Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LEGAL RIGHTS FOR NONHUMAN ANIMALS: THE CASE FOR CHIMPANZEES AND BONOBOS | Steven M. Wise | 2 Animal L. 179 (1996) | This article was adapted from remarks from Steven M. Wise at a symposium held by the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on September 23, 1995 regarding issues affecting domestic and captive animals. | Article |
| An Argument for the Basic Legal Rights of Farmed Animals | Steven M. Wise | 106 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 133 (2008) | As legal things, nonhuman animals lack all legal rights and remain entirely the object of the rights held by us legal persons—that is, the beings with rights. Most legal protections for nonhuman animals remain indirect (mostly anti-cruelty statutes), enforceable only by public prosecutors. Even the Endangered Species Act requires a human plaintiff to have standing sufficient under Article III of the United States Constitution. It has become clear that no meaningful percentage of nonhuman animals will ever be treated well or fairly until they attain some minimum degree of legal personhood—that is, until they achieve some minimum level of fundamental legal rights. In his article, Steven M. Wise argues for the fundamental rights of nonhuman animals by relying upon bedrock principles of Western law: liberty and equality. | Article |
| LEGAL PERSONHOOD AND THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT | Steven M. Wise | 17 Animal L. 1 (2010) |
The author gives an overview of the progress of the Nonhuman Rights Project. |
Article |
| The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule | Steven M. Wise, Elizabeth Stein, Monica Miller & Sarah Stone | 67 Syracuse L. Rev. 31 (2017 | This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged. | Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption | Christen Wiser | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
The debate over horse slaughter is a composite of agricultural industry, animal welfare, constitutional, environmental, health, and regulatory concerns. Part II of this paper addresses the history of and cultural taboo ascribed to horsemeat consumption. Part III presents federal and state laws, administrative regulations and guidelines, major court cases, and proposed and pending legislation related to horse slaughter. Part IV describes associated issues, policy, and advocacy resulting from and effecting horse slaughter in the United States. |
Article |
| Overview of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption | Christen Wiser | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This overview focuses on horsemeat for human consumption, with a special look at its status in the U.S. It details the expiration of the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that existed from 2007 to 2011. Recently, federal appropriations omitted the horsemeat inspection defunding provision, allowing the resumption of horse slaughter in the U.S. |
Article |
| Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption | Christen Wiser |
Brief Summary of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption
|
Topical Introduction | |
| Brief Summary of Horsemeat for Human Consumption | Christen Wiser | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This brief summary describes the history of horsemeat consumption, focusing specifically on the U.S. It analyzes the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that occurred in 2007 as a result of changes in federal appropriations. Recently, a change in appropriations brought the slaughter measure to the forefront. The legislative state of horse slaughter for human consumption remains uncertain. |
Article |
| Animal Rights Extremism as Justification for Restricting Access to Government Records | Christopher Wlach | 67 Syracuse L. Rev. 191 (2017) | In the animal rights and animal welfare movements, activists have likewise used FOIA and state open records laws for their own ends. This section first discusses the purpose and general structure of FOIA and state open records laws, and then looks at how animal rights and animal welfare activists have used these laws in pursuing their causes. | Article |
| SHARK LAWS WITH TEETH: HOW DEEP CAN U.S. CONSERVATION LAWS CUT INTO GLOBAL TRADE REGULATIONS? | Kaitlin M. Wojnar | 19 Animal L. 185 (2012) | Controversy surrounding application of the Shark & Fishery Conservation Act of 2010 (Shark Conservation Act) reflects a culmination of competing interests between environmental conservation and international free trade. Non-governmental organizations are pressuring the United States (U.S.) government to use the Shark Conservation Act to impose trade sanctions against countries that do not have specific regulations on shark finning. The implementation of such import bans, however, could negatively impact the nation’s relationships with some of its principal trade partners and violate international obligations under multilateral trade treaties. This Note proposes that the U.S. cannot impose such an embargo on shark products without first laying a foundation for its actions in international custom or treaty. | Article |
