You do know the latest about the whales, right?

Issues of whales, conservation, and the tensions between country and international law are just some of the issues highlighted in the news about Japan withdrawing from the International Whaling Commission ("IWC") and resume commercial whaling. The commission, with 89 member governments, was established in 1946 to conserve whales and manage whaling around the world. It banned commercial whaling in 1986.

So how does that work, and "what are the facts" that clearly accompany the emotion and subjective opinion about that news?
Is it true that Japan is withdrawing from the IWC? Yes. Japan has reportedly stated it's plans to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and resume whaling in its coastal waters. 
Under law, can Japan hunt whales wherever it wants now? No. By withdrawing from the commission, Japan can no longer take advantage of the IWC’s exemption for scientific whaling in international waters and would, therefore, have to halt whaling on the high seas. That’s because the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas requires its signatories, which include Japan, to work through “the appropriate international organizations” for marine mammal conservation. That’s widely interpreted by legal scholars to mean the IWC—even if a country is not party to the IWC. The one benefit Japan gets by withdrawing is it could likely resume whaling in its own backyard without oversight. This would theoretically be beneficial for whales in Antarctica—where Japan killed upwards of 300 in 2016, including more than 200 pregnant females. But the ban would not be so beneficial for species of whale that move in to Japanese territorial waters, even though consumption in Japan has been described as "limited".
Set out below are just a few of the websites dealing with this development. You'll notice that government representatives, like those from England and Australia for example, are reportedly "disappointed" in Japan's recent decision, but a Minister's/government's "disappointment" without some level of action to back up the talk, holds little weight in the field of global conservation where international behaviors are largely the result of international "persuasion and agreement". (
Have a look at the source page of this news. Additional sites for your reference include: