Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Step at a Time: New Zealands Progress Towards Hominid Rights | Rowan Taylor | 7 Animal L. 35 (2001) |
Mr. Taylor writes about the Great Ape Project's campaign to win fundamental rights for all hominids with New Zealand's Animal Welfare Act. While the Act was a significant step in the struggle for hominids' rights, larger steps, including a Nonhuman Hominid Protection Bill, will soon follow. |
| HUMAN DRAMA, ANIMAL TRIALS: WHAT THE MEDIEVAL ANIMAL TRIALS CAN TEACH US ABOUT JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS | Katie Sykes | 17 Animal L. 251 (2011) |
The legal system generally does little to protect animals, and one aspect of its inadequacy is a matter of formal structure: under United States and Canadian law, animals are not legal “persons” with an independent right to the protections of the legal system. There are calls to expand the status of animals in the law by providing them with legal standing, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and other formal protections. But, in a way, some of this has happened before. There is a long history, primarily from the medieval and early modern periods, of animals being tried for offenses such as attacking humans and destroying crops. These animals were formally prosecuted in elaborate trials that included counsel to represent their interests. The history of the animal trials demonstrates how, in a human-created legal system, legal “rights” for animals can be used for human purposes that have little to do with the interests of the animals. This history shows us that formal legal rights for animals are only tools, rather than an end in themselves, and highlights the importance not just of expanding formal protections, but of putting them to work with empathy, in a way that strives (despite the inevitable limitations of a human justice system in this respect) to incorporate the animals’ own interests and own point of view. |
| CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT: THE CONSTITUTION AND ANIMALS | Mariann Sullivan | 19 Animal L. 213 (2013) | This article provides the introduction to Volume 19, part 2. |
| Animal Law and Animal Rights on the Move in Sweden | Helena Striwing | 8 Animal L. 93 (2001) |
Ms. Striwing, an attorney at law in Sweden, provides a glimpse into Swedish laws and practices affecting animals in that country. She discusses the development and characteristics of such laws and offers suggestions regarding implementation and enforcement that may also be utilized by other countries in their quests to afford animals greater legal protections. This essay will refrain from the classical approach of highlighting the philosophers and their views on animals and nature. It will instead delve into the court system of Sweden, and the laws and policies affecting animals in that country. The purpose of the essay is to highlight the developments, strengths, and weaknesses of Swedish animal law, in the hopes of giving guidance and inspiration to other societies in their quest for effective investigation, enforcement, prosecution, and punishment of animal crimes. |
| The World Trade Organization Rules: A Legal Analysis of their Adverse Impact on Animal Welfare | Peter Stevenson | 8 Animal L. 107 (2001) |
Mr. Stevenson analyzes the free trade rules of the World Trade Organisation and discusses their detrimental impact on certain measures designed to protect animals. Specifically, he discusses U.S. laws to safeguard dolphins and sea turtles, as well as proposed EU laws regarding leghold traps and cosmetic testing on animals. Mr. Stevenson provides an analysis of current WTO rule interpretation, identifies ways in which the rules should be reformed, and provides a less restrictive interpretation that would permit the existence of measures designed to improve animal welfare. |
| PROTECTION OF ANIMALS THROUGH HUMAN RIGHTS | Tom Sparks | MPIL RESEARCH PAPER SERIES No. 2018-21 | This paper discusses the potential of a human rights framework to contribute to the growth and development of global animal law. Parts one and two of the essay take as their example the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and examine the major trends in the Court’s judgments and admissibility decisions that directly or indirectly concern the rights or welfare of animals. It is concluded that the Court is not indifferent to the welfare of animals, but that animal welfare is instrumentalised: it is understood not as a good in itself, but is instead valued for its implications for human welfare and rights. Part three of the essay then considers the obstacles that the anthropocentrism of the human rights idea and the instrumentalisation of animal concerns present to the use of human rights frameworks to further the development of global animal law, as well as the opportunities that exist in the meeting of these paradigms. It concludes that although the telos of human rights law is different from that of animal law, nevertheless there exist many overlapping concerns within which mutually beneficial interactions are possible. |
| Non-Violence and the Animal Rights Movement | Jerry Simonelli | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
The article explores the history of the non-violent protest movement starting with Gandhi and Dr. King and brings the issue into the present animal rights movement. |
| Animal Welfare: Its Place in Legislation | Congressman Christopher Shays | 12 Animal L. 1 (2005) |
Comments by Congressman Christopher Shays: Animal welfare will continue to be a challenge. By advocating animal welfare legislation at the federal level, states, the private sector, and individuals can follow clearer, more humane guideline regarding the safety of all animals. As co-chairs of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, Congressman Lantos and I will continue to educate lawmakers about the importance of animal welfare initiatives at all levels. |
| Animals as Vulnerable Subjects: Beyond Interest-Convergence, Hierarchy, and Property | Ani B. Satz | 16 Animal L. 65 (2009) |
This Article presents a new paradigm, premised on the equal protection principle, for the legal regulation of human interactions with domestic animals: Equal Protection of Animals (EPA). EPA combines the insights of vulnerability theorists with the equal protection principle and capability theory to create a mechanism for recognizing the equal claims of human and nonhuman animals to protections against suffering. Under such an approach, domestic animals—like humans—have claims to food, hydration, shelter, bodily integrity (including avoiding pain), companionship, and the ability to exercise and to engage in natural behaviors of movement. Existing animal welfare and anti-cruelty laws, despite their stated purposes, fail to protect animals adequately. This Article identifies the ontology of the problem as interest-convergence, famously described by Derrick Bell in the desegregation context. |
| THE ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE AND THE EXPANSION OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE: IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE LAW PROTECTING ANIMALS TO SIMULTANEOUSLY FAIL AND SUCCEED? | Peter Sankoff | 18 Animal L. 281 (2012) |
This Article uses the theory of deliberative democracy, as developed by Jürgen Habermas and others, to suggest that public discourse is essential to encouraging democratic change in animal welfare law. The author examines the legal regimes of Canada and New Zealand to determine which country better facilitates a public dialogue about the treatment of animals. The Article concludes that, while Canada has a number of laws that ostensibly protect animals, New Zealand’s regime is much better at creating the public discourse required to meaningfully advance animal protection. The author does not suggest that New Zealand’s regime is perfect; rather, New Zealand’s model is preferable to Canada’s because it allows the public to meaningfully engage in laws affecting animals at regular intervals. In Canada, generating discussion in government about animal welfare is too often left to the whim of legislators. Due to New Zealand’s model of encouraging and requiring public discourse, its protection laws have begun to surpass those of Canada, and there is reason to believe this will continue. Encouraging public discourse about our assumptions about animals fosters hope for meaningful progress in their lives. |