Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dog Meat in Korea: A Socio-Legal Challenge | Rakhyun E. Kim | 14 Animal Law 201 (2007) |
This article explores the dog meat debate in Korea from a socio-legal perspective. It first examines the legal status of dogs and dog meat, and the legal protection for dogs under the old and new legislative frameworks. It then discusses socio-legal challenges to banning dog meat in the Korean context, employing examples of both legal approaches taken by other countries and the politics of dog meat in Korea, specifically. The article argues that the controversy over dog meat must be reframed and dog meat be socially redefined in order to protect dogs, which are currently caught in the conflict over their socio-legal status as companion and livestock animals. |
Article |
| DOG MEAT TRADE IN SOUTH KOREA: A REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE TRADE AND EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE IT | Claire Czajkowski | 21 Animal L. 29 (2014) | Within South Korea, the dog meat trade occupies a liminal legal space— neither explicitly condoned, nor technically prohibited. As a result of existing in this legal gray area, all facets of the dog meat trade within South Korea—from dog farms, to transport, to slaughter, to consumption—are poorly regulated and often obfuscated from review. In the South Korean context, the dog meat trade itself not only terminally impacts millions of canine lives each year, but resonates in a larger national context: raising environmental concerns, and standing as a proxy for cultural and political change. Part II of this Article describes the nature of the dog meat trade as it operates within South Korea; Part III examines how South Korean law relates to the dog meat trade; Part IV explores potentially fruitful challenges to the dog meat trade under South Korean law; similarly, Part V discusses growing social pressure being deployed against the dog meat trade. | Article |
| Dog Number Restrictions | Cynthia Hodges |
Brief Summary of Ordinances for Pet Number Restrictions
|
Topical Introduction | |
| Dog-Focused Law's Impact on Disability Rights: Ontario's Pit Bull Legislation as a Case in Point | Barbara Hanson | 12 Animal L. 217 (2005) |
Legislation that affects dogs also affects persons with disabilities to some extent. This link shows up in statutory definitions, is justified by social construction theory, and has been reified in case law. Thus, it is important to examine statutes like Ontario’s pit bull legislation (OPBL) in terms of their potential impact on persons with disabilities. Upon close examination, it appears that the legislation suffers from vague definitions, conflicting onus of proof, absence of fair process, and severe penalties, including imprisonment. Further, it contains no reference to dogs used by persons with disabilities. This means that there is potential for persons with disabilities to suffer negative consequences and a need to consider disability rights in dog-focused legislation. |
Article |
| Dogs in Dorms: How the United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney Illustrates A Coverage Gap Created by the Intersection of Fair Housing and Disability Law | Katherine R. Powers | 47 Creighton L. Rev. 363 | In United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney, a federal district court was asked to determine whether a university, as a provider of housing for its students, must comply with the standards set out in the Fair Housing Act? Typically, the Fair Housing Act requires that housing providers make reasonable accommodations to no-pets policies for people with disabilities to live with emotional support animals, regardless of the animal's training as a service animal. The federal court, however, held that the Fair Housing Act also requires universities to waive no-pets policies for students with emotional support animals. This article examines the test used to determine the applicability of the Fair Housing Act to dwellings—arguing for a new factor test—and also discusses the current test’s effect on the legal coverage for emotional support animals. | Article |
| Dogs in Outdoor Dining | As of 2025, 23 states have laws or administrative regulations that allow patrons to bring pet dogs to outdoor dining spaces in restaurants. Some laws require that the local unit of government first enact an ordinance allowing the activity. | State map | ||
| Dogs in Restaurant Patio Laws | State map | |||
| Dolphin Protection and the Marine Mammal Protection Act Have Met Their Match: The General Agreements of Tariffs and Trade | Joseph J. Urgese | 31 Akron L. Rev. 457 (1998) |
This article explores the conflict between conservation and the policy of free trade. The author concludes that the Tuna/Dolphin cases represented the inevitable clash between two laudable goals- environmental protection and free-trade. Resolution of this conflict and future conflicts can only come from the incorporation of both of these objectives into one global regime. |
Article |
| DOLPHIN-SAFE TUNA: THE TIDE IS CHANGING | Kristen L. Stewart | 4 Animal L. 111 (1998) | Ms. Stewart reviews the history of the tuna-dolphin controversy in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. She explores international agreements and U.S. law that mandate dolphin-safe tuna fishing practices. Finally, Ms. Stewart reviews the steps taken by the United States, including embargoes against other countries’ tuna, to force tuna-fishing nations to use dolphin-safe practices. | Article |
| Dolphins | Jamie M. Woolsey |
Brief Summary of Dolphin Protection under the MMPA |
Topical Introduction |
