The UN's International Court of Justice ruled this weekend that Japan must temporarily stop its whaling program in the Antarctic, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.
The ban was ordered because the practice can't be justified for scientific research purposes. The ban is easily the biggest ruling to protect marine mammals since a 1986 global moratorium on commercial harvests.
"In light of the fact the Jarpa II has been going on since 2005, and has involved the killing of about 3,600 minke whales, the scientific output to date appears limited," said presiding judge Peter Tomka, according to court documents. "Japan shall revoke any existent authorization, permit or license granted in relation to Jarpa II and refrain from granting any further permits in pursuance to the program."
The court of justice said Japan' open-ended program that allows the killing of 1,000 whales a year in the Southern Ocean must end, and it can't be restarted until Japan can prove the hunt is for scientific purposes, according to Bloomberg.
Jarpa II, Japan's current "research" program, "can broadly be characterized as scientific research, though the evidence does not establish that the program's design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives. The Court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not for purposes of scientific research," said the ICJ in court documents.
The ICJ 16-judge panel ruled in favor of Australia, which filed its lawsuit against Japan back in 2010.
In its suit against Japan, Australia said that research was a "ruse" to prevent prohibition against commercial killing.
Under the Jarpa II program, and its predecessor, Jarpa, Australia argued that Japan has slaughtered over 10,000 whales since 1988.
"It was no coincidence that Japan only started to issue special permits authorizing large-scale so-called 'scientific whaling' immediately after the moratorium on whaling for commercial purposes came into effect," Australia said in its complaint.
Japan said it would abide by the ruling even before it was announced.
The decision was met partially because of the fact that there was no evidence Tokyo had ever conducted studies of the feasibility or practicality of alternative non-lethal research methods, according to the ICJ.
See Now: OnePlus 6: How Different Will It Be From OnePlus 5?
