THE DIVIDE BETWEEN IDEALISM AND PRACTICALITY IN ANIMALS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RECOGNITION
Sažetak
Contemporary theoretical discourse views animals as a vulnerable group, and also recognizes their capability of mental suffering. The question why this recognition has not been translated into a global and universally accepted accordance of fundamental rights to certain groups of animals is relevant for animal rights protection, while at the same time it illustrates the divide between the idealistic and normative dimensions of law. It appears that humans have known for thousands of years that at least some animals are capable of mental suffering and constitute a vulnerable group. Changes in animal rights protection have led to some changes in legislation, but these are not fundamental and do not concern the strive toward universal recognition that animals have fundamental rights. This means that there must be some other, decisive factors that are needed to move forward from the stage of vulnerability recognition to the normative development stage.
Reference
Bibliography
1. Alexy, R., 2012, Law, Morality, and the Existence of Human Rights, Ratio Juris 25.
2. Alston, P., 1984, Conjuring Up New Human Rights: A Proposal for Quality Control, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 78, No. 3.
3. Ascione, F. A. (ed.), 2010, International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application (New Directions in the Human-Animal Bond), West Lafayette, Purdue University Press.
4. Balkin, J. M., 2005, How Social Movements Change (or Fail to Change) the Constitution: The Case of the New Departure, Suffolk Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 27.
5. Beaudry, J.-S., 2016, From Autonomy to Habeas Corpus: Animal Rights Activists Take the Parameters of Legal Personhood to Court, Global Journal of Animal Law, 1.
6. Bekoff, M., 2007, The Emotional Lives of Animals, New World Library.
7. Boyle, A., 2007, Human Rights or Environmental Rights? A Reassessment. Fordham Environmental Law Review,18.
8. Cochrane, A., 2012, Animal Rights without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations, New York, Columbia University Press.
9. Cowen, T., 2003, Policing Nature, Environmental Ethics, Vol. 25, No. 2.
10. Ferdowsian, H. R. et al., 2011, Signs of Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Chimpanzees. PLoS ONE 6(6): e19855, (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019855">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019855,%2015.%2011.%202022)">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019855, 15. 11. 2022).
11. Fineman, M., 2012, “Elderly” as Vulnerable: Rethinking the Nature of Individual and Societal Responsibility, The Elder Law Journal, Vol. 20.
12. Fineman, M. A., 2008, The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, Vol. 20, No. 1.
13. Fox, M. A., 1997, On the “Necessary Suffering” of Nonhuman Animals, Animal Law, 3.
14. Francione, G., 1995, Animals, Property, and the Law, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
15. Francione, G. L., 1996, Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 2.
16. Garner, R., A Defense of a Broad Animal Protectionism, in: Francione, G., Garner, R., (eds.), 2013, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, New York, Columbia University Press.
17. Gewirth, A., 1973, The “Is–Ought” Problem Resolved, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 47, (https://doi.org/10.2307/3129900">https://doi.org/10.2307/3129900,%2015.%2011.%202022)">https://doi.org/10.2307/3129900, 15. 11. 2022)
18. Ginsburgs, G., 1993, The Jurisdictional Scope of Soviet Criminal Law: Ideology and Policy Determinants, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 45, No. 1.
19. Kennedy, D., 2002, The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 15.
20. Kirkwood, J. K., Sainsbury. A. W., 1996, Ethics of Interventions for the Welfare of Free-Living Wild Animals, Animal Welfare.
21. Korsgaard, C., 2004, Fellow Creatures; Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals, Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 24.
22. Lis, A., Pietrzykowski, T., 2015, Animals as Objects of Ritual Slaughter: Polish Law after the Battle over Exceptionless Mandatory Stunning, Global Journal of Animal Law, 2.
23. Nussbaum, M. C., 2001, Animal Rights: The Need for a Theoretical Basis, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 114.
24. Nussbaum, M. C., 2006, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
25. Nussbaum, M. C., 2007, On Moral Progress: A Response to Richard Rorty, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 3.
