Ackerman, Reuben B. "Japanese Whaling in the Pacific Ocean: Defiance of International Whaling Norms in the Name of Scientific Research, Culture, and Tradition."HeinOnline.org. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/bcic25>.
The author of this article takes the position against Japan’s whaling policy based on the policy’s violation of international and environmental laws and regulations. It also defines the United States’ position and how the country is pushing for reform of Japan’s policy. Not only does the author point out all of the violations in Japan’s policy, but it provides possible solutions for reforming it as well. The author believes that the International Whaling Committee has failed in its efforts to enforce any punishment for Japan’s violations and urges the United States to impose trade sanctions until Japan changes its practices. I will use this article to show how Japan has violated whaling regulations as well a resource to base my possible solutions off of. This article further explains the whaling controversy but from the side of anti-whalers. It can also be used to help definite the United States’ involvement in the controversy.
CATALINAC, AMY; CHAN, GERALD. "Ingentaconnect Japan, the West, and the Whaling Issue: Understanding the Japanes..." Ingentaconnect Home. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rjfo/2005/00000017/00000001/art00007>.
This article outlines the whaling issue by specifically focusing on the Japanese perspective. The author explains how Japan’s whaling policy was formed based around both the country’s need for whales as a resource and their need to remain a responsible member of the international community. The author writes to an audience that is against Japan’s whaling policy in an attempt to prove that Japan is not purely motivated to whale hunt based on its commercial value. The article begins by outlining the history of whaling in general and then narrows it down to show how Japan’s policy has changed over time. It explains Japan’s use of whales as an irreplaceable resource and how anti-whalers misinform and manipulate the public. The article also explains how international pressures, especially from the United States, have affected Japan’s policy as well and why those pressures are the reason that Japan’s policy is likely to change again. This article is useful to me because it outlines the Japanese perspective from all angles and shows how those who support whaling view anti-whaling groups. Although ultimately I support the anti-whaling groups, this article is a very good outline of the opposing side.
Hamazaki, Toshihide, and Dai Tanno. "Approval Of Whaling And Whaling-Related Beliefs: Public Opinion In Whaling And Nonwhaling Countries." Human Dimensions Of Wildlife 6.2 (2001): 131-144. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.
The first author is a fish and wildlife researcher from New Mexico and the second author is in the department of economics and is from Japan. These authors together provide a look at whaling from a scientific and economic standpoint as well as provide views from different regions of the world. The research they performed was on the public opinion of whaling in both whaling and non-whaling countries. What they found was that approval of whaling was positively correlated with approval of consumption of whale meat. This means that countries that approve of whaling also approve of the consumption of whale meat. What is most interesting, however, is that they found in both whaling and non-whaling countries approval of whaling was not correlated with knowledge about population of whales. This shows that the public from both whaling and non-whaling countries are unaware of the danger of the extinction of whales. This information is useful to me because it shows that the citizens of Japan and Norway who support whaling are supporting something they know very little about. There may be a chance that if the public is informed about the dangers of whaling that they would no longer support it.
"Japan Urged to Abandon Outdated Whaling Policy | IFAW Web Site." Animal Rescue - Animal Welfare, Save The Whales, Save Animals - IFAW.org | IFAW Web Site. IFAW, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 07 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/media_center/press_releases/9_30_2011_72079.php>.
The organization IFAW stands for The International Fund for Animal Welfare, and is biased based on its concern for the protection of animals in crisis. Because of this bias, this organization is strongly anti-whaling. The article focuses on Japan’s return to Antarctica to kill more whales, and urges all governments to take strong action to end Japan’s whaling. It also gives disturbing facts about the cruelty of the process of killing a whale. This article presents an interesting point of view that states that Japan’s whaling business is dying. It is no longer a source of significant profit and the article ironically describes whale watching as a more popular business. This article is useful to me because it presents the view of whaling from an extremely anti-whaling organization. It presents a view more from the public than scientists or researchers. The organization’s opinion that whaling is an unnecessary, unsuccessful business is also an interesting point.
Kagawa-Fox, Midori. "Japan's Whaling Triangle - The Power Behind The Whaling Policy." Japanese Studies 29.3 (2009): 401-414. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.
This author is from the University Of Australia and is writing on the debate surrounding Japan’s Whaling actions. Australia is primarily an anti-whaling country and so it is likely that this author has some bias. The whaling triangle that the author writes about refers to a close relationship between Japan’s government bureaucrats, politicians, and big businesses based around common interests. The text describes how each of these components of the triangle relates to whaling and how they are influential in gaining support from other pro-whaling countries. In order to write an exploratory paper on the issue I need to first understand how the issue became what it is today. The author goes into a lot of detail about the history of Japan in relation to whaling and that is very useful to me.
Miller, Andrew R., and Nives Dolšak. "Issue Linkages In International Environmental Policy: The International Whaling Commission And Japanese Development Aid." Global Environmental Politics 7.1 (2007): 69-96. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
This article examines the relationship between Japan’s foreign aid to developing countries support for its whaling policy in the IWC. It states that whaling has no economic importance for Japan yet Japanese politicians are still willing to hurt the country’s reputation by bribing developing countries to favor their policy in the IWC. There is a positive association between Japanese foreign aid to developing countries and votes cast by these countries in the IWC. I would not use this article for its analysis of how countries are motivated by more than economic factors. Instead, I would use this article to show that Japan is a corrupt country that obtains support for its whaling policy through bribery.
Robert L. Brownell Jr., et al. "Whaling As Science." Bioscience 53.3 (2003): 210. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
This article is a criticism of Japan’s scientific whaling program from the viewpoint of authors that are a part of the International Whaling Committee. They see the scientific whaling provision as being outdated. It was created when there were few alternatives to lethal sampling of whales, but now there are plenty. This outdated whaling provision has no limit for catches or and no method for calculating whale sample sizes. Japan is allowed by this provision to kill an unnecessary amount of whales without any justification. There is no evidence to show that Japan’s whaling research is successful and the authors of this article consider that a large problem. This article provides specific views of the IWC on Japan’s use of whaling as “science” and directly points out the current whaling provision’s flaws.
Simmonds, Mark, and Sue Fisher. "Save The Whales, Not The Whalers." New Scientist 205.2755 (2010): 22-23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
These authors both work for anti-whaling organizations and are therefore biased in their opinions to end whaling. This article does, however, have important facts and explains why the current solution that the IWC is proposing is not an effective one and explains why it could even be detrimental. This article states that the three whaling nations of Japan, Iceland, and Norway kill about 1600 whales a year. These authors believe that if the IWC suspends the moratorium it will embolden countries like South Korea that have the desire to resume whaling. They believe this proposal is a huge step backwards that basically legitimizes commercial whaling. The article says that Australia should take Japan to the International Court of Justice over Japan’s whaling in Australia’s whale sanctuary. These authors believe that there is hope of ending whaling in the current moratorium because public opinion on whaling is changing and the demand for whale meat is in decline. I will use both the facts and opinions given by these authors to base my policy paper off of.
No comments:
Post a Comment