quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

"Whoever buys the ship should be aware that we retain the registry and the original Bill of Sale and we will take back what is ours at the first opportunity. You don't steal a ship from a pirate without repercussions."

---Watson, on Canadian Auction of Fairy Mowat

Go get 'em Paul! The Farley Mowat belongs to Sea Shepherd. They can do whatever they want with it.

quote:

My on-line inquiry showed that Uncle Sam does not think Ross sea is an Aus territory.

That's nice...

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:

quote:

The United States did not dispute the claim, they just refused to accept it.

The mind boggles... Is this some special logic taught to initiates in the SSCS?

No: Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

quote:

Do you pay for tutelage in Watsonian thought?

Do you pay for tutelage on how to make puerile claims? See following:

quote:

Common sense should tell you that if the USA, Russia, China, India, Japan, France etc all consider these waters as international, they are international waters.

These nations constitute a majority of the population of the planet, an overwhelming majority of the world's economy, the majority of its military power.

Again, meaningless drivel. Australian law says otherwise. The Australian court ruling says otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

Just exactly how obtuse are you/can you be?

"Each person has a duty to act." That's an imperative to action.

"shall strive to ensure..." Also an imperative.

They can act "individually or in association with others". Private groups/organizations like Greenpeace and SSCS.

Stopping an attempt at murder is, of necessity, a violent act. Using violence to stop a violent crime is not illegal. Sometime violence must be used as a part of "duty to act".

You weep for the whalers. You need to get one of two things:

So, where does it say anything about use of violence?

Commercial whaling is illegal. It is a violent act to shoot a harpoon into a whale's back to kill it. Use of violence to stop a violent crime is an acceptable course of action ("duty to act"). Nobody argues with that. Use of violence to deny the criminal the fruits of his crime is also an acceptable course of action.

No: Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
________________________________________

I guess you can't read:

Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

"NO NEW CLAIMS SHALL BE ASSERTED WHILE THE TREATY IS IN FORCE"

Are you blind? The EEZ IS a NEW CLAIM and is illegal under this Treaty. Which superceds anything the Austrailian courts come up with because this IS INTERNATIONAL LAW.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
No: Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
________________________________________

I guess you can't read:

Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

"NO NEW CLAIMS SHALL BE ASSERTED WHILE THE TREATY IS IN FORCE"

Are you blind? The EEZ IS a NEW CLAIM and is illegal under this Treaty. Which superceds anything the Austrailian courts come up with because this IS INTERNATIONAL LAW.

No new claims have been asserted. Only the acceptance of the EEZ created by the UNCLOS.

Your statement is, therefore, irrelevant.

Quote:
No new claims have been asserted. Only the acceptance of the EEZ created by the UNCLOS.

Your statement is, therefore, irrelevant.
___________________________________________
Check your facts!

the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 :
Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

happend well before:

UNCLOS 1982 (regarding the EEZ)

11 Territorial claims for some form of sovereignty over waters adjacent to a state are regulated in international law by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay, 10 December 1982 ("UNCLOS"). Article 57 of UNCLOS defines the exclusive economic zone of a coastal state as not exceeding 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.

Now go back and read Article 4 again!

Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

It doen't get any clearer. Your statements are irrelevant and wrong. Do your homework.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
Quote:
No new claims have been asserted. Only the acceptance of the EEZ created by the UNCLOS.

Your statement is, therefore, irrelevant.
___________________________________________
Check your facts!

the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 :
Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

happend well before:

UNCLOS 1982 (regarding the EEZ)

11 Territorial claims for some form of sovereignty over waters adjacent to a state are regulated in international law by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay, 10 December 1982 ("UNCLOS"). Article 57 of UNCLOS defines the exclusive economic zone of a coastal state as not exceeding 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.

Now go back and read Article 4 again!

Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

It doen't get any clearer. Your statements are irrelevant and wrong. Do your homework.

Australia established the whale sanctuary in its EEZ under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It extends 200 miles from ALL Australian Territory in accordance with the EEZ allowed by the UNCLOS.

The Japanese continued to whale in the sanctuary and were told to stop by the Australian Federal Court.

