALES HAVE WON "

The decision was that Japan should have killed more humpbacks and fins.
A few words from the final conclusion may work well in the press, but the decision has confirmed the viability and legality of research whaling.
4月13日 17:00 · 編集済み · いいね！を取り消す · 1
--------
Patrick McCorkell "I'm only trying to explain that research is a lie"

Tell it to the Judges; their decision was quite clear.

"JARPA II involves activities that can broadly be characterized as scientific
research —"
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18136.pdf

"Secondly, I think that the reasoning of the majority is seriously flawed in characterizing,
on the one hand, JARPA II activities as “scientific research”, while concluding, on the other, that
the special permits granted by Japan for JARPA II are not “for purposes of scientific research”. " - Judge Yusuf
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18148.pdf

"
Accordingly, it cannot be sufficient to establish that a research project like JARPA II has scientific - 8 -
objectives. To take advantage of the exemption contained in Article VIII, paragraph 1, it is
necessary that the numbers of whales to be killed are sufficiently related to the achievement of
those objectives. That is where, in my opinion, Japan’s case breaks down.
" - Judge Greenwood
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18150.pdf
4月14日 6:34 · 編集済み · いいね！を取り消す · 1
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php...
October 29 at 3:09am · 1
Emmanuel Chanel Troy Coyle: Oh... I missed the word: menial. But I just quoted, heh. Do you think your expanded quote changes the view of the rule? And what a shameless word you throw! You, Sea Shepherd distort the facts of any laws. So you are the target of law enfor...See More
October 29 at 3:38am · 1
Emmanuel Chanel Andry Lavigne: I read. But what part means that we cannot hunt whales, huh? It forbids or limit the trade of endangered species. And http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#IX looks even that we can regulate by ourselves about the listed species. In addition, our government reserved sperm whales, sei whales, fin whales, two of Minke Whale, Baird's beaked whale, Bryde's whale, and Irrawaddy dolphin.
http://www.env.go.jp/.../former2013/13wild/y130-05/ref01.pdf
http://www.cites.org/.../2014/E-Reservations-2014-06-12.pdf
October 29 at 4:22am · 1
Andry Lavigne CITES is an international treaty that provides protection for wild animal and plant species in international trade. It is designed to promote the conservation of endangered species while allowing trade in certain wildlife. There are three categories of protection under the treaty. Species listed in Appendix I are threatened with extinction and are or may be affected by trade, therefore commercial trade is strictly prohibited. All of the great whales are listed on Appendix I.
http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php
October 29 at 6:58am
Emmanuel Chanel Andry Lavigne: Huh... So now you've really read the statutes, huh? But you cannot understand what the CITES URI that I shown, huh? trade prohibition doesn't mean the prohibition of hunting. And we have the reservation of 8 kinds of whales that we legally refuse CITES' control as I've shown.
If it were in Japan, we can learn those things easily. Is that too hard for you, foreigners to understand the treaties without degree of law?
October 29 at 7:42am · 3