AUSTRALIA has won an international lawsuit against Japan’s whaling program in the Southern Ocean, but Tokyo appears set to continue with its hunt in the North Pacific.

The International Court of Justice has backed Australia’s landmark case and demanded Japan stop its whaling program in the Antarctic “with immediate effect”.

But the country’s hunt in the North Pacific wasn’t part of the case, meaning it will be allowed to continue.

And Nori Shikata, a spokesman for the Japanese Delegation at The Hague, has suggested it will.

“Our program in the Northern Pacific is outside the scope of the proceedings before the courts and so they are two separate programs and this ruling is about the program in the Antarctic,” Mr Shikata told ABC Radio.

“What we have been saying today is that as far as the judgement of the court is concerned we will abide by it.”

media_camera Horrific ... dead minke whales lie on the deck of the Japanese whaling vessel Nisshin Maru in the Southern Ocean.

“I don’t think Australia brought the case regarding our research whaling in the Northern Pacific.”

media_camera UN ruling ... Japan’s whaling hunt in the Southern Ocean is not a scientific program.

Mr Shikata said the country was “deeply disappointed and regrets” the verdict and will look into the “lengthy” ruling.

“As far as our future course of action is concerned we have to examine the judgement very carefully,” he added.

Captain Alex Cornelissen, Executive Director of Sea Shepherd Global, talked up the victory in the Southern Ocean, but said the organisation will have to keep up its anti-whaling campaigns in other regions.

“It certainly looks like there won’t be any more killing of whales in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary,” he told Channel Nine this morning.

media_camera The kill ... fishermen break up the body of a whale at the Wada port in Chiba prefecture, east of Tokyo, while school pupils look on.

“We still have to wait and see what Japan is going to do with the other whale hunts they still continue to do, for instance the Northern hunt in the Pacific every July and August.”

“We don’t know what’s going to happen there, but this is certainly a very important breakthrough.”

Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, who represented Australia at The Hague, said the implications of the case on whaling in other regions would have to be “worked through”.

“The case that we brought was very much about the Southern Ocean and I don’t want to comment on what implications there might be for the Japanese whaling activities in the Northern Pacific,” Mr Dreyfus told ABC TV.

“But clearly that is a matter of concern to people throughout the world as well.”

Mr Dreyfus called on Japan to work with Australia on non-lethal research.

“I’m hoping that Japan, which has a fine tradition of scientific research, will join in that non-lethal research in the Southern Ocean and not return to any killing of whales in the name of science,” he said.

media_camera For sale ... a shopper walks past a whale meat specialty store in Tokyo's Ameyoko shopping district.

Mr Dreyfus said he was confident Japan would abide by the judgement and he believed the decision would up the pressure on Iceland and Norway as well.

International Court of Justice presiding judge Peter Tomka of Slovakia said Japan had not justified the large number of minke whales it takes under its program, while failing to meet much smaller targets for fin and humpback whales.

media_camera Not done ... Labor’s Mark Dreyfus, who represented Australia at The Hague, said the implications of the case on whaling in other regions will have to be “worked through”.

The United Nations ordered a halt to the issuing of whaling permits until the program has been revamped.

The ICJ, by 12 votes to four, said Japan had not acted in compliance with its obligations under the international whaling convention.

Four years ago, former environment minister Peter Garrett helped launch legal action against Japan in the International Court of Justice to try and put a stop to its controversial Antarctic whaling program.

It was the first time any country had used an international court to try to stop whaling.

Mr Garrett said he felt vindicated by the decision Labor made in 2010 to pursue the case against so-called “scientific whaling’’ in The Hague.

“I’m absolutely over the moon, for all those people who wanted to see the charade of scientific whaling cease once and for all,’’ Mr Garrett told ABC Radio.

media_camera Ruthless ... Greenpeace ship MY Esperanza witness the killing of whales in the Southern Ocean by the Yushin Maru and the Kyo Maru No1 ships of the Japanese whaling fleet in 2005.

“I think (this) means without any shadow of a doubt that we won’t see the taking of whales in the Southern Ocean in the name of science.”

He wasn’t the only one celebrating the outcome, with many taking to Twitter to share the news and pay tribute to the anti-whaling activist group Sea Shepherd.

