Sea Shepherd vs. illegal trawler

Firstly, fair cop, unnecessary. I was using it as an example of people putting to sea in boats without knowing the basics and comparing them to those who Do know the rules but choose to disregard them. I could quite easily have used Sydney Harbour, Moreton or Port Philip Bays as an example. Point Taken.



No problems I have most of them saved to file as I was required to take tests on the subject (monthly) to ensure currency. I will state again I HATE AND ABHOR THE PRACTICE OF KILLING WHALES! Especially under the guise of “Scientific Study” when in reality it is for human consumption in the local market. I have eaten ‘Whale Meat’ in Japan (purely so I had an opinion) and it is the foulest tasting oily crap in existence.

I am NOT a supporter of the Sea Shepherd organisation for the reasons stated previously, they have no legal jurisdiction and are acting as vigilantes, the only footage that makes the media is what is released by them and therefore heavily edited in their favour. I have been involved in too many fruitless searches and body recoveries at sea to ever endorse the dangerous practices that are IMHO endangering life.
The subject of Whale Hunting or the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is a highly complex legal conundrum, people claiming illegal actions are not right, but they are not wrong either, but I will leave that to experts in maritime law to decipher.



Using the link provided by you I note it was an article quoting “Capt” Paul Watson who is quoted as having said: It is illegal to bring an oil tanker into the Antarctic Treaty zone and it is illegal to refuel at sea inside the Antarctic Treaty zone. We intend to make this dangerous ground for whalers. We intend to enforce the law.

Firstly I assume Paul is referring to the area covered by the Antarctic Treaty System



www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm

In particular Annex IV to the above document that covers Marine Pollution; The Antarctic Treaty and related agreements, collectively known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), regulate international relations with respect to Antarctica, Earth's only continent without a native human population. For the purposes of the treaty system, Antarctica is defined as all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. The treaty, entering into force in 1961 and as of 2015 having 52 signataries of which Japan is not one. Annex IV (Marine Pollution) covers a variety of topics including the discharge of oily waste, ballast, garbage into waters below the 60th parallel, it makes no mention of ships NOT being permitted to refuel NOR does it state that vessels carrying liquid cargos being banned from the “Zone”. In short I am unable to locate ANY documentary evidence in support of his claims.

www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att011_e.pdf




Once again taken directly from the link you provided, the article was in the form of a quotation from the then Environment Minister Ian Campbell, who is quoted as saying: “he was strongly opposed to whaling and the Japanese fleet operating in the Southern Ocean would not be allowed to enter Australian ports. They can only do that with my permission and I will not grant permission to Japanese whaling vessels or support vessels to use Australian ports. They are banned from Australian ports as long as I'm the minister."

At no point does he state that the vessels are banned from Australian waters as that would be in direct contravention of the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” that I quoted previously that allows for passage and safe navigation by foreign flagged vessels.

www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm



I’ll try, I’m not sure of ALL the circumstances but (and this is opinion and hearsay only). The decision by the Japanese Master of the vessel NOT to press for charges to be layed was purely an economical one. It has already been ascertained that his vessel was banned from entering ANY Australian Port. Therefore for him (and several members of his crew) to appear in court (if the individuals pleaded NOT Guilty), would have necessitated his ship berthing somewhere and he and his crew returning to Australia to be available for cross examination by the defence. Not feasible considering the rather small ‘weather window’ available for him to conduct his filthy business. He just wanted them gone.



The individuals I believe were transferred off the ‘Shona Maru’ to another vessel whilst still in Australian waters; therefore they had legally never left the country.



The ship was not entering ANY Australian Port, they were merely conducting a transit through IAW United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea therefore there was no requirement for them to send a “Radio Pratique” requesting Customs Clearance. This is a certificate from the port-health-authorities that the ship is without infectious disease or plague on board and therefore permitted to enter port and to allow people to board and disembark. One of the conditions that must be met before a ship is considered to be "ready" to load or discharge and thus to allow laytime to commence is that it must be "legally ready". This includes permission from the port health authorities. Now, free pratique can be obtained in advance of the ship's arrival, by the port agent, and communicated to the ship by telecommunication (sometimes called "Radio free pratique"). When the vessel arrives, the master may have to prepare and issue a "Maritime Declaration of Health".




Once again ‘Jurisdiction’ is the key factor, who are the ‘Southern Ocean International Police’?

Had some of their publicised encounters been conducted in Moreton Bay, the South Australian Gulfs or the Sound at Albany, then Australian Maritime Services, Water Police would be asking some serious questions.

Seriously I HATE the prospect of Killing Whales in the Southern Ocean (or anywhere else for that matter) but the legal issues of a ‘Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary’ or the ‘Antarctic Treaty System’ of which only ONE Party is a signatory is an issue for much smarter legal brains that me.

