The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Whaling Case (Australia v. Japan, New Zealand intervening) was greeted by the popular press, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, as a win for “good science” as opposed to “bogus science”. However, in this article we argue that a closer analysis of the decision reveals that the ICJ - by sidestepping the crucial issue of how to define “scientific research” under the Whaling Convention - missed an opportunity to further the rule of law in international law, particularly as it applies to commons areas that require scientific cooperation and obligations.
|Number of pages
|Journal of Law and Information Science
|Published - 2014