Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAN NONHUMAN ANIMALS FIND TORT PROTECTION IN A HUMAN-CENTERED COMMON LAW? | Enger McCartney-Smith | 4 Animal L. 173 (1998) | The question of 'Rights allocation" typically hinges on society's distinction between legal and moral entitlement. Although many rights find support in both categories, not all rights grounded in societal morality are likewise accorded legal status. The animal rights movement, particularly in the last three decades, has advanced the recognition of nonhuman animals' moral entitlements, but corresponding legal rights have been slow to follow. This Comment explores this gap in nonhuman animals' rights allocation with an eye toward establishing a basis for a private right of intentional tort action. Through appeal to predominant tort jurisprudential theories, in conjunction with an examination of our scientifically and experientially grounded understanding of nonhuman animals, the Comment concludes that there is room in our current legal system for direct recognition of, and compensation for, intentional injurious behavior aimed at nonhuman animals |
| Companion Animals: An Examination of Their Legal Classification in Italy and the Impact on their Welfare | Annamaria Passantino | 4 Journal of Animal Law 59 (2008) |
Italy's State-Regions Agreement on Companion Animal Welfare and Pet Therapy introduced important new measures aimed at reducing the numbers of stray animals, such as the use of microchips for an official dog identification system and the creation of a computerised data bank. The Author, after having analyzed the legal status of animals under the current system and discussed the idea of extending legal personhood to such animals, considers the law for the current valuation of companion animals. Finally, the Author promotes the idea that there is a legal/rational basis for changing the way that companion animals should be valued by the legal system (such as Agreement) and recommends the adoption of principles/guidelines for the care of pet evaluate these aspects of the Agreement. |
| Compromise & the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare | Animal People (Editorial) | July/August 2005 p.3 |
This artlicle discusses the history of the Universal Declaration and recent attempts to modify the Declaration. |
| Conference Summary: "The Moral and Legal Status of Non-Human Animals" | Portugal Center for Animal Law and Ethics | Center for Animal Law and Ethics, Portugal |
The document is a summary of each speaker's presentation at a Conference held at Lisbon University Law School. |
| CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT: THE CONSTITUTION AND ANIMALS | Mariann Sullivan | 19 Animal L. 213 (2013) | This article provides the introduction to Volume 19, part 2. |
| CONTRADICTIONS WILL OUT: ANIMAL RIGHTS VS. ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN THE SUPREME COURT | Henry Mark Holzer | 1 Animal L. 83 (1995) | A professor of law at Brooklyn Law School explains why, in the controversial Lukumi case, the Supreme Court ruled that the religious sacrifice of animals falls under the protective umbrella of the Free Exercise Clause. The author criticizes the court for abandoning the belief-action dichotomy in Free Exercise jurisprudence and places blame on the lack of protection given to animals by current laws. |
| Cover and Introduction, Journal of Animal Law Volume 10 | various | 10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 1 | This document provides the cover, credits, and introductory remarks for the 10th volume of the Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law. |
| Crime Victims Rights: Critical Concepts for Animal Rights | Douglas E. Beloof | 7 Animal L. 19 (2001) |
This essay is written by a legal advocate in a socio-legal movement, the crime victims' rights movement, to legal advocates in the animal rights movement. It addresses three issues from the perspective of an outsider to the animal rights movement. First, the essay addresses the problems in the relationship between rights philosophy and successful legal rights advocacy; second, the essay reviews two animal rights legal advocate strategies of incrementalism and the common law coup; finally, the essay concludes with three practical suggestions for the animal rights movement about joining a part of the victims' rights movement to reach mutually identified goals. |
| CRITICAL ANIMAL STUDIES AND ANIMAL LAW | Maneesha Deckha | 18 Animal L. 207 (2012) |
Law is anthropocentric. With the limited exception of its treatment of the corporation, law is a system of rules that privileges the concept of the human and ascribes reality through a human perspective. Appreciating this, it is truly impressive that animal issues in the law have become so prominent throughout the legal education system. With this increased exposure to posthumanist critiques of the legal system and its status for and treatment of animals, an increasing number of those involved in legal education are rethinking the law’s species-based hierarchy that places humans at the apex. This flourishing interest in animal law is paralleled by growth in the field of Critical Animal Studies (CAS). However, these two disciplines have developed independently of each other. Acknowledging this, animal law scholarship is currently poised to incorporate the insights of CAS. Integrating such insight into the analysis of animal issues in the law will rectify the speciesist and otherwise exclusionary formulations of the socially constructed differences between various species, which have so far been unquestioned assumptions. CAS offers an understanding of these socially constructed differences and advances a common mission between issues identified as animal injustices and those identified as human injustices. CAS stresses the interconnection between human and animal issues, not simply parallels. This important synthesis can subvert the confinement of animal issues in the legal sphere and is key to extending these essential issues into a more diverse community. |
| CULTURAL SOLIPSISM, CULTURAL LENSES, UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES, AND ANIMAL ADVOCACY | Thomas G. Kelch | 31 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 403 | This article explores the cultural similarities and differences relating to the relationship between humans and animals in a globalized world. The article acknowledges that cultural differences in a globalized world can have a profound impact on the efficacy of advocacy for the benefit of animals. Attempts in one nation to provide protection for animals can have unintended consequences in our globalized world. The problem that then presents itself is, given the potpourri of human cultures and the need to take a global view of animal rights advocacy, how can animal rights advocates most efficiently and successfully advocate for animals? This article addresses that issue. |