Animal Rights

Integrating Animal Interests into Our Legal System

Share

|

Summary:

This article explores the obstacles to obtaining legal rights for animals both within the animal rights movement and within the broader political context. The author examines in which arena legal change might best be sought--the courts, the legislature, state governments, or the federal government. Finally, it makes a number of suggestions as to what type of laws would be the most successful in advancing the interests of animals.

This article explores the obstacles to obtaining legal rights for animals both within the animal rights movement and within the broader political context. The author examines in which arena legal change might best be sought--the courts, the legislature, state governments, or the federal government. Finally, it makes a number of suggestions as to what type of laws would be the most successful in advancing the interests of animals.

On Redefining the Boundaries of Animal Ownership: Burdens and Benefits of Evidencing Animals' Personalities

Share

|

Summary: What is it about the law’s archaic perception of animals that makes it falter on the brink of constructing a modern concept of animal ownership? Were animals as personalty appreciated in their fundamental distinctions from other personal properties, the law might be able to fashion a more sophisticated set of legal responsibilities for, and rewards of, such ownership. Progress toward achieving that refinement requires the law to embrace a set of related concepts: that animals can and do have personalities, as well as that evidence rules allow those personalities to be manifested through testimony in civil actions concerning an animal’s intent. As evidence doctrines on character and propensity expand and contract to address boundaries for these concepts, a fuller potential for property law may be effectively promoted as a result. Burdens (such as the new tort of negligent confinement) and benefits (such as a more reasoned acceptance of animal expression) await.

What is it about the law’s archaic perception of animals that makes it falter on the brink of constructing a modern concept of animal ownership? Were animals as personalty appreciated in their fundamental distinctions from other personal properties, the law might be able to fashion a more sophisticated set of legal responsibilities for, and rewards of, such ownership. Progress toward achieving that refinement requires the law to embrace a set of related concepts: that animals can and do have personalities, as well as that evidence rules allow those personalities to be manifested through testimony in civil actions concerning an animal’s intent. As evidence doctrines on character and propensity expand and contract to address boundaries for these concepts, a fuller potential for property law may be effectively promoted as a result. Burdens (such as the new tort of negligent confinement) and benefits (such as a more reasoned acceptance of animal expression) await.

". . . und die tiere" Constitutional Protection for Germany's Animals

Share

|

Summary: In the summer of 2002, Germany welcomed animals into the folds of constitutional protection. With the addition of the words “and the animals,” Germany became the first country in the European Union (“E.U.”), and the second on the European continent, to guarantee the highest level of federal legal protection to its nonhuman animals. Though a welcomed development in the eyes of most Germans, this groundbreaking event received very little attention on the world stage. Common misconceptions about the ramifications of the constitutional amendment resulted in limited to no accurate representation in worldwide media. Likewise, international policymakers and animal protectionists have shown little awareness of this development and its potential implications. In addition to possible legal effects, the social implications of such an occurrence in a major western country are vast. International leaders will certainly take note as the effects of this change begin to take place in Germany’s laws and, increasingly, in its international policies. More importantly, the global animal protection community should take note of what is possible, and what can be learned from the achievements of Germany’s animal protection community. This study traces the legal and social developments leading to Germany’s constitutional amendment which provides protection to animals, showing how this legal highpoint was achieved. Multiple sources are used, including congressional, judicial, and party doc uments, press releases, international media reports, personal communication with leaders in four major German animal protection organizations, interviews with a key Ministry official, and published materials. This study will also critically assess the claims of the animal protection and opposition communities in order to predict where German animal law is going and what effects this change will have on the treatment of animals both within Germany and internationally. Concluding thoughts will address how the international animal protection community can understand this legal victory in a constructive context.

In the summer of 2002, Germany welcomed animals into the folds of constitutional protection. With the addition of the words “and the animals,” Germany became the first country in the European Union (“E.U.”), and the second on the European continent, to guarantee the highest level of federal legal protection to its nonhuman animals. Though a welcomed development in the eyes of most Germans, this groundbreaking event received very little attention on the world stage. Common misconceptions about the ramifications of the constitutional amendment resulted in limited to no accurate representation in worldwide media. Likewise, international policymakers and animal protectionists have shown little awareness of this development and its potential implications. In addition to possible legal effects, the social implications of such an occurrence in a major western country are vast. International leaders will certainly take note as the effects of this change begin to take place in Germany’s laws and, increasingly, in its international policies. More importantly, the global animal protection community should take note of what is possible, and what can be learned from the achievements of Germany’s animal protection community. This study traces the legal and social developments leading to Germany’s constitutional amendment which provides protection to animals, showing how this legal highpoint was achieved. Multiple sources are used, including congressional, judicial, and party doc uments, press releases, international media reports, personal communication with leaders in four major German animal protection organizations, interviews with a key Ministry official, and published materials. This study will also critically assess the claims of the animal protection and opposition communities in order to predict where German animal law is going and what effects this change will have on the treatment of animals both within Germany and internationally. Concluding thoughts will address how the international animal protection community can understand this legal victory in a constructive context.

The Day May Come: Legal Rights for Animals

Share

|

Summary:

This article examines the main arguments used for denying moral rights to nonhuman animals, the rights to life and bodily integrity in particular. Because these arguments are deficient, animals should not be denied legal rights on the basis of their presumed moral inferiority to humans.

This article examines the main arguments used for denying moral rights to nonhuman animals, the rights to life and bodily integrity in particular. Because these arguments are deficient, animals should not be denied legal rights on the basis of their presumed moral inferiority to humans.

LEGISLACIÓN INGLESA Y NORTEAMERICANA: DERECHO ANIMAL

Share

|

Summary:

El presente trabajo analiza la legislación de Estados Unidos en materia de derecho bienestar animal relacionándola con la de Reino Unido con el objetivo de delimitar hasta qué punto su regulación puede ser considerada modélica y / o si resultaría mejorable. Para ello, se analiza, si la Declaración Universal de Derechos del Animal, la observancia de la cual debería servir como punto de partida, en tanto Código de Conducta, es observada por tales legislaciones. A su vez, en el marco de tal regulación, se examina si existe una relación directa entre el grado de concienciación social y el grado de protección de su regulación respecto los animales. Finalmente, se apunta desde una perspectiva crítica cual es el mérito que suponen tales legislaciones para el derecho de bienestar animal, a la vez que pretende examinar sus posibles carencias.

El presente trabajo analiza la legislación de Estados Unidos en materia de derecho bienestar animal relacionándola con la de Reino Unido con el objetivo de delimitar hasta qué punto su regulación puede ser considerada modélica y / o si resultaría mejorable. Para ello, se analiza, si la Declaración Universal de Derechos del Animal, la observancia de la cual debería servir como punto de partida, en tanto Código de Conducta, es observada por tales legislaciones. A su vez, en el marco de tal regulación, se examina si existe una relación directa entre el grado de concienciación social y el grado de protección de su regulación respecto los animales. Finalmente, se apunta desde una perspectiva crítica cual es el mérito que suponen tales legislaciones para el derecho de bienestar animal, a la vez que pretende examinar sus posibles carencias.