There's the law and the ruling for violating the law.

It is not a matter of homework.

Links to articles written by Law Professors (Australian ones!) have already been posted.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/De...f?abstractid=1380122

ANTARCTIC WHALING: AUSTRALIA’S ATTEMPT TO PROTECT WHALES IN THE SOUTHERN OCEAN

Donald K Anton
Australian National University Law School

quote:

In the end, however, Allsop did not decide on the operative effect of
Article IV of the Treaty in relation to the declared AAT EEZ.109 Instead,
he used the submission by the Attorney-General to contrast the con-
trary position of Japan (and most of the rest of the world). Allsop noted
that “[a]s far as Japan is concerned, the Australian Antarctic EEZ is the
high seas which is not subject to any legitimate control by Australia un-
der UNCLOS and domestic legislation provided for thereby (such as
the EPBC Act).”110 The conflicting positions thus contrasted, Allsop
accepted the Attorney-General’s position that international discord
would follow by granting leave to serve process, and it became “unnec-
essary to decide whether the Antarctic EEZ is, or can be seen as, ‘in the
Commonwealth’ . . . .”111

quote:

Specifically,
the treaty prohibits a state from asserting a “new claim, or enlargement
of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica . . . .”133 The
effect “would seem to be that EEZs cannot be claimed off [Antarctic]
territory . . . .”134

quote:

In these cir****tances, it is difficult to characterize the declaration
of an EEZ, in Antarctica or elsewhere, as anything but a claim. The EEZ
did not exist in 1961 when the Antarctic Treaty came into force. Upon
its establishment, it did not automatically attach to a coastal state by
virtue of international law, as may be the case in connection with the
territorial sea141 or the contiguous zone.142 An EEZ is not created ipso
facto, but must be declared. Accordingly, under Article IV(2) of the
Antarctic Treaty it seems clear that the declaration of an EEZ is a
“claim” that is prohibited, provided the other conditions of the Article
are satisfied.

What you're seeing is from the Paul Watson playbook.

“If you don’t know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then ... make it up on the spot.”
— Paul Watson, in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior’s Guide to Strategy

The World Charter for Nature magically becomes a law that sanctions illegal acts of violence.

The judgment of a court of one nation magically becomes binding on the rest of the world.

This is not simple obstinacy, a reluctance to acknowledge common sense, scholarly opinions, diplomatic notes etc.

This is deliberate. There can be no convincing with the Watsonian disciple, no arguments. This is nothing but dishonest bluster in the face of facts.

11 Territorial claims for some form of sovereignty over waters adjacent to a state are regulated in international law by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay, 10 December 1982 ("UNCLOS"). Article 57 of UNCLOS defines the exclusive economic zone of a coastal state as not exceeding 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.

12 Australia’s claimed exclusive economic zone extends to the waters adjacent to the baseline of Australia’s external territories, including, importantly for this matter, the Australian Antarctic Territory. By virtue of the statutory definition in s 225 of the EPBC Act, the waters within 200 nautical miles from the Australian Antarctic Territory land mass are within the Australian Whale Sanctuary.

13 Australia’s claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is recognised only by four nations (New Zealand, France, Norway and the United Kingdom), themselves with asserted (and otherwise disputed) claims over various parts of the Antarctic land mass. Japan rejects Australia’s purported exercise of jurisdiction over waters that are considered by Japan to be the high seas. This is not a ground for invalidity of the EPBC Act: the sovereign claim by Australia to the Australian Antarctic Territory is not a matter capable of being questioned in this Court in this proceeding: cf Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1. These matters of sovereignty and international recognition (and lack of extensiveness thereof) can be taken to have been before, and well recognised by, Parliament when it enacted the EPBC Act.

14 A claim to an exclusive economic zone does not amount to sovereignty for all purposes. See Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2005] FCA 664 at [11] – [13] for a discussion of the rights flowing from a claim to the exclusive economic zone.

