Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 165
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY AND UTILITARIANISM: RELATIVE NORMATIVE GUIDANCE | Gary L. Francione | 3 Animal L. 75 (1997) (pdf version) | Mr. Francione examines the philosophies of Peter Singer and Tom Regan and concludes, in part, that there is nothing in rights theory that necessarily precludes the animal advocate from pursuing incremental legislative or judicial change; however, he asserts that we cannot speak meaningfully of legal rights for animals as long as animals are regarded as property. |
| Animals as Property | Gary L. Francione | 2 Animal L. i (1996) (pdf version) | This article gives a brief introduction of the social attitudes regarding animals as property. |
| Finding Our Voice: Challenges and Opportunities For The Animal Law Community | Pamela D. Frasch | 14 Animal Law 1 (2007) |
In this introduction to Volume 14 of Animal Law, the author reflects on the progress of the animal law movement. |
| THE CHURCH OF ANIMAL LIBERATION: ANIMAL RIGHTS AS ‘RELIGION’ UNDER THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE | Bruce Friedrich | 21 Animal L. 65 (2014) | In this Article, I contend that a belief in animal liberation qualifies as religion under the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence of the United States Constitution. Thus, every time a prison warden, public school teacher or administrator, or government employer refuses to accommodate the ethical belief of an animal liberationist, they are infringing on that person’s religious freedom, and they should have to satisfy the same constitutional or statutory requirements that would adhere were the asserted interest based on more traditional religious exercise. One possible solution to the widespread violations of the First Amendment rights of animal liberationists would be the incorporation of a ‘Church of Animal Liberation’ under the Internal Revenue Code (as a proper church or as a religious organization). This would help to protect the free exercise rights of those who believe in animal rights because it would give them a religious organization to reference—with articles of incorporation that align with the jurisprudential definition of religion—in making their requests for religious accommodation. First, this Article discusses the constitutional definition of religion, what it means to believe in animal liberation, and animal liberation beliefs that circuit court precedent already recognizes as religious. Then, it discusses how animal liberation-based free exercise conflicts would play out in practice (e.g., identifying when infringing on the rights of animal liberationists would require strict scrutiny and when it would not). Lastly, this Article suggests that incorporating a group (e.g., a ‘Church of Animal Liberation’) as a religious organization under the Internal Revenue Code might help to secure constitutional rights for animal liberationists, and explains what would be required to incorporate such an organization. |
| 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. |
| "It's the Right Thing to Do": Why the Animal Agriculture Industry Should Not Oppose Science-Based Regulations Protecting the Welfare Of Animals Raised for Food | Angela J. Geiman | 106 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 128 (2008) | The purpose of this commentary is to respond to the question, “Should laws criminalizing animal abuse apply to animals raised for food?” The simple answer to the question is “yes,” but the reality is not simple. It requires analyzing both the science of raising livestock and the current legal framework, which we must understand before discussing what to require and how to implement those requirements. Continued improvements in the livestock and meatpacking industries and the rising expectations of consumers add to the complexity of the issue. |
| Symposium: Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates - Introduction | Clayton Gillete and Joyce Tischler | 13 Animal Law 13 (2006) |
On April 14, 2006, the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of New York University School of Law hosted a symposium on how to overcome some common courtroom barriers faced by animal advocates. Panelists discussed cultural and legal transitions, legal standing for nonhuman animals, and potential causes of action. Symposium participants included prominent attorneys, authors, philosophers, and professors specializing in the field of animal protection law. |
| The Historical and Contemporary Prosecution and Punishment of Animals | Jen Girgen | 9 Animal L. 97 (2003) |
This article analyzes the role of the animal “offender,” by examining the animal trials and executions of years past. The writer argues that although the formal prosecution of animals as practiced centuries ago may have ended (for the most part), we continue to punish animals for their “crimes” against human beings. She suggests that we do this primarily to achieve two ends: the restoration of order and the achievement of revenge, and concludes with a call for a renewed emphasis on “due process” for animals threatened with punishment for their offenses. |
| NOT ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN: JUDAISM’S LESSONS IN BEASTLY MORALITY | Mark Goldfeder | 20 Animal L. 107 (2013) | This Essay examines the moral status of animals and the definition of humanity under traditional Jewish law, as contained in Biblical texts and commentaries by ancient and historical Jewish scholars. Examining whether animals are capable of moral behavior, it provides examples from various Judaic sources to support the idea that animals are capable of making conscious, moral choices. This Essay goes on to investigate the effect that morality has on the rights and rewards given to animals under Jewish law, and whether, as conscious moral actors, animals have souls. Turning more broadly to the definition of humanity, this Essay discusses whether there might be an expansive contextual definition that would encompass animals with the cognitive ability to communicate and interact like people. Possible tests for humanity under Jewish law, all of which could include animals, such as the contextual/functionality test, or the moral intelligence test, suggest that from a Jewish law perspective, animals that possess the ability to make moral choices may be more human than not. |
| 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. |