WDA’s Use Of Force Policy
Whale Defense Agency Implements New Use of Force Policy
The Whale Defense Agency (WDA) has always been a leader in non-violent direct-action advocacy in the fight to protect whales from illegal whaling. Our innovative approaches, including advanced technology and strategic interventions, have been instrumental in safeguarding marine life. However, as whaling fleets adopt more aggressive tactics, the safety of our crew and vessels has been increasingly jeopardized. In response, the WDA has implemented a new Use of Force Policy to ensure the protection of our mission and personnel under escalating threats.
While the WDA does not intend for the use of force to be directed at whaling crews, it is crucial to acknowledge the severity of the threats posed by these operations.
Aggressive actions such as ramming, threatening the safety of WDA personnel with weapons (with documented evidence indicating a willingness to use force), blinding crews with searchlights, and deploying hazardous obstacles like trailing steel cables create severe navigation risks. These actions endanger lives at sea and pose a direct threat to the safety of WDA vessels and personnel. Given the potential for rapid escalation in such encounters, the WDA has adopted a policy of proportional and lawful defensive measures to ensure the safety of its crew and operations.
The WDA remains committed to a measured, non-violent approach whenever possible, prioritizing de-escalation and conflict avoidance. However, when serious threats arise, defensive actions may be taken to prevent harm. All responses will comply with international maritime law, ensuring that any actions are conducted within the legal framework governing self-defense and maritime security.
In extreme situations where a vessel presents a direct and imminent threat—such as pointing firearms at WDA agents, intentionally obstructing navigation, or engaging in dangerous maneuvers—the WDA’s Maritime Security Forces (MSF) may employ defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. This could include disabling a vessel’s radar or communications to prevent further hostile actions. These actions are strictly defensive in nature and are aimed at safeguarding WDA personnel, preventing further escalation, and maintaining the integrity of our mission.
The use of defensive force will always be proportionate to the threat level. Actions such as the deliberate obstruction of WDA vessels through hazardous navigation tactics or visual impairment tactics (e.g., high-powered searchlights affecting safe navigation) may warrant defensive countermeasures. These measures are intended to prevent further threats and deter reckless aggression at sea.
The WDA does not seek conflict but will respond lawfully and decisively when necessary to ensure the safety of its personnel and vessels. Any future threats or attacks on WDA ships will be met with a robust and legally justified response. The precedent of past incidents, such as the sinking of the Ady Gil by the Shonan Maru #2, serves as a reminder of the dangers posed by aggressive whaling operations. The WDA remains dedicated to upholding international law and ensuring that similar incidents do not occur in the future.
Commercial whaling has been deemed illegal under international law, with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling against such activities. Whaling operations, particularly those conducted in defiance of international legal decisions, operate in a legally tenuous position. Defensive actions taken to safeguard WDA personnel and prevent illegal whaling activities fall within the bounds of international law.
The WDA’s defensive posture is not an act of aggression but a necessary step in protecting marine conservation efforts from unlawful interference. This policy underscores our unwavering commitment to safeguarding both marine life and the individuals dedicated to protecting it.
Hostile Intent at Sea: How WDA PMSC's Can Legally Respond to Whaling Pirates
The WDA’s policy on the use of force is based on the legal precedents set by the whalers themselves, in addition to existing legal frameworks on anti-piracy, notably the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling that labeled Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) as pirates for their non-violent actions sets a precedent for WDA to defend itself from the whalers steel cable fouling and other threats. This ruling inadvertently provided a framework that justifies defensive measures against aggressive whaling tactics. If whalers engage in hostile acts like ramming or using steel cables to disable WDA vessels, these actions qualify as piracy under the same standards they helped establish, thereby authorizing WDA to respond defensively using it’s own MSF’s on board.
Unlike SSCS, the WDA does not employ the same tactic, such as ramming or attempting to disable whaling vessels physically in the same way. Instead we pioneer a new way of undersea disruption that is harder to document in the first place, meaning there is no evidence able to be obtained from specific WDA actions by design. Instead, WDA focuses on covert operations, using unmanned underwater platforms and other advanced technologies to avoid legal entanglements of the past. By not mirroring the tactics that led to SSCS’s piracy designation, WDA operates within a legal framework that ensures its actions are defensible under international law.
The actions of whalers — such as ramming vessels, deploying steel cables to foul propellers, or using blinding lights — are aggressive and dangerous, even if conducted in the past by anti-whaling activists such as SSCS. The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling against Sea Shepherd set a precedent that such actions can be deemed piracy. By their own legal standards, whalers engaging in these tactics against WDA vessels are committing acts of piracy, thereby legitimizing WDA’s right to defend itself using appropriate lethal and non-lethal force. This decision by the court supports WDA’s actions in self-defense against foreign threats in international waters who aim to engage our platforms at sea with aggressive and often hostile intent, with no way to truly identify what their intentions are upon approaching WDA assets.
The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling has significant implications for whalers that we are only just now wanting to reveal publicly. By successfully arguing that SSCS’s actions constituted piracy, they set a precedent that their own aggressive tactics could be legally categorized the same way. This means any hostile action they take against WDA could be met with defensive force, as their legal strategy has now backfired, providing WDA with a strong legal foundation to protect its mission.
WDA is committed to defending its vessels and crew from aggression. If a whaling vessel approaches in a threatening manner, WDA will issue warnings. Should the aggression persist, WDA is authorized to use both lethal and non-lethal force to neutralize the threat, in accordance with its anti-piracy measures and international law. This ensures that WDA’s response is both proportionate and legally justified.
