Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to analyze the disputes concerning the 1982 moratorium on commercial whaling and the standing rights of other natural objects. Basically, the debates has arisen from the very nature of whales and other natural resources, that is to say, a mixed good of consumptive and non-use value. The debates between pro- and anti-moratorium states regarding whaling may not find out a peaceful solution without compromise or negotiation since any international institution for official settlements does not exist. If the pro-states could provide anti-states with a certain type of economic incentive which is side payments, anti-states might offer self-restraint not to whale. Here, it would be considered to apply Kaldor-Hicks compensation principles to this problem. Since 1965, some countries such as the United States and Japan began to recognize the standing right of natural objects. Even though rejected, the newt case in Korea was brought to the Supreme Court. If a standard of living increases significantly to a higher level(i.e. more than per capita income US$30,000), there would be a tendency of valuing natural objects and their beauty more and more highly.
