The Legal protection of Foxes in France and England and Wales

The fox (vulpes vulpes) is a one wild mammal species which has historically been persecuted by humans throughout western Europe. The fox remains subject to such persecution even today due to a mixture of supposedly “cultural” traditions and its designation as an undesirable pest. Using the wildlife legal regimes in England and France as a lens, this article analyses how these two different national legal frameworks either restrict or permit acts of cruelty towards the fox. Beginning with the French legal regime, this article discusses how the different parts of the French legal codes permit the fox to be killed for different reasons before analysing whether such grounds are underpinned by proper justifications and if associated conditions are properly checked and enforced. The article then evaluates how well in reality the different wildlife welfare laws in the England protect the fox from the persecution permitted by the French legal regime. Such evaluation concludes by criticising the enforcement problems created by the patchwork nature of the English regime and the exceptions to welfare protections before suggesting reforms required to close such issues exposing the fox to unjustified exploitation

The Theological and Ethical Grounds against Keeping Elephants Captive

As set forth below, animal theology experts Dr. Andrew Linzey and Dr. Clair Linzey of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics believe that Petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (“NhRP”) has made a prima facie case that the elephants confined at Fresno Chaffee Zoo in Fresno, CA—Nolwazi, Amahle, and Mabu—are entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we respectfully urge the Supreme Court of California to issue an order to show cause in this matter

Global scoping of wildlife crime offences, penalties, and statistics

At a time of escalating biodiversity and climate crises, there is an urgent need to effectively respond to harms and crimes toward wildlife and the environment. This study gathers information for a global scoping analysis of wildlife offences and penalties, and of the availability of crime statistics. This is a starting point for assessing the effectiveness of mainstream criminal justice responses (fines and prison) to wildlife crime and a baseline for comparing restorative justice as an alternative approach.  We examine 1,256 pieces of legislation from 185 countries to assess the scope of wildlife-related offences and their corresponding penalties. The analysis shows that penalties are highly varied around the globe, although fines and imprisonment are the predominant response. What counts as a wildlife offence is highly variable across wildlife, forestry, fisheries, and environmental legislation. This also makes for differences in the way government departments identify and prosecute wildlife offences. To display the complexity of the data we introduce a publicly available dashboard and database detailing offence types and penalties, including restorative and non-custodial actions. We then make a rapid assessment of the availability of official sources of wildlife crime statistics, highlighting how very few countries make this information publicly available. This limits our ability to assess whether wildlife offences are being sanctioned as the law requires and whether enforcement reduces re-offending. To make wildlife crime prevention and disruption strategies more effective, better data on wildlife law enforcement and its long-term impacts are urgently needed

Animals as Assets in Debt Collection Procedures

The paper outlines the legal rules pertaining to the treatment of animals as assets for debt collection in Germany and America. A comparative analysis reveals striking similarities and fundamental differences at the same time, which are explained against the background of both legal systems’ wider context. Finally, the paper turns to the lessons to be learned for the further development of animal law. Especially sections 811(3) and 765a(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure are identified as commendable examples of laws that protect animals without neglecting the legitimate interests of humans

Ensuring Livestock Welfare at Slaughter in the US: Still A Long Way To Go

US legislation aimed at protecting livestock welfare at pre-slaughter handling and during slaughter falls far short of being an effective, comprehensive, and modern law. While its implementation several decades ago has resulted in modest improvements and some of the most egregious practices have been outlawed, the legislation's impact remains limited. In addition to its limited scope and scant enforcement, the legislation has not kept up with scientific developments. Further, the legislation raises ethical concerns by failing to appropriately consider the interests of animals in situations in which slaughter without stunning remains allowed. The legislation remains deeply deficient on a number of fronts; much more is needed to ensure livestock welfare at slaughter.   &nbsp

Procedure Severity Assessments in Animal Research: Ethical and Practical Considerations

