There is a population of humpback whales in the Arabian Sea that has not migrated for about 70,000 years. Every other humpback population on earth runs the same annual circuit — feed in cold high latitudes, breed in warm low ones, repeat. These do not. They stay. Genetically isolated since the late Pleistocene, they are the only non-migratory humpback population known, and the most recent estimate puts them at 82 animals, with a 95% confidence interval of 60 to 111. On the IUCN Red List they are Endangered, on the criterion that a geographically distinct subpopulation plausibly holds fewer than 250 mature individuals.
That is the stake India brought to Hobart on 28 September 2026, when it delivered its opening statement to the 70th meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC-70), running to 2 October. The meeting falls in the 80th year of the treaty that created the Commission — and that treaty is a stranger document than its reputation suggests.
A convention written for the industry
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was signed at Washington DC on 2 December 1946. Read its title again. Regulation, not prohibition. Its purpose was to keep the whaling industry viable by preventing the stock collapses that had already ruined one whaling ground after another. The whales were the resource; the Commission was the resource manager.
Two features of its design matter more than anything else, and both are the reason the treaty could later be turned to a purpose its drafters did not have in mind.
First, the operative rules sit in a Schedule, not in the Convention. Catch limits, protected species, season lengths and sanctuaries are all set out in a Schedule that the Commission can amend by a three-quarters majority. Amending the Convention itself would require every party to ratify; amending the Schedule requires a vote. A treaty built this way can change its content radically without changing a word of its text.
Second, a member can opt out. If a government lodges a formal objection to a Schedule amendment within the prescribed period, that amendment does not bind it. This is not a loophole in the pejorative sense — it is the price of getting whaling nations to join at all in 1946. A treaty that binds absolutely is a treaty that whaling states simply do not sign.
The result is that the ICRW is a rare and instructive case in international law: an instrument whose purpose was reversed by its own membership, using procedures written by the people it was reversed against.
The moratorium, and the three ways out of it
Membership grew through the 1970s and 1980s, and much of the growth came from states with no whaling industry and a conservation constituency at home. In 1982, with the required three-quarters majority, the Commission decided there should be a pause in commercial whaling on all whale species and populations from the 1985/86 season onwards. That is the commercial whaling moratorium. It remains in force today.
It is not, however, universal, and the exceptions are the examination material.
Norway lodged a formal objection when the moratorium was introduced and is therefore not bound by it. It takes North Atlantic common minke whales within its own Exclusive Economic Zone and sets its own catch limits.
Iceland took a different route. It left the IWC in 1992 and rejoined in 2002 with a reservation to the moratorium. It has taken North Atlantic common minke whales and also North Atlantic fin whales, again within its EEZ.
The Russian Federation also registered an objection at the time but does not exercise it. On every other member the moratorium is binding.
Japan chose a fourth path: it left the IWC in 2019 and began commercial whaling in its own waters the same year. Having withdrawn, it is no longer bound by the moratorium at all, though it still reports its catches to the Commission.
Before that withdrawal, Japan had operated under Article VIII of the Convention, which permits a Contracting Government to issue special permits authorising the killing of whales for purposes of scientific research. The extent to which Japan's programmes were genuinely scientific was litigated at the International Court of Justice in Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan, New Zealand intervening), decided on 31 March 2014. The Court held that the programme then running in the Southern Ocean was not "for purposes of scientific research" within the meaning of Article VIII and ordered Japan to revoke the permits. The judgment is a standard citation in international environmental law, and it is worth knowing that the Court did not rule scientific whaling unlawful in principle — it ruled that that programme did not qualify.
There is one further irony. The Commission's Scientific Committee spent eight years building a Revised Management Procedure (RMP), a conservative statistical method for setting sustainable catch limits for baleen whales, and adopted it in 1994. Because the moratorium remains in place, the RMP has never been used to set a commercial catch limit. It is regarded as a landmark in scientific management advice for living resources, and it sits unused.
The sanctuaries, and a small island state
Two sanctuaries are in force, and the first of them is an Indian Ocean story.
The Indian Ocean Sanctuary was declared in 1979, proposed by the Seychelles at its first meeting as an IWC member. It covers the whole of the Indian Ocean south to 55°S, bounded by 20°E off Africa and 130°E off Australia. A country with a population then under 70,000 walked into its first meeting and proposed closing an entire ocean to commercial whaling, and carried it — a useful corrective to the assumption that influence in international bodies tracks size. It is the same instinct visible when India and Seychelles sit down over tuna and a small island state negotiates over a 19.7 million tonne fishery.
