By Elsa Cabrera (CCC) and Juan Carlos Cárdenas (Ecoceanos)

The escalating diplomatic pressure from Japan on Denmark, to extradite the North American-Canadian activist Paul Watson, brings to light a myriad of critical questions regarding the ramifications this decision may have on the credibility of the Danish legal system on the global stage.

Watson was detained in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland—an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark—on July 21, 2024. His vessel, the John DeJoria, had docked to refuel prior to continuing its voyage into the north Pacific. The mission’s was to intercept the Japanese whaling fleet, which, in blatant disregard for international legal frameworks, is slaughtering fin whales[1], despite the species being protected under the global moratorium on commercial whaling adopted by the International Whaling Commission[2].

While Denmark’s judicial system is acclaimed as one of the most efficient and transparent worldwide, because of its resolute commitment to human rights, the detention and potential extradition of Paul Watson to Japan pose a significant threat to its previously untarnished international reputation.

This concern arises from the stark contrast between Denmark and Japan in terms of judicial integrity. Japan’s judicial framework is marred by considerable deficiencies that appear to be reflected in Danish practices, increasingly influenced by the pressures emanating from the hallowed halls of Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen—the official seat of the Parliament (Folketing), the Supreme Court, and the office of Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

In 2023, Human Rights Watch released a harsh report titled “Japan’s ‘Hostage Justice’ System: Denial of Bail, Coerced Confessions, and Lack of Access to Legal Counsel.” The report asserts that the “criminal justice system (in Japan) operates under laws, procedures, and practices that systematically violate the rights of accused individuals.” Furthermore, the issues are so deeply entrenched and pervasive that domestic critics have aptly coined it the “hostage justice system,” as suspects often find themselves detained prior to trial for unreasonably prolonged and arbitrary periods—sometimes enduring several months or over a year—merely to obtain confessions. A term has even arisen to describe the false accusations that convert innocent individuals into victims within this flawed judicial framework: enzai[3].

Now, more than 100 days after his detention, it seems that the Danish judicial system is disturbingly applying the principles of enzai to Watson’s case. Since August, the court in Greenland handling the matter has extended his pretrial detention on four separate occasions, while the presiding judge has resolutely refused to review the video evidence submitted by Watson’s legal team, which conclusively invalidates the Japanese government’s allegations. Tokyo accuses Watson of injuring a member of its crew in 2010 with an unpleasantly odorous device to disrupt Japan’s unlawful whaling operations in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary. Emulating the Japanese legal system, Watson has been held in pretrial detention for an unreasonably long time under increasingly stringent conditions. His access to essential medications critical for his health has been severely restricted; he is forbidden from making daily phone calls, and communication with family is harshly limited to a mere ten minutes each week.

Succumbing to Japan’s mounting pressure to extradite Watson would not merely represent another legal decision for Denmark; it would signify a profound erosion of the country’s commitment to human rights and equity—a foundation upon which its judicial reputation has been firmly established on the international stage.

Extraditing a 73-year-old activist who has courageously fought for decades against the menace of illegal whaling would be perceived as a disgraceful capitulation to a nation with a questionable judicial history—one which, in fact, was condemned by the International Court of Justice in 2014 for orchestrating the largest illegal whaling operation in history, violating the global moratorium on commercial whaling and undermining the integrity of the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary.

Prioritizing diplomatic relations with a country whose legal practices and commitment to international environmental law are deeply questionable, at the expense of ethical considerations related to human rights, would echo the dark and twisted narratives typical of Nordic noir—those infamous Scandinavian crime stories known for their unsettling plots. Such a shift in policy would not only trigger a significant reassessment of Denmark’s standing within the international community but also raise legitimate and serious concerns about the country’s path regarding human rights, especially for advocates dedicated to the conservation of our planet’s biodiversity.

[1] Additionally, the Japanese government did not adhere to the methodology endorsed by the Scientific Committee and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) for establishing catch quotas. While the IWC adopted a Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) of 0.72 for generating precautionary quotas, Japan calculated its quotas with an adjustment level of 0.6, exceeding the permissible limits set forth by IWC regulations and jeopardizing the conservation of the affected whale population.

[2] In 1982, the International Whaling Commission adopted a global moratorium on commercial whales on all species of large cetaceans in a bid to avoid the extinction of most of these species due to the negative impacts of industrial whaling.

[3] Within the context of the Japanese legal system, “エンザイ” (enzai) refers to “冤罪” (also pronounced “enzai”), meaning “wrongful imprisonment” or “false accusation.” This term describes a scenario in which an individual is judged or wrongfully condemned for a crime they did not commit.