ABSTRACT
When Japan announced that it would withdraw from the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), shockwaves crawled through the international conservation community. The end of the whales—and not of whaling—appeared to be nigh since one of the most notorious pro-whaling nations is seemingly now able to conduct whaling without international oversight. While Japan’s move was not a surprising one, what was indeed surprising was that the Minister of the Environment of Namibia announced that the country considered withdrawing from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) at the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2019. Does this mean that Japan’s decision to leave the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has implications for other international institutions such as CITES? This chapter addresses this question and argues that Japan’s withdrawal should serve as a warning sign that indicates how international conservation bodies should not work. Instead, lessons should be learned for other bodies that would prevent parties from withdrawing. It is argued that Japan’s withdrawal points to inherent deficits of the current set up of international conservation institutions such as the IWC in an era of multilayered threats, cultural sensitivity and changing environmental paradigms. The chapter therefore proposes a different approach to international conservation law by building on Bonebrake et al.’s concept of transformative regime change (TRC) that takes into account different threats at different levels over different periods of time.
