Do you fault a country’s coast guards (South Korea and Argentina) when they fire on or sink Chinese fishing vessels violating their sovereign waters to pillage their natural resources?

If so, that’s unfortunate, as violence is sometimes necessary against a bully. If not, what’s the difference?

Disclaimer: I am pro “use of force” when all other options are exhausted.

> Do you fault country’s coast guards

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].

> Violence is sometimes necessary

Per the article, Japan reduced its Southern Ocean whaling in response to the International Court of Justice, not the Sea Shepherd.

Protesting in an international forum is fundamentally different from protesting domestically. There is no coërcive third party to enforce the rules. You have to convince the people you're protesting to want to change. Contrast the culture at the UN to e.g. a regulatory agency.

Most Japanese don't eat whale [2]. Whaling has become a symbol of national sovereignty and pride. Foreign vessels ramming your ships stokes national pride. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society may have eliminated a diplomatic solution to whaling for a generation or two.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Soci...

[2] https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1201/Almost-nobody-in...

>> Do you fault country’s coast guards

> The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].

Private entities are allowed to enforce the law in international waters, actually.

On your own ship, and depending on jurisdiction (based on flag flown and the UNCLOS) [1]. Nobody allows running out to find a ship doing things one doesn’t like and then ramming or blocking its path.

In any case, what law are the Japanese vessels breaking? They amended their quotas to comply with the ICJ ruling [2].

Ramming things makes for good TV. It is emotionally satisfying. Practically, however, it is ineffective or even detrimental towards the goal of saving whales. (It is very effective at maintaining certain peoples’ livelihoods and drumming up nationalistic support for whaling in Japan.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law

[2] the article

I stand by my assertion regarding the use of force, just as poachers of endangered animals should be shot on sight (with proper signage around the kill box of course; “This preserve is off limits to humans without prior approval. The use of lethal force at all times is authorized”).

Diplomacy is apathy by committee. If governments do not act, private citizens must. We only get one Earth.

Are private citizens allowed to shoot poachers on sight?

In most countries, the right of private citizens to enforce the law themselves is very narrow. This is not because we do not respect the law, but because allowing private people to play cops and robbers can easily become a situation where it’s hard to tell who is what.

> They're sometimes violent. "Mr. Watson and his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have rammed, sabotaged, shot water canons at and thrown stink bombs on whalers and commercial fishing vessels"

Lets see:

1) Ramming (non-physical person to person)

2) Sabotaging (vague; the rest are all examples of sabotage. I can't take this vague term serious)

3) Shooting water cannons (again, non-physical person to person)

4) Stink bombs (apparently this is violence in 2017; laughable)

You define all of this as violence? You know what I call violence? Killing whales. Using grenades. Using napalm/agent orange on trees, innocent civilians, friendlies and enemies alike, using depleted uranium, cluster bombs, the usage and sale of (semi) automatic weapons. All of this crap causes way more deaths than anything you summed up. Nothing even close to what in this example the US government resorted to in the previous and current century ever since WWII (I'm just using the US as an example since its an easy one I know a wee bit about; there are other ones as well of course). Never mind the term terrorism which is without base (the above is not terrorism as per the definition of Alex P. Schmid), flat out character assassination / the pot calling the kettle black (fallacy). Violence is a very relative term, indeed what Sea Shepherd have resorted to is at the very worst 'modest violence'. There's a better, less loaded term for their behavior which also covers their intentions: activism.

> There is an odd symbiosis between the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism and the Japanese government's protests. Peacefully tailing and documenting would be more effective in the long run. But de-esclating would piss off the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's donors. In the meantime, Japan uses the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism to distract from its own activities.

That's a theory, and a theory you can have about any proactive activism vs pacifist protests. Even in WWII, resistance fighters had different methods. Some more proactive, some more pacifist. At the very least, being pacifist won't save any injustice on the short term.

> The ICJ's jurisdiction is complicated, e.g. "compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision [2]. (Japan has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction over this issue [3].)

If you can avoid a jurisprudence because you don't wish to respect the court in the first place I call that a loophole within the law. Would be something, if I as civilian of The Netherlands can decide to flat our ignore jurisprudence from the courts of The Netherlands because I don't like the subject or the outcome.

Furthermore, they have the law on their side because Japan isn't using these whales for scientific purposes AFAICT. It doesn't seem Japan has to defend that case which is another loophole.

> In any case, the Sea Shepherd regularly breaks suites of international maritime laws. Advocating for the limited application of the law is advocating for no law.

Action -> Reaction, and Predator vs Prey. Like with bullying, if you bully (or troll) someone, and that victim ends up eventually biting you back, then you got only yourself to blame. The way I see it, Sea Shepherd is protecting the weak, the victim, the pray (literally).