"Insults, lies, and whale blood" should be the title for the latest international dispute involving the icy waters of Antarctica. Although this placid and remote area of the world seems to be the last place one might expect to encounter an intense debate between opposing cultures, the dispute is creating a worldwide legal stir that comprises multiple countries, namely Japan and Australia, thousands of miles apart. Both countries continue to demonize each other, with Japan taking on the role of victim of a witch-hunt and Australia taking the role of crusader-for-the-innocent, claiming, "Japan seeks to cloak its ongoing commercial whaling in the lab coat of science." Australia chose to bring the whaling case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The Court has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by Member States (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned); and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized UN organs and agencies of the UN system. This article explains how the ICJ works and why Australia chose this course of legal action. It also describes the relationship between the ICJ and the United States, which often seems similar in many ways to a television soap opera storyline. Recently, the United States has purposely attempted to construct treaties specifically excluding ICJ jurisdiction, as well as questioning the legality of the ICJ controlling American interests.