Animal Rights
Displaying 101 - 110 of 244
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Five Years of the New Animal Welfare Regime: Lessons Learned from New Zealand's Decision to Modernize Its Animal Welfare Legislation | |
| Forgotten Victims of War: Animals and the International Law of Armed Conflict |
The present article analyses the protection of animals in times of armed conflict. The primary objective of this article is to explore the relationship between animal law and international humanitarian law and to find out to what extent rules of animal welfare law can be applied during armed conflict and how international humanitarian law can protect animals. For this purpose, the article firstly provides an overview of legal scholarship, as well as a summary of existing international humanitarian law norms protecting animals. The article also discusses if existing models of protection of non-human victims of war, such as natural environment and cultural heritage, analogously, can be applied to include animals under the protection of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, possible scenarios of animal victimhood during wars are outlined and finally, the article offers several practical suggestions on how animal welfare law can become part of the international law of armed conflict. |
| FREE SPEECH, ANIMAL LAW, AND FOOD ACTIVISM | |
| Friedman v. Souther California Permanente Medical Group |
|
| From Inside the Cage to Outside the Box: Natural Resources as a Platform for Nonhuman | |
| From Social Justice to Animal Liberation | |
| Fuzzy Toys and Fuzzy Feelings: How the “Disney” Culture Provides the Necessary Psychological Link to Improving Animal Welfare | |
| Global Journal of Animal Law | |
| Gregg and Linda Schumacher, and Gregg Schumacher Furs, LLC dba as Schumacher Furs and Outerwear, Plaintiffs v. City of Portland, | In this Opinion, the judge granted the defendants a total of $96,870.85 in attorneys fees. The action stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Schumachers for $ 6.6 million dollars against the City of Portland and the named defendants seeking damages for alleged illegal protest activities in front of their fur store. The defendants all prevailed on their Motion to Strike. The court observed that awarding of attorney fees is mandatory under Oregon law when a party prevails in an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit. Thus, the issue at hand was the amount of the attorney fees. The court went through the factors under Oregon law in analyzing the reasonableness of the requested attorney fees. When examining each factor, the court determined that the evidence either was in favor of defendants or was neutral. Notably, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims against defendants were not objectively reasonable because the plaintiffs did not produce any evidence that the prevailing defendants did anything illegal. |
| How Nonhuman Animals Were Trapped in a Nonexistent Universe |