INTERPOL and the Watson Case: An Ongoing Story of Contested Justice
- helenhall5
- May 2
- 5 min read
Laurence Teillet, Hourly Paid Lecturer and PhD candidate at NLS https://www.ntu.ac.uk/staff-profiles/law/laurence-teillet
This is a decade-long legal and environmental saga which is far from over. Captain Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd, became known worldwide for his bold, direct-action tactics to defend marine life – especially in his fight against Japan’s illegal whaling operations.
His confrontations with Japan began in 2005, when Sea Shepherd launched its first campaign against the JARPA II program. There has been an international moratorium on commercial whaling since 1982, but Japan claimed the JARPA II program was intended to conduct scientific research on whales in the seas around Japan.
Between 2005 and 2017, Captain Watson led 12 high-profile missions to the Southern Ocean, using aggressive but non-lethal tactics – such as throwing foul-smelling substances at the ships and attempting to disable ship propellers – to disrupt whaling operations.
The 2012 INTERPOL Red Notice and Watson’s Arrest
In 2012, Japan requested a red notice from the International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL) – essentially a global wanted alert – for charges including property damage, obstruction of business, and causing injury. Although a red notice is not an international arrest warrant, it can be used to request detention and extradition across INTERPOL’s 196 member states.
Watson was arrested in Germany later that year based on the notice. He absconded without posting bail, fled the country, and disappeared from public view for a time. In March 2013, his legal team petitioned INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF), an independent oversight body, to have the notice withdrawn. The effort was unsuccessful.
The Disappearance of the Red Notice and Re-arrest
Then, at the end of 2023, the red notice quietly disappeared from INTERPOL’s public website. Believing he was no longer a wanted individual, Watson rejoined his crew and launched a new campaign – Operation Kangei Maru – targeting Japan’s newly built whaling vessel, the Kangei Maru. In reality however, the red notice remained active; it had simply been made confidential without Watson’s knowledge.
INTERPOL red notices can be rendered confidential under specific circumstances. While many are publicly listed, others are issued privately and remain accessible only to law enforcement agencies within member states. This confidentiality is generally applied where public disclosure might compromise ongoing investigations, jeopardise individual safety, or involve particularly sensitive information.
But in Nuuk, Greenland, he was arrested again – this time by Danish police – based on the still-active, though now confidential, red notice.
Watson spent 5 months in detention in Nuuk while Danish authorities reviewed Japan’s extradition request (for a more in-depth look at the extradition proceedings, please see my earlier blog post in the further reading). In December 2024, Denmark’s Ministry of Justice ultimately refused the extradition. Watson then travelled to France, where he currently resides.
What seemed like the end of this legal saga, was just, as it turned out, another chapter. In 2024, his legal team filed a new request to have the red notice permanently removed – and the case continues to develop.
On 8 April 2025, the Captain Paul Watson Foundation and Sea Shepherd France issued a joint press release: INTERPOL’s red notice against Watson has been officially suspended pending a final ruling by the CCF, expected in June.
What is the CCF?
The CCF is an independent oversight body within INTERPOL. Its role is to ensure that all personal data processed through INTERPOL’s systems complies with the organisation’s rules. Importantly, the CCF has the exclusive authority to review, correct, or delete data from the INTERPOL Information System – including red notices. Its decisions are final and binding.
Watson’s legal team has argued that the red notice violates INTERPOL’s own Constitution, specifically Article 3, which prohibits the organisation from engaging in any matter of a political nature. They claim Japan’s request is politically motivated and therefore not in line with INTERPOL’s mandate.
Critics argue that the charges against Paul Watson result from his long-standing anti-whaling activism, which directly confronts Japan’s controversial whaling practices. They describe the red notice as disproportionate and heavily reliant on information provided by Japanese authorities – raising concerns about impartiality and due process.
Supporters of Captain Watson believe the charges are politically motivated, intended not to address actual criminal conduct but to silence a prominent environmental advocate. Given Watson’s global profile in the conservation movement, his targeting could be seen as a warning to others campaigning against Japan’s whaling activities.
Compounding these concerns is the timing of recent events. The red notice was made confidential around the same time Japan’s new whaling ship, the Kangei Maru, was launched. Watson, believing the notice had been lifted, resumed public campaigning and was subsequently arrested. This sequence of events has led to accusations that the decision to make the notice confidential was strategic – designed to create a false sense of security and entrap him – highlighting claims of political motivation behind the case.
What Comes Next?
Now that the CCF has suspended the red notice, its impact is immediate: none of INTERPOL’s 196 member states or affiliated organisations can access or act on it until the CCF issues its final decision, expected after its June 2025 session. In the meantime, Captain Watson’s freedom of movement has been fully restored.
As for the long-term outcome, it remains uncertain whether the red notice will be permanently removed. Given the facts of the case – and particularly the political dimension of the charges – there’s a strong likelihood the CCF will rule in Watson’s favour. Recognising the political nature of the dispute does not deny that certain illegal actions may have occurred; it simply calls into question whether INTERPOL’s systems should have been used in the first place.
If the red notice is indeed withdrawn, it will be a positive step for environmental defenders worldwide. But it also highlights a troubling reality: for 12 years, Watson’s movements were severely restricted. He avoided entire regions due to the risk of extradition. The notice itself may have violated INTERPOL’s own Constitution – specifically its ban on intervening in activities of a political nature – remained in effect, despite a formal challenge filed in 2013. That challenge was rejected at the time.
The potential removal of the notice now would be welcome, but not without a sense of injustice over the time lost and freedoms curtailed during those intervening years.
Further reading
Constitution of the ICPO-INTERPOL, 1956.
International Court of Justice, Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), 2014.
Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, 2016
US Ninth Circuit, Institute of Cetacean Research v Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, 2013.
Comments