Alternative interpretation to Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling: Implications from Article XX of the GATT

Abstract Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulating of Whaling (ICRW) has long remained controversial. In Whaling in the Antarctic, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) set a higher threshold of proof in interpreting Article VIII by transposing the requirement for a “necessary” measure into a “relating to” measure under the exception clause. In light of the jurisprudence of Article XX (b) and (g) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), this article distinguishes the two measures and identifies that lethal methods are not required to be exclusively for scientific research under Article VIII, at least for its “relating to” measure. This alternative interpretation can generate an opposite outcome in the case and have significant implications for the application of Article VIII in the future.