Procedure severity assessments are required for certain types of animal research. While the concept exists in many jurisdictions, each takes a different approach, resulting in the same procedure potentially being categorized differently, and being subject to different requirements (or none at all). The severity assessment frameworks in the EU, Israel, Canada, and Switzerland are considered and applied to a hypothetical blood withdrawal from a Giant Pacific Octopus. The note considers whether we can ever be sure that we understand the experience of pain of another species, in particular a species that is evolutionarily distant from and poorly understood by humans, and whether our ethical obligations could ever be met in the context of severity assessments

Panda Saves the Day: Implementing Panda Diplomacy to Safeguard Diplomatic Animals

Diplomatic animals have been used as a tool to strengthen good will among nations since ancient history. Animal species such as pandas, elephants, koalas, dogs, and various other animals are often gifted within nations. Once the animals are sent as diplomatic animals, the standard practice is such that the sending country has no ownership, claim or responsibility over those animals and does not interfere with any aftermath. These animals are then protected by the animal protection laws and policies in their new residing country. It is essential that diplomatic animals are provided with the necessary care and facilities which were available for them in their native country. However, there are ample examples where diplomatic animals have been mistreated and neglected. For instance, Kaavan who was once considered the world’s loneliest elephant was sent from Sri Lanka as a diplomatic animal to Pakistan in 1985. He was confined in an enclosure in the Islamabad Zoo together with a female elephant called Saheli. Saheli died in 2012 which deeply affected Kaavan who started showing signs of stress and aggression. As a result, the zookeepers kept him chained in isolation and poor living conditions. Kaavan was later rescued by a global campaign called ‘Free the Wild’ and the Islamabad High Court issued an order to immediately relocate Kaavan. Even though Kaavan was evidently suffering in the Islamabad Zoo from 2012 until he was relocated in a sanctuary in 2020, the government of Sri Lanka did not interfere with the situation since it is not appropriate as per the traditions and normative practice. On the other hand, as per the concept of Panda Diplomacy all the Pandas in the world are owned by China and they are given to other nations as loans. It not only protects the animals which are directly sent by China, but also any off-springs that are born. The research question is whether panda diplomacy can be utilised to develop an international framework to protect the diplomatic animals against cruelty and mistreatment, mandate both nations to take due care of the animal and ensure its physical and mental well-being. The research hypothesis is that the concept of panda diplomacy can be used as a framework to continue the duty and the responsibility of a country towards diplomatic animals, and even used as a mechanism to hold the countries liable if they have knowingly mistreated or neglected such diplomatic animals. Thereby, the research first discusses examples of how diplomatic animals are subject to cruelty and mistreatment and the necessity of imposing the duty of care on both nations which are involved in the diplomatic relations. The in-depth analysis of panda diplomacy is helpful in establishing a responsibility to ensure that such animals are protected with utmost care in their new locations. Thereby, the research suggests to implement an international convention to protect diplomatic animals and provides recommendations as to how to develop such an international legal obligation to prioritise the welfare of diplomatic animals without tarnishing the relations among nations

Maneesha Deckha, Animals as Legal Beings: Contesting Anthropocentric Legal Orders (2021, University of Toronto Press)

n/

Animal Constitutionalism: Paving the Way for Animal Inclusion in the Belgian Constitution

An increasing number of countries decide to include animals in their Constitution. This animal constitutionalism movement is not unimportant since the Constitution is the pinnacle of the law, as a result of which the mere inclusion of a particular value in the Constitution indicates that society attaches considerable importance to this value. Belgian legislators have also considered the inclusion of animals in the Constitution for quite some time, and bills were introduced in the previous (2014-2019) and in the current (2019-2024) parliamentary term. This contribution will examine whether and how the inclusion of a provision on animal welfare in the Constitution would actually improve the position of animal welfare in Belgium. To this end, research was conducted into the animal welfare provision in the German Constitution (Article 20a) on the one hand and into the current legal framework governing animal welfare in Belgium on the other hand, with a particular emphasis on the case law from the Belgian Constitutional Court regarding animal welfare. Not only are the existing proposals (i.e. a Belgian animal welfare state objective and a socio-economic animal welfare right) to revise the Belgian Constitution examined, but two new avenues (i.e. a classic animal welfare right and fundamental animal rights) are also explored. All these results will be taken into account to make concrete recommendations for Belgian legislators