ICELAND AND HER RE-ADHERENCE TO THE CONVENTION
AFTER LEAVING IN 1992
Instruments of adherence
Instruments of adherence were deposited on 8 June
2001, 10 May 2002, 10 October 2002. All three
instruments stated that Iceland ‘adheres to the
aforesaid Convention and Protocol with a reservation
to paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule attached to the
Convention’.
The first two reservations stated:
‘Notwithstanding the aforementioned reservation,
the Government of Iceland will not authorise whaling
for commercial purposes by Icelandic vessels while
progress is being made in negotiations within the
IWC on the RMS. This does not apply, however, in
case of the so-called moratorium on whaling for
commercial purposes, contained in paragraph 10(e) of
the Schedule not being lifted within a reasonable
time after the completion of the RMS. Under no
circumstances will whaling for commercial purposes
be authorised without a sound scientific basis and
an effective management and enforcement scheme.’
The reservation contained in the instrument of adherence of 10th October 2002 was somewhat different in that it
included a time-limit before which commercial
whaling would not resume, i.e.
‘Notwithstanding this, the Government of Iceland
will not authorise whaling for commercial purposes
by Icelandic vessels before 2006 and, thereafter,
will not authorise such whaling while progress is
being made in negotiations within the IWC on the
RMS. This does not apply, however, in case of the
so-called moratorium on whaling for commercial
purposes, contained in paragraph 10(e) of the
Schedule not being lifted within a reasonable time
after the completion of the RMS. Under no
circumstances will whaling for commercial purposes
be authorised without a sound scientific basis and
an effective management and enforcement scheme.’
53rd Annual Meeting, London, July 2001
Iceland’s status was determined as a result of
the following Chair’s rulings:
- the Commission has the competence to
determine the legal status of Iceland’s
reservation (19 votes in favour, 18 against, one
abstention);
- the Commission does not accept Iceland’s
reservation regarding paragraph 10(e) of the
Schedule (19 votes in support, none against, 3 abstentions, 16 countries did not
participate);
- Iceland is invited to assist as an observer
(18 votes in support, 16 against, 3
abstentions).
Iceland had been treated as a member (i.e. could
vote) until after the vote on the third ruling,
after which it was treated as an observer.
54th Annual Meeting, Shimonoseki, May 2002
The Chair noted that since the new instrument of
adherence contained the same reservation as the
previous year, the status of Iceland’s membership
remained governed by last year’s decisions. He felt
bound by these decisions unless and until the
Commission decided otherwise. He eventually ruled
that the status of Iceland was as agreed last year.
His ruling was carried (25 votes in support and 20
against). Given the nature of this ruling, Iceland
was not allowed to vote..
5th Special Meeting, Cambridge, October 2002
The Chair considered that since the reservation
attached to Iceland’s most recent instrument of
adherence was different, the Commission had before
it a new instrument of adherence. Under such
circumstances, Iceland was allowed to vote. However,
since there was again disagreement over the
acceptability of Iceland's reservation, the Chair
ruled that the procedure followed in London should
also be followed at this meeting, i.e. revisit first
the issue of the competence of the Commission to
determine the legal status of Iceland’s reservation.
His ruling was challenged and defeated (16 for and
21 against).
The UK then proposed that the same procedure as
used in Shimonoseki be followed, i.e. upholding the
decision taken in London. The Chair ruled that this
proposal should be voted on immediately. This ruling
was challenged but was upheld when put to a vote (18
in support; 18 against). Before voting on this
ruling however, there was debate on whether Iceland
should be allowed to vote. The Chair ruled that
Iceland should be allowed to participate. His ruling
was challenged, but upheld when put to a vote (18 in
support; 18 against).
The Chair’s ruling that the decisions at IWC/53
and IWC/54 were upheld (i.e. that the IWC had the
competence to determine the legal status of
Iceland’s reservation, that it did not accept
Iceland’s reservation and that Iceland be invited to
assist as an observer) was defeated (18 votes in
favour, 19 against). Hence Iceland was accepted as a
member of the Commission. The following countries subsequently formally
objected to Iceland's reservation by notifying the depository government (USA):
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Monaco,
Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, UK, USA. Italy, Mexico
and New Zealand also objected to the reservation and noted that they do not
consider the Convention as being in force between their countries and Iceland. |
