Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pawing Open the Courthouse Door: Why Animals' Interests Should Matter | Lauren Magnotti | 80 St. John's L. Rev. 455 (Winter 2006) |
It is widely accepted that animals are viewed as property under the law. It is equally apparent, however, that animals are much more than the average inanimate piece of personal property. The law of standing should reflect that animals are creatures with interests worthy of legal protection in their own right. Thus, while the courts may inevitably continue to recognize animals as property, animals are qualitatively different and the courts can and must take this into consideration when deciding the issue of standing. |
| FREE SPEECH, ANIMAL LAW, AND FOOD ACTIVISM | Howard F. Lyman | 5 Animal L. i (1999) | Howard Lyman discusses a case that provides an example of using the law to force activists to use their scarce resources in court to defend the right of free speech. |
| Brief Summary of Animal Rights | Joseph Lubinski | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
This summary provides a short overview of the animal rights, detailing the different positions of those involved as well as the history of the movement. |
| Introduction to Animal Rights (2nd Ed) | Joseph Lubinski | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
This article explores the evolution of animal rights, specifically examining the influence of the property status of animals in the U.S. |
| Overview of Animal Rights | Joseph Lubinski | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
This overview provides a summary of the evolution of the animal rights movement with particular focus on the property status of animals in the U.S. |
| Introduction to Animal Rights | Joseph Lubinksi | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
This article explores the roots of the animal rights movement. It also looks at personhood, standing, and other barriers to animal rights in the legal world. |
| Derechos de los animales en Colombia: una lectura crítica en perspectiva ambiental | Carlos Lozano | Lozano, C. 2022. Animal rights in Colombia: a critical reading in environmental perspective. State Law Magazine. 54 (Nov. 2022), 345–380. | Animal rights are commonly understood as an expression of the rights of nature. However, both are in open contradiction, due to the complex interactions of ecosystems and the place of fauna in them, poorly understood by the generators of animal law rules, because in those animal suffering is inherent. The rights of animals in Colombia are not an expression of the rights of nature, on the contrary, they undermine them, and hinder the consolidation of an environmental right aligned with social justice and that puts the survival of ecosystems at the center. The above, because animal law outlaws critical ecological processes, gentrifies environmental law, promotes an artificial binary between fauna and flora, contradicts certain forms of climate action, hinders conservation, stigmatizes cultural diversity, agency class discrimination, prevents the control of invasive species, generates a protection deficit for other kingdoms of life, like the vegetable and the fungi, and promotes a transition from anthropocentrism to a kind of zoocentrism (article in Spanish). |
| Animal Law in Action: The Law, Public Perception, and the Limits of Animal Rights Theory as a Basis for Legal Reform | Jonathan R. Lovvorn | 12 Animal L. 133 (2005) |
This article discusses animal law as a model for legal reform. |
| I Fought the Law: A Review of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, Edited By Steven Best & Anthony J. Nocella II | Matthew Liebman | 1 Journal of Animal Law 151 (2005) |
This book review seeks to introduce the major issues raised by the authors of the essays in "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?" and to commend Best and Nocella for their valuable contribution to the body of animal rights theory and practice. |
| WHO THE JUDGE ATE FOR BREAKFAST: ON THE LIMITS OF CREATIVITY IN ANIMAL LAW AND THE REDEEMING POWER OF POWERLESSNESS | Matthew Liebman | 18 Animal L. 133 (2011) |
Drawing upon various schools of legal thought, this Essay explores how ideological and non-legal factors influence the adjudication process in animal law cases. The Legal Realist and Critical Legal Studies movements highlighted the indeterminacy present in legal doctrine and undermined trust in judges’ ability to arrive at “correct” answers to legal questions. In the midst of such indeterminacy, where legal texts do not predetermine legal outcomes, judges tend to render decisions that are consistent with pervasive societal norms and existing distributions of political power. Starting from these premises, the Author questions whether innovative and creative impact litigation by the animal law movement can succeed in fundamentally challenging speciesism through a legal system that is pervasively hostile to the interests of animals. Although incremental and meaningful gains are possible through litigation, we must recognize the limits of legal reform in the short-term. Although such limitations are typically seen as cause for despair, the Author argues that recognizing our powerlessness can be a source of compassion and an opportunity to experience our shared existential vulnerability with animals. |