Note what the Attorney General of Australia filed before the Federal court in Sydney

quote:
First, the Government considers that the Government of Japan would regard any attempt by Australia to enforce Australian law against Japanese vessels and its nationals in the Antarctic EEZ to be a breach of international law on Australia’s part and would give rise to an international disagreement with Japan.
Secondly, enforcement of Australian domestic law against foreigners in the Antarctic EEZ, based as it is on Australia’s claim to territorial sovereignty to the relevant part of Antarctica, can be “reasonably expected to prompt a significant adverse reaction from other Antarctic Treaty Parties”.

Note the "significant adverse reaction from other Antarctic Treaty Parties"
Namely the US, Russia, China, India, Japan etc.
Which tells you that these Australian claims are not worth the paper they're written on.
Hence Justice Alsop's citation on "futility".
Hence the reluctance of Australia to approach the International Court of Justice for a ruling.

Transcript from Australian Senate Hearing

quote:
Senator SIEWERT-Exactly. But that is not done when there are foreign vessels whaling in Australian waters.

Mr Campbell-If what you are suggesting is that Australian vessels that normally enforce fisheries laws do not enforce those laws in our proclaimed exclusive economic zone off the Australian Antarctic Territory, the answer is: yes, they do not board the vessels.

Senator SIEWERT-That is because those waters are not recognised internationally?

Mr Campbell-It is partly because relatively few countries recognise our sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory and hence our sovereign rights over the adjacent waters, but also because of sensitivities within the Antarctic Treaty system.

Senator SIEWERT-What happens where those waters are near our bases? Are those waters recognised as our waters near our bases?

Mr Campbell-I think it comes back to the basic point that it is a question of recognition of our sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory. Whilst Australia firmly believes that it has sovereignty over it, that is a view that is not shared by a lot of other countries.

Australia’s claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is recognised only by four nations (New Zealand, France, Norway and the United Kingdom), themselves with asserted (and otherwise disputed) claims over various parts of the Antarctic land mass.


The EEZ extension is a new claim. It is forbidden by the Antarctic treaty.

From Melbourne University (Australia)

http://upclose.unimelb.edu.au/transcript/184

quote:
But the reality is in 1959 when the Antarctic Treaty was signed it put in abeyance any existing claims in Antarctica. It said that we’re not going to challenge them, we’re not going to affirm them, but one thing that was very, very clear in article four of the Antarctic Convention is that no further territorial claims were made on Antarctica. The 1994 extension of this 200 mile Economic Exclusive Zone is a new claim.

From Article IV of the Antarctic treaty

quote:
No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.
Which makes Australian EEZ extension claims illegal under international law.

http://www.publications.parlia.../text/90304w0004.htm

quote:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Under the terms of Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, Japan's lethal research takes of minke whales in the Southern Ocean and of minke, Bryde's, sei and sperm whales in the North Pacific are, regrettably, quite legal.
quote:
The right of any contracting Government to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to issue special permits and to conduct lethal research whaling is enshrined in Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). The chairs' suggestions do not include any proposal to amend Article VIII. The extent to which current so-called scientific whaling may or may not be curtailed as a result of pursuing any of the options advanced in the chairs' paper will depend on the willingness of those Governments currently pursuing such operations to scale them back voluntarily, in exchange for other possible concessions. There would be no legal recourse for the IWC if such voluntary action were ever discontinued.
quote:
Save through an amendment to Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (which would probably require the convening of a formal diplomatic conference to adopt it and subsequent ratification by all parties to bring it into effect), the International Whaling Commission has no power to alter the legal status of whaling under special permit

Clearly, just like Japan, other countries do not recognize these waters as Australian.
And clearly the Japanese whaling is legal.
__________________________________________

Quote:
The Japanese continued to whale in the sanctuary and were told to stop by the Australian Federal Court.

There's the law and the ruling for violating the law.
________________________________________

If they have a law, where is the enforcement by Austrailian law? And what are the penalties?

The Iraqi parliament under Saddam Hussein also passed laws claiming territory.

Iraqi judges also issued ruling s affirming these laws.

At least Iraq attempted to enforce!

Aussies just hide!

Kangaroo Courts and Wallaby Laws!

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
It is not a matter of homework.

