CLoCCs Report
Reykjavik, 10 December 2025
( English Summary)
CLoCCs Report on Whaling, Marine Environmental Protection and Access to Justice
This legal analysis was written for Icelandic nature and animal protection organizations with the aim of increasing the understanding of Iceland‘s legal framework on whaling. It builds on two recent reports on the subject, namely the 2025 report produced by a working group appointed by the Ministry of Industries on the legal framework for whaling and the 2025 legal opinion prepared by MAGNA Law Firm at the request of the Icelandic Animal Protection Association regarding the legality of fin whale hunting within Iceland’s exclusive economic zone. This report specifically delves into Iceland’s reservation to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (the Whaling Convention).
As requested, the following issues are examined:
whether there are deficiencies in Iceland’s reservation to the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling;
the development of international legal obligations concerning marine environmental protection;
the evolution of the human right to environmental protection and access to justice; and
the legal consequences arising from the above.
The main findings are that the IWC was ultimately not competent to decide on the legitimacy of Iceland‘s reservation on behalf of all members to the Commission, making the reactions of individual States highly important. Italy, Mexico, and New Zealand objected to the reservation and to the entry into force of the Whaling Convention with respect to Iceland, as permitted under Article 20(4)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Consequently, Iceland could be regarded as not being in treaty relations with these States regarding the Whaling Convention. Furthermore, the reservation may be invalid against all parties to the Whaling Convention as per Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention, regardless of the reactions of individual States, in which case Iceland would be bound by the Convention in its entirety, including the moratorium. This would be the conclusion if Iceland‘s reservation were deemed to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Whaling Convention as amended by the IWC. This is plausible in light of subsequent changes to the Whaling Convention enacted through the Schedule; statements made by the IWC and individual states to that effect; and the growing emphasis on conservation and animal welfare. At any rate, Iceland should reconsider the need to maintain its reservation in order to abide by recommendations from the International Law Commission and the UN General Assembly, promoting uniform implementation of multilateral law of the sea treaties.
If Iceland’s reservation is unlawful, no permits should be granted for commercial whaling under Iceland‘s jurisdiction. Such permits could constitute a breach of Article 10(e) of the Whaling Convention and Articles 65 and 120 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which obligate States to cooperate through appropriate international organizations for the conservation and management of whales. Iceland has not issued an optional clause declaration as per Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, parties to UNCLOS are bound to accept the jurisdictions of courts and tribunals when their disputes concerning that convention cannot be solved through other peaceful means. States party to UNCLOS could therefore bring proceedings against Iceland for violations of Articles 65 or 120 before a court or tribunal in accordance with Article 287. Those same States could also bring cases against Iceland for breaches of UNCLOS provisions concerning environmental protection, which extend to protection of vulnerable ecosystems, biodiversity, and carbon sinks in the ocean.
The ICJ and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have confirmed the link between environmental protection and human rights, recognizing the right to a healthy environment as a prerequisite for other human rights. This right includes, inter alia, access to a stable climate, healthy biological diversity, and healthy ecosystems. These environmental rights derive indirectly from the Aarhus Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, which also provide for access by individuals and organizations to courts in environmental matters. The narrow interpretation by Icelandic courts of procedural rules on standing has unduly restricted the right of NGOs to fair trial, which may amount to inadequate implementation of Iceland’s obligations under these conventions, especially in light of the European Court of Human Rights’ recent judgment in the Klimaseniorinnen case. The judgment suggests that human rights organizations have the right to lodge complaints with the Court under ECHR Article 34, and that access to justice must be ensured for such entities domestically, as per Article 6. These conclusions give reason to review the rules on standing in Icelandic procedural law in order to ensure effective legal remedies in environmental matters.
On behalf of Reykjavik University‘s Centre for Law on Climate Change and Sustainability,
Snjólaug Árnadóttir, Ph.D
