Do you fault a country’s coast guards (South Korea and Argentina) when they fire on or sink Chinese fishing vessels violating their sovereign waters to pillage their natural resources?
If so, that’s unfortunate, as violence is sometimes necessary against a bully. If not, what’s the difference?
Disclaimer: I am pro “use of force” when all other options are exhausted.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].
> Violence is sometimes necessary
Per the article, Japan reduced its Southern Ocean whaling in response to the International Court of Justice, not the Sea Shepherd.
Protesting in an international forum is fundamentally different from protesting domestically. There is no coërcive third party to enforce the rules. You have to convince the people you're protesting to want to change. Contrast the culture at the UN to e.g. a regulatory agency.
Most Japanese don't eat whale [2]. Whaling has become a symbol of national sovereignty and pride. Foreign vessels ramming your ships stokes national pride. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society may have eliminated a diplomatic solution to whaling for a generation or two.
On your own ship, and depending on jurisdiction (based on flag flown and the UNCLOS) [1]. Nobody allows running out to find a ship doing things one doesn’t like and then ramming or blocking its path.
In any case, what law are the Japanese vessels breaking? They amended their quotas to comply with the ICJ ruling [2].
Ramming things makes for good TV. It is emotionally satisfying. Practically, however, it is ineffective or even detrimental towards the goal of saving whales. (It is very effective at maintaining certain peoples’ livelihoods and drumming up nationalistic support for whaling in Japan.)
I stand by my assertion regarding the use of force, just as poachers of endangered animals should be shot on sight (with proper signage around the kill box of course; “This preserve is off limits to humans without prior approval. The use of lethal force at all times is authorized”).
Diplomacy is apathy by committee. If governments do not act, private citizens must. We only get one Earth.
Are private citizens allowed to shoot poachers on sight?
In most countries, the right of private citizens to enforce the law themselves is very narrow. This is not because we do not respect the law, but because allowing private people to play cops and robbers can easily become a situation where it’s hard to tell who is what.
If so, that’s unfortunate, as violence is sometimes necessary against a bully. If not, what’s the difference?
Disclaimer: I am pro “use of force” when all other options are exhausted.