Links to articles written by Law Professors (Australian ones!) have already been posted.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/De...f?abstractid=1380122

ANTARCTIC WHALING: AUSTRALIA’S ATTEMPT TO PROTECT WHALES IN THE SOUTHERN OCEAN

Donald K Anton
Australian National University Law School

The link to the entire paper (not law; not court ruling) is here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...?abstract_id=1380122

I will stipulate that what you quoted is in the paper.

I would also like to add what he has said about Japanese research on page two of his paper:

quote:

One of the fundamental, long-term threats to whales in the Southern Ocean remains the so-called scientific whaling carried out by Japan under the second phase of its Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic ( JARPA II).

He uses "so-called' only one other place in a footnote on page 7:

quote:

There has also been consideration by Australia (and New Zealand) of international legal action in either the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to challenge the right of Japan to engage in so-called special permit scientific whaling under Art. VIII of the ICRW and abuse of such a right.

He mentions the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) several times in the paper and does not deny its existence nor does he refer to it as "so-called".

The AAT is described as:

quote:

The Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) is the part of Antarctica claimed by Australia and is the largest territory of Antarctica claimed by any nation. It consists of all the islands and territory south of 60° S and between 45° E and 160° E, except for Adélie Land (136° E to 142° E)

Included in that is "Territorial waters".

The ATS is:

quote:

The Antarctic Treaty and related agreements, collectively called the Antarctic Treaty System or 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 land and ice shelves south of 60 degrees South latitude.

That's the same latitude in the AAT. Looks like Australia is well within its rights to declare the EEZ since its claim in Antarctica predates the ATS

quote:

The World Charter for Nature magically becomes a law that sanctions illegal acts of violence.

Violence committed to stop a violent crime is not illegal.

quote:

The judgment of a court of one nation magically becomes binding on the rest of the world.

Read the footnote above.

quote:

This is not simple obstinacy, a reluctance to acknowledge common sense, scholarly opinions, diplomatic notes etc.

This is deliberate. There can be no convincing with the Watsonian disciple, no arguments.

You are finally catching on. All your "diplomatic notes" and "scholarly opinions" are just that. Notes and opinions. Not law. Not court judgements. The law and the court judgements are what Paul Watson goes by. The notes and opinions are irrelevant.

quote:

This is nothing but dishonest bluster in the face of facts.

You post nothing more than notes and opinions in the face of the legal rulings and the law.

Legal rulings that are not enforced because they violate international law?

They aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

I repeat my offer.

If this is a legal ruling that binds Japan, the US, China etc then Australia will enforce it.

If Australia seizes a Japanese whaler (and confirms your claim), I will make a donation to the SSCS.

If the Japanese whale unimpeded by Australia (confirming my claim), you agree to donate to the ICR.

If you really believe that there is a legal ruling and these are Australian waters, then surely we will see Australia enforcing its EEZ in 2010. You seem to have no faith in your arguments.

That's the same latitude in the AAT. Looks like Australia is well within its rights to declare the EEZ since its claim in Antarctica predates the ATS
_________________________________________

The EEZ is STILL a NEW CLAIM and is illegal and irrelevant. You half admit it. Your almost there!

quote:

The law and the court judgements are what Paul Watson goes by.

Crimes (Ships and Fixed Platforms) Act
1992, Act No. 173 of 1992 as amended

In part, by article

10 DESTROYING OR DAMAGING A SHIP
(1) A person must not engage in conduct that causes the destruction of a private ship.
Penalty: Life imprisonment.
(2) A person must not engage in conduct that causes damage to a private ship or its cargo, knowing that such damage is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship.
Penalty: Life imprisonment.

11 PLACING DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES ON A SHIP
(1) A person must not place or cause to be placed on a private ship, by any means, a device or substance that is likely to destroy the ship.
(2) A person must not place or cause to be placed on a private ship, by any means, a device or substance that is likely to cause damage to the ship or its cargo knowing that it is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship.
Penalty: 15 years imprisonment.

14 CAUSING DEATH
A person who engages in conduct that causes the death of another person in connection with the commission or attempted commission of an offence against any of sections 8 to 13 is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Life imprisonment.

