Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOME THOUGHTS ON ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION | David Favre | 2 Animal L. 161 (1996) (pdf version) | This article was adapted from remarks from David Favre 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. |
| Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System | David Favre | 93 Marq. L. Rev. 1021 (2010) |
This Article develops the proposition that non-human animals can possess and exercise legal rights. This proposal is supported by the fact that our legal system already accommodates a number of animal interests within the criminal anti-cruelty laws and civil trust laws. To make a more coherent package of all animal-related public policy issues, it is useful to acknowledge the existence of a fourth category of property, living property. Once separated out from other property, a new area of jurisprudence will evolve, providing legal rights for at least some animals. This Article establishes why animals should receive consideration within the legal system, which animals should be focused upon, what some of the legal rights might be, and how the traditional rules of property law will be modified to accommodate the presence of this new category of property. |
| Integrating Animal Interests into Our Legal System | David Favre | 10 Animal L. 87 (2004) |
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. |
| Judicial Recognition of The Interests of Animals - A New Tort | David Favre | 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 333 |
The article examines how the interest of humans are represented in the legal system and how the interests of animals might better be brought into the legal system with the creation of a new tort for the benefit of animals. |
| AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY FOR ANIMAL WELFARE | David Favre | 18 Animal L. 237 (2012) |
Currently there is no international agreement that ensures the welfare and protection of animals. Nor is there any international standard that regulates and defines the acceptable treatment of animals. This lack of international consensus leads to the current disparate treatment of animals around the world, echoing the need for an international framework addressing the issue. This Article discusses a proposed umbrella treaty, the International Convention for the Protection of Animals (ICPA). This umbrella treaty would enable animal welfare issues to gain international recognition and protection by setting the general guidelines and polices regarding the treatment and use of animals. This Article argues that this is the best way to successfully pursue international protection by reconciling the conflicting goals of making a treaty enticing to as many countries as possible, without eliminating enforcement mechanisms. This Article also suggests four companion protocols that would further delineate specific animal welfare standards and requirements. With the present economic climate, it may be difficult to convince countries to pass such a treaty. However, the ICPA could make it possible to begin the process of enacting groundbreaking international animal protection. |
| Overview of Historical Materials | David Favre | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides a quick overview of the historical materials available through the Web Center |
| ANIMAL CONSORTIUM | David S. Favre and Thomas Dickinson | 84 Tenn. L. Rev. 893 (2017) | This article will show that sufficient relational interest can exist between a human and companion animal and that this interest is widely accepted in our culture; therefore, financial recovery for the disruption of this relationship is a fair burden to place upon actors in today's world. This proposal does not seek to give any legal rights to companion animals; instead, this is a proposal to allow the law to acknowledge the depth and reality of the bond between humans and animals that exists in millions of families across the country. First, this article sets out the existing categories of damage for recovery when a defendant's tortious actions result in the death of a companion animal. Integral to this discussion is the reality that companion animals are considered property. Courts most often are unwilling to extend financial recovery to include the emotional loss of the owner of an animal. Second, this article will examine the history of the concept of consortium to show how the legal system has come to accept that the compensable harm is not limited to economic consequences, nor is it limited to husband and wife relationships. Third, this article will present information to support the position that companion animals are emotionally and psychologically important to the human members of many families. Fourth, this article will show that animals have already jumped out of the property box in a number of fact patterns, and therefore, it is appropriate to raise their status in this context as well. Fifth, this article will consider the application of the concept of animal consortium in detail as an extension of the common law cause of action. Finally, acknowledging some of the difficulties that courts may have in implementing this proposal, a legislative draft is proposed to accomplish the recovery sought by this article. |
| OBSTACLES TO LEGAL RIGHTS FOR ANIMALS CAN WE GET THERE FROM HERE? | Susan Finsen | 3 Animal L. i (1997) | This article gives a brief introduction regarding the obstacles to legal rights for animals. |
| Animals as Property | Gary L. Francione | 2 Animal L. I (1996) (html version) |
Animals are property, not persons. And yet, at the same time, they are treated differently than other forms of property such as cars, toasters, and crops. Professor Francione discusses the legal status of animals and argues that, given the law as it now stands, before any real gains can be made in animal rights, either theory or in practice, the legal classification of animals must change from that of good to something more closely resembling personhood. |
| Animals as Property | Gary L. Francione | 2 Animal L. i (1996) (pdf version) | This article gives a brief introduction of the social attitudes regarding animals as property. |