Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Role of Animals in Livable Communities | Laurence H. Tribe | 7 Animal L. 1 (2001) |
This article contains remarks by Laurence Tribe on the work of Steven M. Wise. |
| The History of the RSPCA | unknown | Royal Society for Protection of Animals |
This short article relates the formation and early history of the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals. |
| 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. |
| The Evolving Legal Status of Chimpanzees, Comments from Jane Goodall, Dr. Roger Fouts, Steven Wise and David Favre | various - conference proceedings | 9 Animal L. 1 (2002) |
On September 30, 2002, Harvard Law School hosted a legal symposium sponsored by the Chimpanzee Collaboratory’s Legal Committee. The symposium featured speakers with expertise on chimpanzees, as well as legal scholars and lawyers who discussed the possibility of obtaining legal rights for chimpanzees and other great apes. This symposium sought to advance the argument that chimpanzees are entitled to some degree of legal status, and the speakers presented a range of views about how far such legal rights should extend. These remarks reflect the connection between the growing scientific understanding of chimpanzees and the advances in related legal doctrines. |
| Legal Status of Nonhuman Animals | Various - conference proceedings | 8 Animal L. 1 (2001) |
On September 25, 1999, a distinguished group of legal scholars met in New York City at the 5th Annual Conference on Animals and the Law, hosted by the Committee on Legal Issues Pertaining to Animals of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, to discuss how the law classifies nonhuman animals and whether the current legal framework is in accord with scientific understanding, public attitudes, and fundamental principles of justice. This conference took a monumental step in facilitating discussion about, and furthering the cause of, the legal protection and welfare of nonhuman animals. |
| Human Identity: The Question Presented by Human-Animal Hybridization | Joseph Vining | 1 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 50 (2008) | What makes each of us, as individuals, human to one another, or, more generally, what makes an individual creature human? We have not often had to ask the question because of the species line based on reproductive capacity and incapacity, although “degrees of humanness” were explored in the various eugenic programs of the last century. Now the biotechnological possibility of fusing human and other forms of life is presenting the question in a new and serious way. If the traditional biological means of defining species are no longer reliable, what other criteria might determine what is “human” and what is “nonhuman”? The issue is not just how to conceive of an individual hybrid presented to us, but how to act toward the creature, at the most basic level. Drawing on animal law and theory as well as the history of human eugenics in law and policy, Vining identifies criteria that may one day be used to gauge relative humanness, qualitative and quantitative. He observes that ultimately the difficulty of deciding or agreeing upon what identifies us as human will make even more problematic the current treatment of creatures deemed purely “animal.” In the end he suggests that what the human distinctively brings to the sentient world is general responsibility itself, and that wider contemplation of the real possibility of human-animal hybridization may lead to new ways of thinking about animals, in law and beyond. Human Identity was presented recently as a talk to a longstanding interdisciplinary faculty seminar at the University of Michigan. It is presented largely in its original form here, with footnotes added. |
| Voiceless Animal Law Toolkit | Voiceless Australia | www.voiceless.org.au |
Overview of the state of Animal Law in Australia. |
| Will the Heavens Fall? De-Radicalizing the Precedent-Breaking Decision | Paul Waldau | 7 Animal L. 75 (2001) |
This article offers an extended analogy for the purpose of posing basic questions about proposals for granting legal rights to some nonhuman animals. The analogy is drawn from the precedent-breaking eighteenth century English case Somerset v. Stewart, which liberated an African slave. The article highlights the complex cultural backdrop in each situation, and suggests that the comparison helps one see the nature and possibilities of precedent-breaking decisions that rely on various non-legal resources available to judges who, because of conscience, principle, or policy considerations, choose not to follow established precedent. |
| RIGHTS OF SLAVES AND OTHER OWNED-ANIMALS | Alan Watson | 3 Animal L. 1 (1997) | The scope of animal rights is much broader than the vast majority of individuals believe. People spend little time considering how our legal system's treatment of animals affects society. The law, created to protect beings from harm, has time and again proven itself a stubborn, static creation. However, through the efforts of people who have recognized the law's shortcomings and have sought to correct them, justice may eventually prevail. Unfortunately, the best means by which to accomplish justice for animals is not clear, and disagreements inevitably arise. The essays which follow are written by experts from various interdisciplinary fields at the request of Animal Law. Our hope is to give the reader a broader understanding of the need for animal protection, the complexities of the movement, and the historical context and current legal framework underlying the position of non-human animals. |
| Traditional Chinese Culture Poses Difficulty For New Animal Welfare Laws | Song Wei | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article considers the present attitude of many Chinese toward animals and how it will pose difficulties for the adoption of new Animal Welfare laws. |