Issues left unresolved because the case did not go to the merits. Southern bluefin : the fish -- Historical overview of the Japanese SBT fishery -- First interactions -- The state of the stock -- The first quotas and their subsequent reduction -- Gestation of the dispute : interpretation of CPUE -- Impasse in the in the CCBST -- Japan's experimental fishing -- The relevant law identified in the statments of claim -- The ITLOS hearing and order -- The parties' arguments before the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal -- The Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal award on jurisdiction -- Resolution of the dispute -- Issues left unresolved because the case did not go to the merits.
Summary:
In 2000, the case brought by Australia and New Zealand against Japan's unilateral experimental fishing programme for southern bluefin tuna controversially failed to reach the merits for lack of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. It was widely supposed that it would ultimately have failed anyway because of international courts' reluctance to consider scientific matters, the dispute's underlying cause being the parties' scientific disagreements regarding both the tuna stock itself and the nature and risks of the experiment. In 2014, however, the ICJ decided in Australia's favour the case against Japan's scientific whaling, based on flaws in the design of that experiment. Reviewing the tuna experiment's evolving design, the propositions it was to (dis)prove and the use Japan intended for that proof, Andrew Serdy suggests that similar factors were at play in both disputes and that a similar outcome of the tuna case, though not inevitable, would have been amply justified -- Back cover.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.