Eight decades after the ICRW, the IWC remains torn between regulating an industry and protecting a species. Critically examine, with reference to India's position at IWC-70.

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was signed in 1946. Its Preamble set two aims: the "proper conservation of whale stocks" and the "orderly development of the whaling industry" [2]. At IWC-70 in Hobart, held in the Convention's 80th year [1], the protection aim has gained ground. Still, rules written for the industry let whaling nations opt out.

Shift towards protection

• The 1982 moratorium on commercial whaling set zero quotas from 1985–86. Schedule amendments created the Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean Sanctuaries [2].
• Some stocks have recovered. IUCN moved the humpback from Vulnerable to Least Concern in 2008 [3].
• In Whaling in the Antarctic (ICJ, 2014), the Court ruled that Japan's JARPA II programme was not scientific research [2].

Where the industry logic persists

• Objection procedure: Norway and Iceland objected to the moratorium, so it does not bind them. Both still hunt commercially [2].
• Article VIII: each country issues its own "scientific" permits. After losing at the ICJ, Japan removed such disputes from the Court's reach in 2015. It then launched NEWREP-A to take 333 minke whales [2].
• Deadlock: changing the Schedule needs a three-fourths majority. The IWC is split between members who want to use whales later and members who oppose any hunting [2].
• Narrow scope: the Schedule covers only "great whales". Small cetaceans are left out, and bycatch is the main threat to coastal dolphins and porpoises [4].
• "Recovered stock" argument: the humpback's global recovery hides two subpopulations that remain Endangered [3], and population data are still incomplete [4].

India's position at IWC-70

• India has been a member since 1981 and is in the pro-conservation group [1]. At IWC-70 it called for:
• cooperation among range countries
• better data on population status, movement and breeding ecology
• evidence-based management

• locally appropriate, community-led approaches [1]

• At home, cetaceans get the highest protection under the Wild Life (Protection) Act (WLPA), 1972. The Arabian Sea humpback is one of 25 priority species [1], and Project Dolphin was launched in 2020 [5].

• Critique: India's statement named no whaling nation. Its "evidence-based" wording could also support a catch of recovered stocks. India also lacks marine monitoring of its own; in the Bay of Bengal, gaps limit information on 23 cetacean species [4].

To conclude, the IWC protects whales in principle but cannot compel its members. Closing the objection and Article VIII loopholes, and adding bycatch and ship strikes to its agenda, would move it further towards protection. India can help by pairing its call for data with its own marine surveys and regional work with neighbours. That would serve SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and the duty under Article 51A(g) to protect wildlife.