The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946. The purpose of the Commission was to provide for management of whale populations and the whaling industry. The IWC implemented a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1985/86 intended to protect various endangered or threatened species of whales and to allow declining populations to recover. In addition, the IWC promoted research to develop better estimates of whale populations. They recognize that there are uncertainties in the scientific analyses of populations. Their long- term goal is to balance the risks to individual stocks with maximum sustainable harvests. The IWC does not have direct regulatory authority to enforce this moratorium. Each member country is responsible for the implementation and oversight of the regulations. Some member nations continue to allow harvest of whales, for various reasons, and some non-member nations also continue to harvest whales.
To try to prevent continued harvest of whales, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has taken various direct actions with the goal of driving up the economic costs of whaling to the point where it will no longer be profitable. These direct actions also have the goal of informing the general public that whaling continues, despite the moratorium. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Society, lists five rules involved in these direct actions: 1) don't use firearms; 2) don't use explosives; 3) don't take any action where there is the possibility of injury to somebody; 4) accept responsibility for what we do; and 5) accept whatever moral or legal consequences befall. The following is one example of a well-publicized direct action.
Case:
In 1986 two members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society took direct action against the Icelandic whaling enterprise. These two became employed by a meatpacking plant, which was actually a whaling station. The plant and a harbor holding three Icelandic whaling vessels were located in Reykjavik, Iceland. The action taken included background work to demonstrate that the station was involved in processing whales of species that were a part of the moratorium. The two Sea Shepherd activists then proceeded to sabotage the whaling station by destroying computers, other high-tech equipment, and six Caterpillar diesel generators, along with the refrigeration units the generators powered (resulting in spoilage of the stored whale meat). They threw other tools and equipment into the deep water outside the station. After completing the sabotage of the station, they traveled to the harbor, where the three Icelandic whaling ships were docked. They checked to make certain no people were on the ships, and found a watchman asleep on one of the ships. They proceeded to open the sea valves on two of the ships, thus sinking them there in the harbor. They untied the other ship, with the watchman aboard, and allowed it to drift away. The two activists then went to the airport and flew out of Iceland to safety. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society claimed responsibility for the action and encouraged Iceland to prosecute them for the damage, thus bringing public notoriety to the whaling activities. Iceland refused, evidently because it did not wish to draw attention to its whaling endeavors.
References and other background sources:
Morris, D.B. 1995. Earth warrior: Overboard with Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Fulcrum Publ., Golden, CO.
Orth, D.J. 1997. Marine mammal protection and management: a case study. The Ag Bioethics Forum 9(2): 1-3, 9, 11-12.
Scarce, R. 1990. Eco-warriors: Understanding the radical environmental movement. Noble Press, Chicago, IL.
Watson, P. 1993. Earthforce! An earth warrior's guide to strategy. Chaco Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Watson, P. 1994. Ocean warrior: my battle to end the illegal slaughter on the high seas. Key Porter Books, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Case Study Response*:
What ethical question are you trying to answer based on this case study? (Your question should include a normative word, such as "should" or "ought.")
List your first, intuitive, answer to your question.
List three facts from the case that are relevant to your answer.
What further facts would you need for a more complete analysis of this case?
List the general moral principle that supports your conclusion.
List three reasons that someone might not agree with your interpretation of the facts.
List three reasons that someone might not agree with you general moral principle.
* Based on Gary Comstock, unpublished paper presented to ISU Bioethics Institute, May 1998.
|
Updated: January 19, 1999 |
|
Return to:
|