A court in Greenland is expected to conduct another hearing on Wednesday on whether the Canadian-American environmental activist Paul Watson, who was arrested in Nuuk in July on an international warrant issued by Japan in 2010 over anti-whaling activities, should continue to be held in custody with a view to extradition to Japan.

Over decades, Watson’s anti-whaling campaigns have targeted Japan, Iceland, Norway and Denmark through the Faroe Islands.

Watson’s conflict with Japan over whaling is longstanding; When the Danish police arrested him, he was on a mission to intercept the ‘Kangei Maru’, Japan’s new industrial whaler with a stocking capacity of 800 tons of meat.

To reach that quantity, the whaler would have to kill over 100 minke whales – an estimate based on the assumption that the entire weight of the whale is used for meat, which in practice may not be the case due to various processing factors.

Japan is now requesting extradition of Paul Watson to face its national court of justice over an incident in 2010, when Japan was part of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and using research as an veil to practice large-scale whaling.

Watson allegedly ordered his crew to throw stink bombs at Japan’s ‘Shonan Maru 2’ whaler in the Antarctic. The Japanese government accuses him of obstructing the vessel’s operations and endangering the crew’s safety.

Although this is not Watson’s first run-in with international law, the current situation is particularly precarious because, if extradited to Japan, Watson, 73, could face up to 15 years of prison.

Public concern is high as conditions in Japanese prisons have been described by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as inhumane, and may therefore pose a serious health risk for Watson.

Japan withdrew from the IWC and its whaling commitments in December 2018, allowing it to resume commercial whaling within its own territorial waters.

Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri believe that “Watson’s actions against whaling (…) can be justified because whaling is against international law”.

However, that point remains controversial. The whaling activities of these countries are not outlawed, but many countries and conservation groups argue that they undermine the IWC’s efforts to protect whale populations.

Japan’s whaling history
Watson’s case highlights the conflict between environmental activism and national interests, particularly in countries like Japan where whaling is defended as part of “cultural heritage”.

However, the concept of cultural heritage itself is debated regarding Japan.

Indeed, before World War II, whale meat was not common in the Japanese diet. It was only after the destruction of Japan’s agricultural base during World War II that the country started intense whaling.

Due to severe food shortage in Japan, the U.S. occupation forces encouraged whale hunting as a solution to the protein deficit, which led to a boom in whale meat consumption in Japan during the late 1940s and 1950s.

In 2013, the International Fund for Animal Welfare concluded an in-depth study that found whaling was “an unprofitable business that can survive only with substantial subsidies and one that caters to an increasingly shrinking and ageing market”.

According to the Japan Whaling Association, “the country’s whaling industry is no longer necessary and the government should promote whale watching as a more sustainable activity for coastal communities.”

Lamya Essemlali, Sea Shepherd France President, argues that Japan is out for revenge.

Indeed, Watson played a big part in Japan’s conviction at the International Court of Justice in the Hague in 2014, where it was instructed to cease its whaling activities masquerading as research in the Southern Seas.

Julie Stage, Watson’s lawyer, states the defence has a “video that proves the crew member that Japan says was hurt during Watson’s action was not even present when the stink bomb was thrown”.

“Denmark is in a difficult place”
In an interview from prison on Monday, Watson told AFP that “Denmark is in a very difficult place”.

“They can’t extradite me because first they are vocal proponents of human rights,” he said, and added that the Japanese judicial system was “medieval”.

“I didn’t do anything, and even if I did the sentence would be DKK 1,500 kroner in Denmark – not even a prison sentence – while Japan wants to sentence me to 15 years.”

From his cell in the modern grey prison building overlooking the sea, Watson said he watch as whales and icebergs pass by his window.

“In 1974, my objective was to eradicate whaling, and I hope to do that before I die.”

He insists that he and his co-activists are “not a protest organisation” and rejected the term ‘ecoterrorist’ that is sometimes used against him.

Instead he describes he and his colleagues as “an enforcement organisation” ensuring that the seas are protected, he said.

“I do aggressive non-violence interference,” he said.

“There is no contradiction between aggressive and non-violence – it means that I will try and get the knife from the person trying to kill a whale, but I won’t hurt them.”

“I don’t cross the line, I’ve never hurt anyone.”

A test of principles
This case has not only become a diplomatic issue but also a test of Denmark’s legal principles and international commitments, as Japan does not have a formal extradition treaty with Denmark, complicating the process further.

Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Lars Løkke Rasmussen told Politiken that Denmark has benefitted from the extradition system recently when it was able to extradite from Dubai the British hedge-fund trader Sanjay Shah for trial in Denmark, where he is accused of defrauding the state in a DKK 9.5 billion scam.

Whilst Denmark is weighing its options, various opponents and supporters have taken a spoken out about Watson.

Faroese politician Sjúrður Skaale wrote in the Danish media Jyllands-Posten that Watson should be treated as “a violent man” and remain in custody.

Norwegian journalist Georg Blichfeldt states that “minke whale hunting is the most environmentally friendly and can be compared to Norwegian moose hunting or other countries’ game hunting”.

However a slew of international celebrities and politicians such as Brigitte Bardot, James Cameron and French President Emmanuel Macron openly oppose Watson’s extradition.

The world will be watching closely as Watson faces another hearing on 4 September. He will remain in custody at least until 5 September, when a decision is made, according to AFP.

This tale of poachers and pirates opens a fascinating debate in which Denmark will have to sake a stance.

The decision may have huge implications for the future of international environmental activism and whaling.