The Southern Ocean Sanctuary followed in 1994, with 23 countries supporting it. It covers roughly 50 million square kilometres around Antarctica. Its northern boundary runs along 40°S, except in the Indian Ocean sector where it meets the Indian Ocean Sanctuary at 55°S, and around South America and into the South Pacific where it sits at 60°S.
India, therefore, is not merely a participant in the whaling regime. Its entire maritime neighbourhood has been a whale sanctuary for longer than most Indians have been alive.
India's position, and India's whales
India adhered to the Convention on 9 March 1981 and is one of 89 Contracting Governments. Its opening statement at Hobart stressed improved scientific information on population status, distribution, movements and breeding ecology; collaboration among range countries, scientific institutions and international organisations; and cooperation among governments, researchers and local communities on locally appropriate measures.
That is diplomatic language, and it is also a fairly precise description of what the Arabian Sea humpback actually needs. A population of 82 animals confined to one sea cannot be managed by a catch limit, because nobody is hunting it. It is threatened by entanglement in fishing gear, ship strikes, underwater noise and habitat degradation — every one of which is a problem of information and coordination rather than of prohibition — closer in kind to the problems the BBNJ treaty was written for than to anything in the 1946 text. This is the second reinvention of the IWC: having stopped being a body that allocates catches, it has become a body that works on bycatch, entanglement response and vessel strikes.
Domestically, cetaceans occurring in Indian waters receive the highest level of legal protection under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and several Marine Protected Areas have been notified covering whales, dolphins, dugongs, sharks, rays, turtles and corals. The Arabian Sea humpback is among the species identified for focused recovery effort — the Ministry's statement places it among 25 such species.
Project Dolphin, announced from the Red Fort on 15 August 2020 and steered by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change with operational linkages to the National Mission for Clean Ganga, covers both river and marine cetaceans — dolphins, whales and porpoises, and their associated ecosystems. That scope is frequently misremembered. Project Dolphin is not only about the Gangetic river dolphin, even though the Gangetic dolphin is India's National Aquatic Animal and supplies the project's name and most of its publicity.
If you want a single sentence to hold the whole subject: the species India is most anxious about at the IWC is one that no whaling fleet ever took in commercial quantity, threatened by nets and propellers rather than harpoons, in an ocean that has been a sanctuary since 1979. The Commission's agenda has moved exactly that far from what it was created to do.
🔑 Revision block
- IWC-70: Hobart, Australia, 28 September to 2 October 2026. India delivered its opening statement on 28 September.
- ICRW signed at Washington DC on 2 December 1946 — hence the 80th year in 2026. The USA is the depositary state.
- 89 Contracting Governments. India adhered on 9 March 1981.
- Operative rules sit in the Schedule, amendable by a three-quarters majority. A member lodging a timely objection is not bound.
- Moratorium: decided 1982, effective from the 1985/86 season, still in force.
- Norway — objection; Iceland — left 1992, rejoined 2002 with a reservation; Russia — objection not exercised; Japan — left the IWC in 2019 and whales commercially.
- Article VIII permits special permit (scientific) whaling. ICJ, Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan), 31 March 2014 — the Southern Ocean programme was held not to be "for purposes of scientific research".
- Revised Management Procedure adopted 1994, never used to set a commercial catch limit.
- Indian Ocean Sanctuary, 1979, proposed by Seychelles, south to 55°S, between 20°E and 130°E.
- Southern Ocean Sanctuary, 1994, about 50 million km², northern boundary generally 40°S.
- Arabian Sea humpback whale: about 82 animals (95% CI 60-111), IUCN Endangered, isolated roughly 70,000 years, the only non-migratory humpback population.
- Cetaceans in Indian waters: highest protection under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Project Dolphin announced 15 August 2020, covers river and marine cetaceans. Gangetic dolphin is the National Aquatic Animal.
🎯 Practice MCQs
Q1. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed at: (a) Reykjavik in 1948 (b) Washington DC in 1946 (c) Geneva in 1931 (d) London in 1937
→ (b) Signed at Washington DC on 2 December 1946, which makes 2026 its eightieth year. The United States is the depositary state, so accession is notified to the US State Department.
Q2. The commercial whaling moratorium adopted by the IWC: (a) Was adopted in 1979 and took effect immediately (b) Was adopted in 1986 and lapsed in 1994 (c) Applies to all member states without exception (d) Was decided in 1982 and took effect from the 1985/86 season
→ (d) Decided in 1982, effective from the 1985/86 season, and still in force. It does not bind Norway, which lodged an objection, or Iceland, which rejoined in 2002 with a reservation.
Q3. Norway continues to take minke whales commercially because it: (a) Lodged a formal objection to the moratorium amendment (b) Withdrew from the IWC in 1992 (c) Operates under an Article VIII special permit (d) Is exempt as an aboriginal subsistence whaling nation
→ (a) Norway's basis is an objection lodged when the moratorium was introduced, which under the Convention means the amendment does not bind it. Iceland's basis is different — a reservation entered on rejoining in 2002.
