Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amparo en Revisión 80/2022 - Mexico | AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 80/2022 | This is a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico pertaining to a 2019 decree of Nayarit declaring horse racing, bullfighting, cockfighting, and similar practices intangible cultural heritage of the state. A civil association whose mission is to help protect the environment and animals brought an Amparo against the decree, arguing a violation of the right to a healthy environment, as bullfighting and cockfighting are cruel activities where animals are tortured and killed. The Supreme Court analyzed three main questions: (1) What activities can be protected by cultural rights? (2) Does the right to a healthy environment protect animals from abuse or suffering by humans? (3) Can “bullfighting and cockfighting” be constitutionally protected by cultural rights? In answering the first question, the court held that the human right to cultural participation cannot be used as an excuse to violate or destroy other human rights. On the contrary, its exercise must allow the harmony and development of the other rights recognized in our country. Therefore, while some activities, expressions, or manifestations are perceived as “cultural” to society, it is crucial to acknowledge that, from a constitutional standpoint, only those fully aligned with human rights can be officially recognized as such by our nation. Regarding the second question, the court held that “[t]he human right to a healthy environment is a broad concept that includes animal life and well-being, conceiving animals not only as members of a single species or group of species, but also as individual living beings capable of experiencing fear, suffering, and pain.” Moreover, the court stated that it meant that “one of the demands of the right to a healthy environment implied that human beings must live in harmony with other species, not because these species are 'persons,' but because people – that is, human beings – should not behave in a way hostile and cruel towards animals. On the contrary, they must consider animals as beings that must be respected and treated in a decent manner to preserve and be faithful to their moral responsibility as the main driver of the destiny of other species.” Lastly, addressing the third question on whether “bullfighting and cockfighting” should be constitutionally protected under cultural rights, the court concluded in the negative. This decision was based on the recognition that these activities involved the infliction of agony, suffering, and even death upon animals solely for the sake of entertainment, sport, or recreation. The court granted the Amparo and held that the state of Nayarit lacked the power to declare bullfighting and cockfighting intangible cultural heritage as it is a power only the federation has, and not the states, according to the interpretation of the Federal Constitution and the General Law of Culture and Cultural Rights. | Case | |
| An Analysis of Factors Responsible for the Decline of the U.S. Horse Industry: Why Horse Slaughter is not the Solution | John Holland and Laura Allen | Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol5/iss2/4 |
Copyright © 2013 by Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law; John Holland and Laura Allen. Reprinted with permission. |
Article |
| An Analysis of Favre’s Theory on the Legal Status of Animals: Towards a Reconsideration of the “Person-Property Dichotomy” | Akimune Yoshida | AA1161370X | In modern legal systems, only persons (including natural persons and legal persons) can have legal rights; property cannot. This perspective is known as the “Person-Property Dichotomy". Although animals are categorized as personal property, their legal treatment has changed from that of other forms of property, and in many jurisdictions, anti-cruelty laws have been enacted to punish owners of animals who abuse animals in their care. This unique legal status of animals leads us towards a reconsideration of the “Person-Property Dichotomy”. The Japanese Government is currently in the process of amending the Act on Welfare and Management of Animals. In Japan, there has been a dearth of academic debate to date about the legal status of animals, and it is helpful to see how other jurisdictions have discussed this topic. This paper focuses on David S. Favre’s theory as it has not been studied as deeply in Japan as its importance and societal needs merit. In order to keep animals within the concept of property and recognize their legal rights, Favre proposed an innovative concept, “living property”. His theory is based on the principle of trusts, which divide title into equitable and legal title, and acknowledges equitable self-ownership by animals. Whereas domestic animals possess equitable title and some legal rights, owners have only legal title. Such animals with equitable title thus become living property. When owners infringe domestic animals’ legal rights, such animals can sue their owners with the help of other humans as guardians. This paper introduces Favre’s theory on the legal status of animals from his own highly original perspective and analyzes it critically with a view to clarifying its implications for Japanese law. | Article |
| An Animal is Not an Ipod | Diane Sullivan & Holly Vietzke | 4 Journal of Animal Law 41 (2008) |
The law in United States categorizes animals as personal property. As a result, recovery of damages for the loss of a companion animal is often times the fair market value. This inflexible approach to companion animals fails to distinguish between personal property such as a chair and a beloved pet. Needless to say, awarding damages at fair market value serves as little or no deterrence for the tortfeasor. This is especially true in cases where the companion animal lacks pedigree or special training. However, some decisions have authorized human guardians of companion animals to plead and recover the “unique value” of the companion animal. Such decisions reflect a shift in the court’s view of companion animals, which acknowledges public policy concerns for the guardian of the companion animal. This article discusses the law in United States on companion animals and proposes legislative action in the state of Florida for the recovery of the “loss of companionship” for owners of companion 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 |
| An Ethical Critique of the Canadian Seal Hunt and an Examination of the Case for Import Controls on Seal Products | Andrew Linzey | 2 Journal of Animal Law 87 (2006) |
The Canadian seal hunt has been the subject of criticism since the middle of the nineteenth century, but it is only since the 1960s that it has become a focus of international controversy. This document examines the putative justifications for the hunt and provides an ethical assessment. |
Article |
| AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY FOR ANIMAL WELFARE | David Favre | 18 Animal L. 237 | 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. | Article |
| 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. |
Article |
| An Introduction to Pet in Wills and Pet Euthanasia | Suzette Daniels | Michigan State University - Detroit College of Law |
This paper examines several issues related to estate planning and companion animals. Included in the discussion are pet trusts, new provisions of the Uniform Probate Code, and will-stipulated euthanasia of pets. |
Article |
| Ananda v. The Village of Glenview | After a dog bite incident, the village of Glenview declared plaintiff's dog "vicious." Plaintiff's dog escaped from his mandated enclosure and was impounded by animal control. Plaintiff moved the Circuit Court of Cook County to enter an order transferring ownership of the dog and limiting impoundment fees. The order also asks the court to void the vicious dog determination and to declare section 365 of the Animal Control Act unconstitutional. This document also includes defendant's answer. | Pleading |