Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 165
Titlesort descending Author Citation Summary
Anti-Speciesism: The Appropriation and Misrepresentation of Animal Rights in Joan Dunayer’s Speciesism (Abridged) Jeff Perz 2 Journal of Animal Law 49 (2006)

Joan Dunayer's Speciesism appropriates and misrepresents the animal rights theory of Gary L. Francione. Dunayer's objections to Francione's highly qualified suggestion that a prohibition against confining hens to battery cages could be consistent with animal rights theory are specious. If the exploitation of non-human animals is to be completely abolished, those who bring about this result will have necessary been informed by a consistent, well-supported theoretical framework.

ARE CHIMPANZEES ENTITLED TO FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL RIGHTS? Dr. Jane Goodall and Steven M. Wise 3 Animal L. 61 (1997) A presentation to the Senior Lawyers division of the American Bar Association in Orlando, Florida on August 2, 1996.
ARE WOMEN PERSONS? Drucilla Cornell 3 Animal L. 7 (1997) This article provides a brief look at "rights theory" regarding women in comparison to animals.
Beyond Humanity: New Frontiers in Animal Law (2019) 5(1) CJCCL

Foreword

Honourable Senator Murray Sinclair, Senate of Canada  i

Articles

Beastly Dead

Vaughan Black  1
Biodiversity, Species Protection, and Animal Welfare Under International Law Guillaume Futhazar MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2018-22 The purpose of this analysis is to explore the influence of the concept of animal welfare on international biodiversity law. A close examination of the recent evolution of this branch of international law shows that animal welfare has an ambivalent place in biodiversity-related agreements. Indeed, while welfare is only a faint consideration in the development of international regimes dealing with biodiversity as a whole, the concept has become an essential element for agreements dealing with the conservation of specific endangered species. Despite its role in these agreements, the place of animal welfare in international biodiversity law highlights that this corpus of rules is currently insufficient to be an effective tool for the protection of wildlife welfare. The last section of this study suggests that the adoption of international rules aiming at ensuring the protection of wild animals’ welfare could serve the double purpose of strengthening the conservation purpose of biodiversity regimes while also filling the welfare gap of international biodiversity law.
Book Review: An American Trilogy: Death, Slavery, and Dominion on the Banks of the Cape Fear River Henry Cohen Animal Legal & Historical Center

In this book review, Mr. Henry Cohen reviews "An American Trilogy: Death, Slavery, and Dominion on the Banks of the Cape Fear River" by Steven M. Wise.

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.

Brief Summary of Animals and Philosophy Alissa Branham Animal Legal & Historical Center

This brief summary examines the historical philosophical figures who contributed to the modern animal rights movement.

Building our Future Joyce Tischler 15 Animal L. 7 (2008)

As the introduction to Volume 15 of Animal Law, the author reflects on 30 years of progress in the animal law arena.

Caging Animal Advocates Political Freedoms: The Unconstitutionality of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act Andrew Ireland Moore 11 Animal L. 255 (2005)

The animal advocacy movement is facing another obstacle, resulting from the creation of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA). The Act seeks to create harsh penalties including a Terrorist Registry for acts performed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and ALF-type actors. In addition, the proposed legislation will affect animal advocates not involved with the ALF. However, the model legislation, as written, must pass Constitutional scrutiny. This paper argues that the proposed Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is unconstitutional due to its infringement on the First Amendment, its overbreadth, and its vagueness.

Pages