## Facts

- The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) created the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which sets catch limits through an amendable Schedule.
- The ICRW permits a member nation to file a timely objection to a Schedule amendment; a nation that objects is exempt from complying with that amendment’s limits.
- Congress enacted the Pelly Amendment, directing the Secretary of Commerce to certify foreign nationals whose fishing activities “diminish the effectiveness” of an international conservation program; sanctions following certification are discretionary with the President.
- Congress later enacted the Packwood Amendment, which ties specified economic sanctions to certification when the Secretary certifies that a nation diminishes the effectiveness of the ICRW.
- The IWC adopted a zero quota for certain sperm whales and a five-year moratorium on commercial whaling beginning in 1985; Japan filed timely objections and therefore was not bound by those limits under the ICRW.
- In 1984, the United States and Japan entered an executive agreement: Japan pledged interim harvest limits and to end commercial whaling by 1988; the Secretary agreed the United States would not certify Japan under Pelly or Packwood if Japan complied.
- Conservation organizations sued seeking mandamus to compel the Secretary to certify Japan, arguing that whaling above IWC quotas necessarily diminishes the effectiveness of the ICRW.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the conservation groups, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed, treating certification as mandatory on the facts found.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenge to the Secretary’s non-certification decision presents a nonjusticiable political question because it implicates foreign relations and an executive agreement.
2. Whether the Pelly and Packwood Amendments require the Secretary to certify a nation whenever its whaling exceeds IWC-adopted quotas, including when the nation has objected under ICRW procedures.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the case was justiciable and not barred by the political question doctrine.
- The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court held the Secretary was not under a clear statutory duty to certify Japan; the statutes left discretion in applying the “diminish the effectiveness” standard.
- The Secretary’s decision not to certify Japan, in light of the ICRW objection procedure and the executive agreement, was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may construe treaties, executive agreements, and federal statutes even when the dispute bears on foreign affairs; statutory interpretation ordinarily is a judicial function.
- The phrase “diminish the effectiveness” in the Pelly/Packwood framework is not an automatic trigger requiring certification upon any quota exceedance; it is a standard committed to the Secretary’s judgment.
- The Packwood Amendment makes sanctions mandatory only after certification occurs; it does not, by itself, make certification mandatory in all asserted violation scenarios.
- Where an international regime includes an objection procedure that exempts an objecting nation from new limits, the Secretary may consider that structure in deciding whether conduct diminishes the effectiveness of the international program for purposes of certification.
- Mandamus is unavailable absent a clear, nondiscretionary statutory command.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that the dispute required ordinary judicial interpretation rather than abstention, but it rejected the view that the whaling statutes compelled certification whenever Japan exceeded IWC quotas; instead, the Secretary retained discretion to determine whether Japan’s conduct diminished the effectiveness of the ICRW and could lawfully decline to certify.


Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221 (1986)