Q4. Article VIII of the ICRW relates to: (a) The establishment of whale sanctuaries (b) Aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas (c) Special permits for taking whales for scientific research (d) The procedure for amending the Schedule
→ (c) Article VIII allows a Contracting Government to issue special permits for scientific research. It was the basis of Japan's programmes before its withdrawal, and the provision the ICJ interpreted in 2014.
Q5. In Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan, 2014), the International Court of Justice held that: (a) All scientific whaling is contrary to the Convention (b) The IWC lacks competence to declare sanctuaries (c) Japan's withdrawal from the Convention was invalid (d) Japan's Southern Ocean programme was not "for purposes of scientific research"
→ (d) The Court did not hold scientific whaling unlawful in principle. It held that the particular programme failed to meet the Article VIII standard, and ordered the permits revoked. The distinction is routinely tested.
Q6. The Indian Ocean Sanctuary was declared in 1979 on a proposal by: (a) India (b) Seychelles (c) Australia (d) Kenya
→ (b) The proposal came from Seychelles, at its first meeting as an IWC member. The sanctuary covers the Indian Ocean south to 55°S, between 20°E and 130°E.
Q7. The Arabian Sea humpback whale population is distinctive chiefly because it: (a) Does not migrate, and has been genetically isolated for roughly 70,000 years (b) Is the largest humpback population in the Indian Ocean (c) Migrates between the Arabian Sea and the Southern Ocean each year (d) Was reclassified from Endangered to Vulnerable in 2024
→ (a) It is the only known non-migratory humpback population, isolated for about 70,000 years, estimated at roughly 82 animals and listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List.
Q8. Under Indian law, whales and dolphins occurring in Indian waters are: (a) Protected only within notified Marine Protected Areas (b) Regulated under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (c) Given the highest level of protection under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (d) Protected under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
→ (c) Cetaceans receive the highest level of protection under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Marine Protected Areas add spatial protection, but the species-level protection comes from the 1972 Act.
Q9. Project Dolphin, announced in 2020, covers: (a) The Gangetic river dolphin alone (b) River and marine cetaceans, including dolphins, whales and porpoises (c) All aquatic mammals including the dugong but excluding whales (d) Only species listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN
→ (b) Despite its name, Project Dolphin covers both river and marine cetaceans and their associated ecosystems. The Gangetic dolphin is India's National Aquatic Animal and supplies the project's name.
Q10. The Revised Management Procedure adopted by the IWC in 1994: (a) Replaced the 1982 moratorium with species-specific quotas (b) Governs aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas (c) Created the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (d) Has never been used to set a commercial whaling catch limit
→ (d) The RMP is a scientifically conservative method for calculating sustainable catch limits for baleen whales. Because the moratorium remains in force, it has never actually been applied to set a commercial limit.
📋 How this gets asked (PYQ pattern)
International environmental conventions are among the most reliably examined topics in CDS general knowledge, and they are examined in a consistent shape.
The commonest form is convention-to-subject matching: Ramsar for wetlands, CITES for trade in species, CMS for migratory species, CBD for biological diversity, ICRW for whaling. Candidates who have learnt these as a list get them right; candidates who have learnt them as prose confuse CMS and CITES almost every time.
The second form is year and place. 1946 Washington DC for the ICRW, 1971 Ramsar, 1973 Washington for CITES, 1979 Bonn for CMS, 1992 Rio for the CBD. Where a convention's anniversary falls in the examination year — as the ICRW's eightieth does in 2026 — the probability of a question rises sharply.
The third is the India-specific hook. Examiners rarely ask about an international body without attaching an Indian fact to it: the year India joined, the Indian species concerned, the domestic statute that gives effect to it. For the IWC that means 1981, the Arabian Sea humpback, and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
A fourth pattern deserves attention because it separates good candidates from very good ones: questions about how a treaty works, not what it says. Objection and reservation, Schedule amendment by three-quarters majority, the difference between withdrawing from a treaty and opting out of one amendment — these test whether you understand the machinery. The IWC is the cleanest available illustration of all of them, which is precisely why it appears.
Preparing for CDS/OTA? Treat every convention as four facts — year, place, subject, and India's date of joining — and add the one domestic statute that implements it. That grid answers most of what gets asked. Build the base with our CDS/OTA study material, follow the daily CDS current affairs, and prepare with our faculty in the upcoming Cavalier courses in Delhi.
✍️ Written by The Cavalier — Science and environment desk at The Cavalier. Reviewed by the Cavalier Faculty Desk.