Morally it is abhorrent, and a very emotional subject, (akin to the actions being taken to the North of the Continent) but jurisdiction matters must be considered. The call to send a ‘Warship’ down south is fine but what is the public’s expectations once it gets there, imagine the outcry if it procured footage of the Sea Shepherd Vessels committing ‘Illegal’ acts and placing lives in jeopardy and there Captain and Crews were arrested when they returned to Hobart. A Warship could order the ‘Whalers’ to ‘cease and desist’, inform them that they are in a sanctuary, a sanctuary that incidentally the Government of Japan does not recognise? What could/would/should the Navy do if the Whalers refuse to stop? Would Canberra grant permission for you to give the orders to board, fire upon or commandeer the vessel of a friendly Government on the high seas?

It is a legal nightmare and pressure from the highest level of Governments of the Fifty Two Nations that constitutes only about one quarter of the 196 countries that exist in the world today who are signatories to the convention. It should be addressed at the highest levels of Government not left to a bunch of publically funded vigilantes to force adherence to the “law”.

Direct from your link, an ABC article headed by in Big Bold Letters;

Japanese whalers ordered out of Australian waters
By Samantha Donovan and staff Updated 1 Feb 2013, 6:02pmFri 1 Feb 2013, 6:02pm

When in fact the article goes on to say.......
“Environment Minister Tony Burke said he had made it clear to Japan that vessels associated with the whaling program "are not welcome in Australia's exclusive economic zone or territorial sea".

And.

"It's stayed outside the direct territorial waters but it has not obliged that request and protest from Australia that it should not enter our exclusive economic zone.”

So the question must be asked, were the “Japanese whalers ordered out of Australian waters” or were they issued with a “request” that they not enter, or was it conveyed to them that they were “not welcome”?
To deny passage is in contravention to the UN Charter, the same charter that many claim Australia is in contravention of to the North of the continent, very selective reasoning.

Maybe the journalist was confused as to what constitutes an “Order” or maybe just maybe it was a deliberate attempt at sensationalistic reporting based on emotion?

Also from the same article; “Bob Brown, now the mission leader of the Sea Shepherd anti-whaling group, says he believes the vessel has armed Japanese personnel aboard”

Yet the author of the article makes no attempt to inquire why the eminent Mr Brown believes so, what has he seen, heard or witnessed first hand that convinces him this is so? I would suggest many ocean going vessels including Australian fishing vessels carry some sort of firearm and I know that many large merchant vessels that transit through waters adjacent to East African and South China Sea carry arsenals of weapons that would put many military organisations to shame (they don’t offload this ordinance when berthed in Fremantle, Botany Bay or the Port of Melbourne).

Select to expand quote

” The truth is the Japanese are a law into themselves and our government is useless at stopping them.”

The truth is the Japanese (and about 140 other countries) are NOT signatories to the ‘accords’ they are being accused of being in breach of. I 100% agree “our government is useless at stopping them”, and until they get serious along with the support of the other 51 signatories to the charter, nothing will change.
Australia as self important as we feel we are, are a minnow when compared to some, our (Governments) actions equate to nothing more than an itch that requires scratching occasionally.
So we believe the Japanese are breaking the law, the Japanese don’t because the Government of Japan does not recognise the law.

So it seems sending a crook to catch a crook has now become an acceptable method of dealing with the problem, yeah? I have to ask myself which one sails under a bastardised version of the Pirates flag, the skull and crossbone synonomous with international piracy for several hundred years?

Oh and I agree, Sea Shepherd won’t disappear, because spineless Governments worldwide will continue to use the ‘Privateer’ service's they provide at a very affordable price.

Select to expand quote

JB said;"SO your against whaling, but your also against anyone trying to intervene and put a stop to it"

I am against whaling and I am against illegal intervention and total disregard to laws that were unilaterally produced to ensure the safety of life at sea. Acts that place lives and property at risk, albeit being carried out with good intentions does not make these acts acceptable to me. Committing an illegal act, to halt an activity that you consider is illegal does not make it right.

Select to expand quote

"If it wasn't for SS we wouldn't even be aware of the issue."

Before SS it was Greenpeace and the 'Save the Whales Campaign', how many people are aware of the organised mass killings of toothed whales in the Northern Hemisphere?

Select to expand quote

"The original post is about SS successfully putting a virtual stop to illegal Toothfish poaching.. How do you feel about that then They didn't break any laws, just followed them around and documented their illegal activities, how is that a bad thing".

You just answered your own question "They didn't break any laws", that's right they didn't ram, or attempt to ram the mongrels, they didn't commit unsafe acts by ignoring the 'Rules of the Road'. They observed, recorded, packaged then presented evidence of illegal fishing activities. They could do that with the whaling fleet, the difference is only one side of the dispute considers it illegal.

