Suchergebnisse

Within just a few weeks, COVID-19 has caused unprecedented lockdowns, the extensive use of emergency powers, shifts in how and who makes decisions, and unforeseen consequences for marginalized and newly marginalized individuals. Political leaders and journalists were quick to blame animals, such as bats and pangolins, as the ones "responsible" for this crisis. These accusations have led to animals being stigmatized globally; in some places, they were burned or otherwise killed by the hundreds. Framing animals as the scapegoats of the Corona crisis, however, is neither useful nor justified. Ultimately, it isn't animals themselves, but the way in which we treat them that is the true cause of the pandemic. For the first time in history, experts from diverse fields such as has epidemiology, biology, chemistry, physics, and public health have called for a fundamental change in our relationships with animals. However, they do not sufficiently address what this change and our relationships with animals should look like in the future. Drawing on the recent "political turn" in animal ethics, this paper argues that COVID-19 prompts us to begin working to establish a Zoopolis - a shared interspecies society between humans and domesticated animals, and the recognition of wild animals as sovereigns. In doing so, the paper discusses linkages between pandemics and factory farming, structural similarities between human and animal oppression, and opportunities to consider animals in determining the public good, and to work toward a shared interspecies society. ; En tan solo unas pocas semanas, el COVID-19 ha causado bloqueos sin precedentes, el uso extensivo de poderes de emergencia, cambios en cómo y quién toma decisiones y consecuencias imprevistas para las personas marginadas y recientemente marginadas. Los líderes políticos y periodistas se apresuraron a culpar a los animales, como murciélagos y pangolines, como los "responsables" de esta crisis. Estas acusaciones han llevado a que los animales sean estigmatizados a nivel mundial; en algunos lugares, fueron quemados o asesinados por cientos. Sin embargo, enmarcar a los animales como chivos expiatorios de la crisis del Corona no es útil ni está justificado. En última instancia, no son los animales en sí mismos, sino la forma en que los tratamos, la verdadera causa de la pandemia. Por primera vez en la historia, expertos de diversos campos como la epidemiología, la biología, la química, la física y la salud pública han pedido un cambio fundamental en nuestras relaciones con los animales. Sin embargo, no abordan suficientemente cómo deberían ser este cambio y nuestras relaciones con los animales en el futuro. Basándose en el reciente "giro político" en la ética animal, este documento sostiene que el COVID-19 nos impulsa a comenzar a trabajar para establecer una Zoopolis, una sociedad interespecie compartida entre humanos y animales domésticos, y el reconocimiento de los animales salvajes como soberanos. Al hacerlo, el documento analiza los vínculos entre las pandemias y la agricultura industrial, las similitudes estructurales entre la opresión humana y animal y las oportunidades para considerar a los animales de cara a determinar el bien público y trabajar hacia una sociedad interespecie compartida.

Introduction: protecting animals in an age of globalization -- Mapping the territory of animal law -- Shifting dimensions of animal law -- The unanswered: indirectly protecting animals through the GATT -- The ignored: indirectly protecting animals through the TBT, the SPS, the ADA, the AoA, and the special treatment clause -- The unexplored: direct extraterritoriality -- Extended jurisdiction through foreign policy, soft law, and self-regulation -- Lex ferenda : direct extraterritoriality -- Parameters of substantive law -- Comparative vantage points of extraterritorial animal law -- Legality of extraterritorial jurisdiction under international law -- Conclusion : toward legal pluralism, postcolonialism, and interspecies justice.

Few other issues have prompted as many legislators to adopt legal instruction on the "proper" use of non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) in medical and scientific research. Today, the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement of animals in scientific procedures) are globally accepted by a vast majority of states (Blattner, 2014); and prominent international organizations, such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2018, Article 7(8)(3)) and the Council of Europe (Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, 1986, Articles 6(2), 7 and 8). Widespread acceptance of the 3Rs is a notable achievement, since animal law is a relatively young field of law, and attitudes about the human-animal relationship diverge sharply across societies.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction stands at the juncture of international law and animal law and promises to open a path to understanding and resolving the global problems that challenge the core of animal law. As corporations have relocated and the animal industry (agriculture, medical research, entertainment, etc.) has dispersed its production facilities across the territories of multiple states, regulatory gaps and fears of a race to the bottom have become a pressing issue of global policy. 'Protecting Animals Within and Across Borders' provides enough background to allow readers to understand why extraterritorial jurisdiction must respond to these developments, counters objections that readers might raise, and describes how to improve animal law in tandem.

A citizens' initiative was launched in 2016 in the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, demanding that the rights catalogue in the Cantonal Constitution be complemented by a fundamental right to life and a right to bodily and mental integrity for non-human primates. This initiative became the subject of a three-year legal dispute that ended with a decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in September 2020, ruling that the initiative is legally valid and must be put to the people for a vote. This case note discusses the key developments in the dispute, including the groundbreaking decision by the Constitutional Court of Basel-Stadt, which held that cantons are free to 'expand the circle of rights holders beyond the anthropological barrier'. The authors, who were involved in the drafting of the initiative and acted as legal advisers in the judicial proceedings, offer first-hand insights into legal strategies and shed light on the importance of the case in the context of the ongoing efforts to secure rights for primates around the world.

Animals do a wide range of work in our society, but they are rarely recognized as workers or accorded any labour rights, and their working conditions are often oppressive and exploitative. Drawing on law, ethics, and labour studies, the essays in this volume explore the potential and dangers of animal labour.

Im Jahr 2016 lancierte die Organisation Sentience Politics im Kanton Basel-Stadt eine Initiative mit dem Ziel, ein Grundrecht auf Leben und körperliche und geistige Unversehrtheit für nichtmenschliche Primaten in die Verfassung aufzunehmen. Diese Initiative wurde zum Gegenstand eines Rechtsstreits, der 2019 zu einem wegweisenden Urteil des kantonalen Verfassungsgerichts führte. Das Verfassungsgericht anerkannte die Kompetenz der Kantone, «den Kreis der Rechteinhaber über die anthropologische Schranke hinaus auszudehnen». Dieses Urteil wurde kürzlich vom Bundesgericht bestätigt. Die Autoren, die diesen Fall juristisch begleitet haben, geben in diesem Beitrag aus erster Hand Einblicke in die juristischen Strategien hinter der Initiative und besprechen die wichtigsten rechtlichen Entwicklungen im Rechtsstreit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Urteils des Verfassungsgerichts Basel-Stadt.