15 CAUSING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM
A person who engages in conduct that causes grievous bodily harm to another person in onnection with the commission or attempted commission of an offence against any of sections 8 to 13 is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: 15 years imprisonment.

16 CAUSING INJURY TO A PERSON
A person who engages in conduct that causes injury to another person in connection with the commission or attempted commission of an offence against any of sections 8 to 13 is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: 10 years imprisonment.

17 THREATENING TO ENDANGER A SHIP
(1) A person must not threaten to do an act that would constitute an offence against section 9, 10 or 12 with intent to compel an individual, a body corporate or a body politic to do or refrain from doing an act, if that threat is likely to endanger the safe navigation
of the ship concerned.
Penalty: 2 years imprisonment.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLa...imeShipFixPlat92.pdf

Wow, yep those have to be felonies with those kind of penalties.
Paul Watson is a scumbag criminal and needs to be in prison.

But these are International, not Australian waters.
If they were Aussie, he could be charged and imprisoned.
But they are not.

What did Watson say? "Wild West". "Who knows who has authority out here" etc?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/...son-sea-shepherd-and

quote:

* in 1986, Sea Shepherd carried out an action against the Icelandic whaling station in Hvalfjoerdur and sank two Icelandic whaling vessels in Reykjavik harbor by opening their sea valves;[1]
* in December 1992, Sea Shepherd sank the vessel Nybroena in port;[2]
* Sea Shepherd claimed to have sank the Taiwanese drift net ship Jiang Hai in port in Taiwan and to have rammed and disabled four other Asian drift net ships;[3]
* a Canadian court ordered Watson and his former ship, the Cleveland Armory, to pay a total of $35,000 for ramming a Cuban fishing vessel off the coast of Newfoundland in June 1993;[4]
* in January 1994 the group severely damaged the whaling ship Senet in the Norwegian port of Gressvik.[5]

Each of the whaling ships noted above was refloated and refitted for continued whaling.

quote:

Commercial whaling is illegal. It is a violent act to shoot a harpoon into a whale's back to kill it. Use of violence to stop a violent crime is an acceptable course of action ("duty to act"). Nobody argues with that. Use of violence to deny the criminal the fruits of his crime is also an acceptable course of action.

It is not commercial whaling, and Japan does not violate UN World Charter for Nature anyway (Paragraph 10a), as you have been explained to on a number of occasions. So, where is the phrase "use of violence" in the charter?

Incidentally, Watson has repeatedly claimed, falsely, that SSCS is a 100% NON-violent organization. Why do you want to justify use of violence?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: antiantiwhaler,

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:
[QUOTE]Commercial whaling is illegal. It is a violent act to shoot a harpoon into a whale's back to kill it. Use of violence to stop a violent crime is an acceptable course of action ("duty to act"). Nobody argues with that. Use of violence to deny the criminal the fruits of his crime is also an acceptable course of action.

quote:

It is not commercial whaling,

Donald K Anton disagrees:

quote:

There has also been consideration by Australia (and New Zealand) of international legal action in either the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to challenge the right of Japan to engage in so-called special permit scientific whaling under Art. VIII of the ICRW and abuse of such a right.

quote:

... and Japan does not violate UN World Charter for Nature anyway (Paragraph 10a), as you have been explained to on a number of occasions. So, where is the phrase "use of violence" in the charter?

I was never talking about Paragraph 10a. I was talking about Paragraph 24.

quote:

Incidentally, Watson has repeatedly claimed, falsely, that SSCS is a 100% NON-violent organization. Why do you want to justify use of violence?

If I'm being mugged in a park known for mugging (but not known by me), I don't want a citizens' patrol to stand there and take pictures and hold up signs that say "Stop Mugging", I want them to get violent with my attacker. I want Sea Shepherd to defend the whales in whatever way necessary. They are 100 percent non-violent in that no whalers have been injured because Sea Shepherd avoids targeting individual whalers.

quote:

hey are 100 percent non-violent in that no whalers have been injured because Sea Shepherd avoids targeting individual whalers.

That is not what we saw in the finale.

We saw them throwing glass bottles of acid directly at the sailors on the stern of the Japanese ship.