Select to expand quote

"A question i have about International maritime law is that how is that Australia will make no attempt to stop the Japanese whaling vessel from being so close to Australia, you say they have no jurisdiction, but then what jurisdiction is Australia operating on when we stop people smuggling boats in the middle of the ocean, no were near the 14 nm exclusion zone."

I have made reference to the perceived discrepancies in my last two posts, but just to provide further insight;

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
PART XI OF THE CONVENTION

SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THE TERRITORIAL

SEA SUBSECTION A. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SHIPS

Article17 Right of innocent passage Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. Article19 Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State; Article21 Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage

(h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State.

4. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with all such laws and regulations and all generally accepted international regulations relating to the prevention of collisions at sea.

Select to expand quote

"Our naval vessels fire upon them, but won't interfere with the Japanese boats.. Whats the difference technically".

Now you are impinging into MY Territory. I would expect you to have verifiable data to back up the statement that the Royal Australian Navy have fired upon Suspected Irregular Entry Vessels (SIEV's) or at least a link. In my personal experiences (under a Labor Government, if that makes a difference) and having had personal dealings with many Potential Irregular Immigrants (PII's) and numerous SIEV's I never saw or heard of any commissioned vessel firing on them or their vessels.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it here and reference your sources.

As I said, I am by no way an expert in Maritime Law (nor do I wish to be) but I and my colleagues in our role as professional mariners were/are expected to have a basic understanding and have the means to access the relevant acts.

As stated the way I see it is that One Party (Australia), claims the other Party (Japan) is committing illegal acts. Japann denies this and claims by NOT being a signatory to the convention they are not bound by it rules and regulations. So the Governments and there Lawyers need to get it sorted.

I haven't seen the show but at 180 nm puts it 20 miles inside the EEZ and EFZ. Did they show the full procedure leading up to shots across the bow?

eg. The escalation of force?

1. Call the vessel and tell them "This is Australian Warship ***** heave to and stop your engines I intend to board you.
2. If the vessel fails to comply, close the target and using loud hailers or voice amplification devices repeat the request both in English and a language they understand.
3. Display of Weaponry, have a crew member stand in a prominent place and display a weapon. (holds up an F88 of F89) or stand to on the .50 Cal. Repeat requests for the vessel to heave to and stop engines. Indicate the armed crew member.
4. Repeat the request adding that if you do not comply we will fire upon you.
5. If vessel fails to comply orders for 'Single Shot' across the bow, that means aiming off and placing the round ahead of the target vessel.
6. Repeat the request, If the vessel still fails to respond, then the order may be given for "Burst of 3 to 5 rounds" (or 10 as what was on the show).

By this time RHIBs are in the water Boarding teams are closed up, fully equipped and briefed to expect an opposed boarding (they are trained in both opposed and unopposed), they will then be dispatched to board the vessel underway and bring it to a halt.

Is that how it went down on the show or did the producers use artistic licence and portray the Navy as a bunch of amateur, blood thirsty cowboys who opted to put a few rounds downrange in the first instance? Without going through the 'escalation of force'.

And yes, If a Japanese (or any other nationality for that matter) vessel was observed inside the Exclusive Fishing Zone actively engaged in Fishing/Whaling or collecting/gathering/harvesting of any marine species I would expect the procedure to be exactly the same.

The difference is that the 200 mile EEZ that Australia (and many other nations have claimed) is ratified by the previously quoted UN Charter, the area in question cited as a "Whale Sanctuary" the Southern Ocean, unfortunately is not.

Select to expand quote

Rupert

I am against whaling and I am against illegal intervention and total disregard to laws that were unilaterally produced to ensure the safety of life at sea. Acts that place lives and property at risk, albeit being carried out with good intentions does not make these acts acceptable to me. Committing an illegal act, to halt an activity that you consider is illegal does not make it right.

Out of curiosity can you show me anywhere that any of the SS captains have been charged, even when the MV Ady Gill was cut in two, the SS captain was only cautioned. The Japanese captain refused to be interviewed by Australian authorities and it was left at that.. Lets face it any possible charge will result in a charge against SS as every single time they return from the Southern Ocean their ships are raided, records poured over as the Australian Authorities would love to be able to charge them, but to date they have not found anything. Other than the caution on the Ady Gill and the fine for not requesting a fuel refill three months prior to the search and rescue mission for the missing yacht the Biserk.

Also you talk about endangering lives, yet no records for any major injury, so what do you base your assumptions on that they are risking lives. I have no issue if you dislike SS and their methods, but i don't think they should be based on something thats not factual thats all

jbshack, can I ask you a question ?

imagine a semitrailer carrying a live stock on a highway. imagine some angry vegan protesters in their "priuses" hassling the semitrailer with a road rage,
cutting off, getting at front of it and jumping on the brakes and the like.

would you support that $hit ?

that's what they do in the high seas.