26. Nussbaum, M. C., 2000, Women and Development. The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
27. Otomo, Y., Mussawir, E., 2012, http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/21431/"> lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: black; background-color: white; text-decoration: none;">Law and the Question of the Animal: A Critical Jurisprudence, Abingdon, New York, Routledge (Law, Justice and Ecology).
28. Panzera, M., 2013, Sickness and Abnormal Behaviors as Indicators of Animal Suffering, Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism, Vol. 1, No. 1.
29. Park, M., Singer, P., 2012, The Globalization of Animal Welfare: More Food Does Not Require More Suffering, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 91.
30. Pedersen, N. K., 2009, Detailed Discussion of European Animal Welfare Laws 2003 to Present, Michigan State University College of Law Publication (https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-european-animal-welfare-laws-2003-present-explaining-downturn">https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-european-animal-welfare-laws-2003-present-explaining-downturn,%2015.%2011.%202022)">https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-european-animal-welfare-laws-2003-present-explaining-downturn, 15. 11. 2022).
31. Peters, A., 2015, Animal Law: Reform or Revolution, Zurich, Schulthess Juristische Medien AG, 1st edition.
32. Raz, J., 1974, Kelsen’s Theory of Basic the Norm, The American Journal of Jurisprudence, Vol. 19, No. 1.
33. Sapontzis, S. F., 1984, Predation, Ethics and Animals, Vol. 5, No. 2.
34. Satz, A. B., 2009, Animals as Vulnerable Subjects: Beyond Interest-Convergence, Hierarchy, and Property, Animal Law, Vol. 16, No. 2.
35. Sen, A., Capability and Well-Being, in: Nussbaum, M., Sen, A., (eds.), 1993, The Quality of Life, New York, Clarendon Press.
36. Singer, P., 1990, Ethics and Animals, Behavioral & Brain Science, Vol. 13.
37. Sozmen, B. I., 2013, Harm in the Wild: Facing Non-Human Suffering in Nature, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 16, No. 5.
38. Stone, C. D., 1972, Should Trees Have Standing? - Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 45.
Susi, M.-A., 2019, Animals’ Mental Suffering Paradigm in Estonian Judicial and Media Environment, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 1.
Susi, M.-A., 2017, Empowering Animals with Fundamental Rights –The Vulnerability Question, East-West Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 47.
41. Tomasik, B., 2015, The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering, Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism, Vol. 3, No. 2.
42. Witkowski, K., 1975, The “Is–Ought” Gap: Deduction or Justification? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, (https://doi.org/10.2307/2107056">https://doi.org/10.2307/2107056,%2015.%2011.%202022)">https://doi.org/10.2307/2107056, 15. 11. 2022).
43. Ziemele, I., Spale, A., Jurcéna, L., 2020, The Constitutional Court of The Republic of Latvia, The Max Planck Handbooks in European Public Law: Volume III: Constitutional Adjudication: Institutions, (DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198726418.003.0001).
Legislative Sources
The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals of 12 November 1987, ETS No. 125.
The European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, OJL 323, 17 of November 1978.
3. The EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 2010/63/EU of 22 September 2010.
4. The EU Regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009.
Case Law
1. Estonian Supreme Court judgment from 01 March 2021 (case No. 4-20-2803).
2. Estonian Supreme Court judgment from 25 November 2020 (case No. 2-18-15284).
3. Latvian Constitutional Court judgment from 20 May 2002 (case No. 2002-01-03).
Internet Sources
1. Eurobarometer, 2006, Attitudes of EU Citizens Towards Animal Welfare, (https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/browse/all;search=animals">https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/browse/all;search=animals,%2015.%2011.%202022)">https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/browse/all;search=animals, 15. 11. 2022).
2. European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, 2016, Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare: report, (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2875/17980)"> lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; background-color: white;"> class="MsoHyperlink" style="color: #0563c1; text-decoration: underline;">.
3. Eurobarometer, 2014, Special Eurobarometer 225: Social values, Science and Technology, (https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/browse/all;search=animals lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">, 15. 11. 2022).