Sea Shepherd Australia chairman and former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown congratulated the captain of the fleet that made its name in daring clashes with Japanese whalers in Antarctica.

“A whale of a win! Paul Watson is a global hero and Australians can all feel proud. Sea Shepherd Australia chairman,’’ Mr Brown posted.

Current Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek said Monday’s ruling meant a program which saw thousands of whales killed in Antarctic waters had at last been ended.

“The (coalition) government should now take up discussions with Japan to co-operate on genuine and non-lethal methods of whaling research,” she said.

Current Greens leader Christine Milne also paid tribute to the “champions” at Sea Shepherd, calling the ICJ verdict “justice at last”.

This is a truly historic decision & vindicates the decision our action. It means that so called scientific whaling is no more! — Peter Garrett (@pgarrett) March 31, 2014

Mr Watson voiced doubt about Japan’s pledges to comply with the ruling but said his group - which has become a thorn in Tokyo’s side - would send its three-ship fleet to the Atlantic if Japan ended its practice. Sea Shepherd has not had the funding to support “a two-front battle.’’

“I’m not 100 per cent convinced they will abide by the ruling. The tend to agree and then do whatever they want to do anyway; that has been the history with the International Whaling Commission,’’ Watson told AFP in phone interview.

“Our ships will be prepared and ready to return if they return,’’ Watson said. “And if they don’t return, then we’ll be able to refocus our efforts against Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese whaling.’’

Australia had asked the court to ban Japan’s annual hunt on the basis it was not “for purposes of scientific research’’ as allowed under Article 8 of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Canberra argued Tokyo was cloaking a commercial whaling operation “in the labcoat of science’’ despite agreeing to a 1980s ban on harpooning.

Japan, however, countered during a three-week hearing in mid-2013 that the ICJ didn’t have the authority to decide what was, or wasn’t, science.

It insisted lethal research was both lawful and necessary.

But in UN court last dismissed Tokyo’s argument.

The court didn’t accept Australia’s argument that “scientific research’’ needed to have defined and achievable objectives, use appropriate methods, be properly peer reviewed, and avoid adverse events on the stocks being studied.

media_camera Annual hunt ... the Nisshin Maru, the factory ship of Japanese whaling fleet, exits the ice floes in the Southern Ocean, in 2011. Picture courtesy of Shepherd Conservation Society, Barbara Veiga.

Instead it focused on whether Tokyo’s program was “for purposes of’’ scientific research, however that was defined.

Judge Tomka said the key was whether “the elements of the program’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to its stated scientific objectives’’.

Killing whales could be science and wasn’t “unreasonable per se’’, Judge Tomka said.

Furthermore, the fact whale meat was sold afterwards to fund future hunts did not, on its own, mean the program was illegal.

But the court found there could be a greater reliance on non-lethal methods.

The court president said Tokyo should have analysed the feasibility of non-lethal methods when setting the quota size for taking whales.

“There is no evidence that Japan has examined whether it would be feasible to combine a smaller lethal take, in particular of minke whales, and an increase in non-lethal sampling as a means to achieve ... research objectives,’’ he said.

Tokyo was criticised for doubling its target to 850 minke whales each year after 2005 without first assessing the research effectiveness of its earlier program, which had a much smaller sample size.

International Court of Justice #ICJ rules #Japan Antarctic #whaling programme is NOT for scientific purposes RT RT RT! — Sea Shepherd (@SeaShepherd) March 31, 2014

Japan hunts around a thousand mostly minke whales annually in the icy waters of the Southern Ocean.

Australia and environmental groups say the hunt serves no scientific purpose and is just a way for Japan to get around the moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission in 1986.

Although the popularity of whale meat is declining in Japan, it is considered a delicacy by some, and meat from the hunt is sold commercially.

Japan has said it will abide by the ruling of the court, known as the World Court, which is the United Nations’ court for disputes between countries.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott travels to Japan in early April and will meet with his counterpart, Shinzo Abe, in an attempt to finalise a free trade agreement.

A Japanese delegation spokesman in The Hague told AAP it wasn’t yet known if the pair would discuss whaling.

###

Originally published as Japan whaling war not over yet