Marine Mammals

Summary: After the Institute was denied an injunction in the trial court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing Sea Shepherd from attacking any of the Institute’s vessels in any way and from coming within 500 yards of any Institute vessel operating in the open sea.

Summary: The Institute of Cetacean Research, a Japanese whaling group, sued the direct action environmental protection organization Sea Shepherd, claiming that Sea Shepherd’s actions taken against the whaling group’s vessels in the Antarctic are violent and dangerous. The Institute claimed that Sea Shepherd had rammed whaling ships, thrown dangerous objects on to the ships, attempted to prevent them from moving forward, and navigated its vessels in such a way as to endanger the Japanese ships and their crews. The Institute’s request for an injunction was denied when the Court held that the Institute did not establish the necessary factors. The Court did state, however, that though Sea Shepherd’s acts did not constitute piracy, it did not approve of the organization’s methods or mission.

Summary: Much of today's discussions about whaling are centered on Japan's program in the Antarctic. While some organizations like Sea Shepherd have taken a direct action approach to ending Japan's hunt, some organizations and countries have pursued legal approaches to doing so. Both approaches have seen some success, but the future of whaling remains uncertain.

Summary: In 2010, Australia sued Japan at the International Court of Justice in an effort to force Japan to end its whaling program in the Antarctic. Though commercial whaling was banned in the 1980s, Japan claimed that its program was for scientific purposes and therefore legal. The ICJ sided with Australia, but its ruling left open the possibility that Japan could resume whaling in the future.

Summary: Early in the twentieth century, the technology used in whaling advanced so significantly that the global whale population became threatened. Efforts to decrease the number of whales killed grew after World War II and resulted in a major victory in the 1980s when commercial whaling was banned. However, this ban is still a major source of controversy as Japan continues to kill hundreds of whales each year in the Antarctic under what it calls a scientific whaling exception, but Australia labels as mere cover for a commercial whaling program.

Summary: This press release announces listing polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Summary: The animal advocacy movement is divided between those who believe in animal welfare and those who believe in animal rights. Although these two factions of the animal advocacy movement hold the overall goal of making the lives of animals better, practical differences do arise in the way in which these two factions litigate animal issues to achieve this goal. This Note explores Tilikum ex rel. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Sea World Parks & Entertainment, a case in which five orca whales "sued" Sea World for violating their Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from slavery and involuntary servitude. The case received widespread publicity as it was the first time a U.S. federal court had been asked to determine whether the Thirteenth Amendment to the United affords protection to non-humans. The Tilikum case departed from the traditional model of litigating animal issues by utilizing what this Article deems an animal rights-based litigation strategy. This Note first provides an overview of the traditional animal welfare-based model of litigating animal issues. This Note then analyzes the Tilikum litigation strategy to show how it departed from the traditional animal welfare-based model. Additionally, this Note weighs the advantages of both litigation strategies, ultimately recommending that animal advocacy organizations not depart from the animal-welfare based litigation strategies. Finally, this Note explores the theoretical possibility of expanding legal rights to animals based upon the expansion of legal rights to other non-human entities, such as corporations.

Summary: The Institute of Marine Mammal Studies (IMMS) brought action against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and others, alleging that NMFS regulations did not properly implement the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and that the NMFS was improperly administering placement list for rehabilitated sea lions that could not be reintroduced into the wild. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment. After considering the parties' arguments, the administrative record, and the relevant law, the District Court found that the IMMS lacked standing to bring its claim that NMFS regulations did not properly implement the Marine Mammal Protect Act ("MMPA"). Further, the Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction of IMMS' claims that the NMFS was improperly administering a placement list for non-releasable sea lions. However, the Court found it may review the claims concerning the permit allowing IMMS to "take" sea lions. The Court found that a term included in IMMS' permit improperly delegated federal authority to third parties. The permit was therefore remanded to the agency for reconsideration. Each summary judgment motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Summary: In June 2010, Australia commenced proceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Japan has continued an extensive whaling program in breach of its obligations as a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). At issue was the moratorium on commercial whaling agreed upon in the 1980s. According to Australia, though Japan claimed to be killing whales purely for scientific reasons, the true purpose of the program was commercial. Japan did not deny that it was killing whales in the Antarctic, but claimed instead that because the ICRW grants each nation state the right to issue licenses for scientific whaling as it sees fit, Japan’s whaling program was legal. The ICJ ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program was not actually for scientific whaling and must end.