In what is being lauded as a ''landmark'' decision, the International Court of Justice in The Hague has ruled Japan's controversial whaling programme in the Southern Ocean was illegal, and ordered it to stop its operations in the Antarctic immediately.
The court is the United Nation's principal judicial branch, effectively the world's top court.
In its judgement (whose seven findings were predominantly passed by 12 votes to 4) it ruled Japan's whaling activities were not for the purposes of scientific research, and therefore ''not in accordance with three provisions of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling'', to which Japan is a signatory.
Article 8 of the convention allows permits to be granted to ''kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research'' subject to restrictions and conditions and ''notwithstanding anything contained in this convention''.
Australia filed its case with the court in May 2010, alleging Japan was in breach of international obligations under the convention.
New Zealand filed a Declaration of Intervention in 2012, and became an ''intervening state'' making its own submissions.
The three-week hearing, at which New Zealand Attorney-general Chris Finlayson gave evidence, was held in the middle of last year.
The case was based around the ''interpretation'' of Article 8 and its relation to other obligations under the convention.
It was complicated by the fact, as noted by the court, the term ''scientific research'' was not defined in the convention.
While the court's ruling was anticipated, its decision to uphold Australia's case has taken many by surprise.
The Labor and Green parties in Australia have applauded the ruling, saying it vindicates the decision to take the case to the court.
The Liberal-National Coalition Government welcomed the win, although Prime Minister Tony Abbott is being circumspect ahead of a visit to Japan.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare, Greenpeace, anti-whaling activist group Sea Shepherd and New Zealand environmental campaigner and former Sea Shepherd activist Pete Bethune (who was detained by Japanese authorities for five months in 2010 after boarding a whaling ship) are thrilled by the decision, with Mr Bethune saying ''today will go down in history as a great day for whales, for conservation and for justice''.
Prime Minister John Key said the ruling was ''more comprehensive than probably even we had hoped it would be'' and Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully welcomed the decision, but warned Japan could still try to side-step it.
Japan, which had contested the jurisdiction of the court over the dispute (in its ruling, the court unanimously found it had such jurisdiction), and the interpretation and application of Article 8 of the convention which allowed for ''scientific research'', said it was ''deeply disappointed'' by the decision.
However, it has said it will abide by the ruling, and has no plans to withdraw as a member of the International Whaling Commission.
The ICJ's ruling is final and there can be no appeal, but many questions remain.
How long will it take for Japan to examine the judgement and cease Southern Ocean whaling?
Are there loopholes in the ruling that could be exploited?
Given the convention still allows for ''scientific'' whaling, could Japan try and put together another programme?
Given the ruling only relates to the Southern Ocean, will it simply continue or intensify its harpooning elsewhere?
Although it has said it won't, will it decide to quit the International Whaling Commission, and therefore its obligations under the convention?
Will other countries do the same in support?
Could our existing trade deals and future negotiations be jeopardised by our involvement?
And what about Japan's equally controversial dolphin culling practices?
Time will tell whether the numerous fears are allayed, and whether the ruling can be seen as a ''whale of a win'' or a mere ''splash'' in the pan for whaling, conservation, and environmental accountability.
