Animal Rights
Displaying 81 - 90 of 244
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| CRITICAL ANIMAL STUDIES AND ANIMAL LAW | |
| CULTURAL SOLIPSISM, CULTURAL LENSES, UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES, AND ANIMAL ADVOCACY | This article explores the cultural similarities and differences relating to the relationship between humans and animals in a globalized world. The article acknowledges that cultural differences in a globalized world can have a profound impact on the efficacy of advocacy for the benefit of animals. Attempts in one nation to provide protection for animals can have unintended consequences in our globalized world. The problem that then presents itself is, given the potpourri of human cultures and the need to take a global view of animal rights advocacy, how can animal rights advocates most efficiently and successfully advocate for animals? This article addresses that issue. |
| Decision AHC4806－2017 |
(Original case in Spanish below; English translation attached as pdf). The Supreme Court of Justice rules in favor of the spectacled bear, ‘Chucho’, granting him the habeas corpus after the bear’s attorney challenged the lower court decision that denied it. Chucho is a 22 year old spectacled bear that was born and raised in semi-captivity. He lived for 18 years in a natural reserve in the city of Manizales with his sister. After his sister died, Chucho became depressed and started escaping. The environmental authorities thought that it would be in the best interest of the bear to relocate him, for which they decided to move him to a zoo in the northern of Colombia. Unfortunately, the living conditions of Chucho were diminished, as he went from living in semi-captivity to living into a smaller area. Attorney Luis Domingo Maldonado filed an habeas corpus in representation of the bear that was denied on first instance by the civil chamber of the Superior Tribunal of Manizales. Attorney Luis Domingo Maldonado argued that the current legal system did not have a specific proper mechanism that allowed the taking of immediate and urgent measures to protect the rights of animals as sentient beings to retire them for centers of captivity when they have spent their lives in natural reserves. He also used as examples the precedents from Brazil and Argentina where a chimpanzee and an orangutan were granted habeas corpus. Attorney Maldonado sought that the court order the immediate and permanent relocation of Chucho to the natural reserve ‘La Planada’, located in the Department of Narino. The Civil Chamber reversed the decision on first instance, and ordered the relocation of Chucho from the zoo in Barranquilla to a more appropriate location of semi-captivity conditions. In its reasoning, the magistrate judge stated that animals are entitled to rights as sentient beings, not as humans, and that the idea is to insert a morality of respect to counter a global ecological public order where the tendency of men is to destroy the habitat. After long considerations, the chamber stated that it is necessary to modify the concept of ‘subject of rights’ in relation with nature, understanding that who is subject of rights is not necessarily correlatively-bound to have duties. “The legal, ethical and political purpose is the unavoidable need to create a strong conscience to protect the vital environment for the survival of men, conservation of the environment and as a frontal fight against the irrationality in the man-nature relationship.” |
| Decision STL12651-2017 |
The Labor Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided on an action of ‘tutela’ filed by la Fundación Botánica y Zoológica de Barranquilla, Fundazoo against the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, Luis Domingo Gómez Maldonado, Corpocaldas and others. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants had violated their rights to due process and right to defense, as well as the principle of legality and contradiction, when the Defendant ordered the transfer of the spectacled bear ‘Chucho’ from the Barranquilla zoo to a natural reserve in Narino. Plaintiff sought to leave without effect Decision AHC4806 2017 that granted habeas corpus to ‘Chucho’, the spectacled bear, allowing the bear to stay at the Barranquilla Zoo, which according to Plaintiffs, is able to provide Chucho with all the requirements for his well being, including veterinary care, food, companionship and infrastructure. The Labor Chamber decided for the Plaintiff and left without effect the decision of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, arguing that the Civil Chamber had ruled based on norms that did not apply to the specific case, to a point that the effects of such application had resulted in an interpretation that completely deferred to what the legislative had intended. The Civil Chamber, the court said in its reasoning, wrongly applied the procedure of habeas corpus, which led to the violation of the due process of law of the Plaintiffs, as ‘Chucho’ has no legal capacity to be a party in a legal procedure. The labor chamber explained that from a constitutional view, the granting of habeas corpus for the protection of animals was not proper, as it is established to protect the right to freedom of persons, which is the basis for a society. For that reason, it can only be attributable to human beings that can be individualized. This rules out the other beings to use this mechanism, including legal persons, as it would erode the real essence of this legal mechanism, the court stated. Furthermore, the magister judge states that the legal treatment that has been given to animals corresponds to the sentients beings, which implies their protection, rather than persons. This means that humans have the responsibility to respect animals, but does not imply that animals can fight for their freedom through the mechanism of habeas corpus, in these cases the defense of animals cannot be resolved by giving them the status of persons, but rather through judicial mechanisms such as popular actions (for the protection of collective and diffuse rights and interests), or with preventive material apprehension |
| Derechos de los animales en Colombia: una lectura crítica en perspectiva ambiental | Animal rights are commonly understood as an expression of the rights of nature. However, both are in open contradiction, due to the complex interactions of ecosystems and the place of fauna in them, poorly understood by the generators of animal law rules, because in those animal suffering is inherent. The rights of animals in Colombia are not an expression of the rights of nature, on the contrary, they undermine them, and hinder the consolidation of an environmental right aligned with social justice and that puts the survival of ecosystems at the center. The above, because animal law outlaws critical ecological processes, gentrifies environmental law, promotes an artificial binary between fauna and flora, contradicts certain forms of climate action, hinders conservation, stigmatizes cultural diversity, agency class discrimination, prevents the control of invasive species, generates a protection deficit for other kingdoms of life, like the vegetable and the fungi, and promotes a transition from anthropocentrism to a kind of zoocentrism (article in Spanish). |
| Detailed Discussion of European Animal Welfare Laws 2003 to Present: Explaining the Downturn |
|
| Detailed Discussion of Philosophy and Animals |
|
| Dismantling the Barriers to Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals |
|
| Dubner v.City and County of San Francisco |
|
| Ecuador - Animal rights - Civil Code |