News and Articles
Opening Statement - International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling - June 2001
June 2001
Opening Statement
Iceland
Although Iceland is a newcomer in this Commission today, its history as a Contracting Government expands more than 40 years, from the 1940s until 1992 when Iceland withdrew from the IWC. The withdrawal did not mean that we were no longer interested in the work of the IWC and it certainly did not mean that we were no longer interested in, and I quote directly from the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the proper conservation of whale stocks to make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.
Quite the contrary, as can be seen from the statement given when Iceland withdrew in 1992, the IWC was no longer operating in accordance with the Convention and had become a non-whaling commission rather than a whaling commission. Regrettably, this is still the case but there are signs that support is increasing within the IWC for sustainable whaling in some form. However, in this respect various limitations are under discussion, some of which Iceland considers unnecessary and unwarranted. Iceland}s position today is that in the light of this development it is better to be a member of the IWC and have an influence on the discussions that take place there than to remain outside.
A contributing factor to the decision to rejoin is the fact that ever since the withdrawal in 1992, a number of Contracting Governments have urged Iceland to rejoin. This applies not only to those Contracting Governments that are in favour of sustainable whaling but also to those that are in the forefront of whaling opponents. It is therefore very disturbing to see how some of these Contracting Governments have reacted to Iceland}s instrument of adherence. Because Iceland made use of the right it has according to international law to adhere with a reservation, some of those who were pressing very hard for Iceland to rejoin are now no longer interested in having Iceland on board. Those same parties are threatening not to respect Iceland}s instrument of adherence although there is no legal basis for rejecting it.
The Secretariat has distributed to Contracting Governments a document, by Iceland, explaining the legal aspects of the reservation it made with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule with particular emphasis on two issues. First, it is clearly not within the competence of the IWC to take a decision on Iceland}s reservation by way of voting on it. It is up to individual Contracting Governments to accept or oppose the reservation unilaterally, as several States have already done with respect to our reservation. This has also been the practice with respect to other reservations regarding the Convention in the cases of Argentina, Chile, Peru and Equador. There are no legal grounds for treating Iceland any differently.
Secondly, there can be no doubt that Iceland}s reservation with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule is fully compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Convention itself grants Contracting Governments the right not to be bound by this paragraph by way of objecting to it as Iceland has done with its reservation. How can something, which is allowed in the Convention be incompatible with the object and purpose of that very same Convention? The answer is simple: it can not.
Iceland understands that some Contracting Governments are presently opposed to whaling and that their reasoning may be quite different. It is hard to understand, however, the very different view some have on commercial whaling as opposed to aboriginal whaling. It is also hard to understand how some find it compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention to remain as Contracting Governments after having taken the clear position that whaling should be banned forever regardless of the status of the different whale stocks and thereby taken the clear position to oppose the object and purpose of the Convention. And it is furthermore incomprehensible if the IWC will reject Iceland as a matter of anti-whaling policy with no legal basis for doing so.
International relations are based on the rule of law. Iceland can not believe that any country present at this 53rd annual meeting of the IWC will actually sidestep this principle in favour of political objectives. If this happens, States are allowing politics to override the rule of law. This would not only undermine the credibility of the IWC but also that of international relations in general.
Iceland left the IWC nine years ago because of broken promises. The deadline to revise the zero quota, or the so-called moratorium, was being ignored by the Contracting Governments opposed to whaling. As this revision has not been conducted Iceland believes it is necessary to press the issue. Therefore, Iceland has now rejoined the IWC in good faith with firm commitment to work constructively towards achievement of the objectives of the Convention and pledges to co-operate with other Contracting Governments who have undertaken to do the same by participating in the work of this important organisation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.