Posted on September 5, 2014 by David
I am delighted to announce that The Pace Environmental Law Review has published an issue dedicated exclusively to animal law. It is the first Environmental Law Review to do so and its publication marks a tremendous step forward for both disciplines. The articles are available for download via Digital Commons. The Table of Contents is below. Continue reading
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal law, animal scholarship | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, environmental advocacy, environmental ethics, environmental law | Leave a comment »
Posted on June 4, 2014 by David
Pardon the partial self-interest, but the below-mentioned conference (at which I will be speaking) has all the makings of a faboo event. I spoke at the First Global Animal Law Conference back in 2002 (I believe) and it was great. The field has grown enormously in the intervening decade and this conference reflects that growth.
The 2nd Global Animal Law Conference will be held in Barcelona, Spain on July 10-11, 2014. Our goal is to bring together some the best legal minds from around the world to discuss the many and varied animal law issues and challenges that so many of us face.
Over the two-day Conference we expect to have more than 25 speakers from over 15 countries, most of whom are internationally known law professors who have taught and written on animal issues. The Conference is limited to 180 attendees, and will be conducted entirely in in English.
The history of the 1st Global Conference, ten years ago, suggests that this will be an important event for all attendees who seek to expand their own network of personal connections, develop global strategies to improve animal welfare and increase their understanding of our diverse cultures and legal systems around the world. Continue reading
Filed under: animal law, animal scholarship | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal law, animal rights, animal scholarship, animal welfare, international animal law, The 2nd Global Animal Law Conference | Leave a comment »
Posted on March 3, 2014 by angelvita88
By: A. Rivard, J.D. candidate, Pace Law School
What is Animallaw.com?
Animallaw.com is a comprehensive, free website that serves as a resource and clearinghouse for information on animals and the law. The website is available for the benefit of attorneys, law students, engaged constituents and all other animal advocates. Animallaw.com is entirely funded by the National Anti-Vivisection Society and sponsored by The International Institute for Animal Law (IIAL), a not-for-profit organization comprised of internationally renowned attorneys and judges. IIAL provides animal law programs, workshops, online resources such as Animallaw.com and offers grants as well. A disclaimer can be found on IIAL’s site, which states that it is neither licensed to practice animal law nor give legal advice. Rather, the mission of IIAL is to encourage, at the international level, the development of legal scholarship and advocacy skills on behalf of animals and as a result enhance the development of animal protection laws.
Is there Bias?
The International Institute for Animal Law, along with many animal advocates including animal law attorneys Continue reading
Filed under: animal scholarship, Uncategorized | Tagged: academia, animal law, animal law website, animal research | 6 Comments »
Posted on June 25, 2013 by cdillard2013
by Carter Dillard
Sincere thanks to Jeff and Joe for their biting critique of the idea of a primary human right that guarantees humans access to wilderness and complete biodiversity. This response, which is geared for the audience of the blog generally, will divide their critique into eight points and respond to each (taking their points a bit out of order), before drawing back to the theme of this blog in order to explain why the right not only survives their appraisal, but can simultaneously satisfy environmental, human, and animal interests.
1. Primary in what sense, and based on what evidence?
Jeff raises a challenge to the idea of a primary right by arguing that the term implies universal acceptance. Because, Jeff argues, many people will reject the value of being alone in the wilderness the right cannot be universal and therefore fails. First, it’s not clear to me that the Tembé would not recognize something like a right to wilderness or the nonhuman, given their historic struggle to preserve the rainforest around them. Second, as Joe notes, whether the Tembé actually recognize the right and underlying value or not does not defeat the right, any more than Hutu leaders’ failure to recognize the universal right of all peoples to be free from genocide, and the GOP’s recent refusal to recognize universal rights for the disabled that trump parental authority, prove that those rights are wrong. As discussed below, this is in part because claiming a right is like saying “you ought to do this,” which cannot be proven wrong with the response “we don’t/won’t do that” (this is simply the difference between an “ought” and an “is”). The responding party might not do the thing or want to do the thing, but perhaps they still ought to. The universality of particular rights derives not from universal acceptance, but from logical arguments that deduce the particular rights from things all humans – because of certain social and biological shared characteristics – will value, whether they admit it or not, see e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Filed under: animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal scholarship, climate change, endangered species, environmental ethics, environmental law, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal rights, environmental ethics, environmental law, exit, human rights, privacy, wilderness | Leave a comment »
Posted on April 14, 2013 by David
In his post on the Primary Right, Carter Dillard equates the right to be let alone with the right to be alone, as in, utterly and completely alone. Up Carter’s sleeve hides an unspoken premise resembling something like this: the influence of other human beings, however minor, spoils my inalienable right to be ruggedly individual.
I characterize his conception of freedom as rugged individualism because the right to be alone feels unmistakably American. Thoreau is lurking there, skipping stones with Herbert Hoover and Paul Ryan. To call the right “primary” suggests it’s universal. But if a Tembu South African or a Tembé Brazilian failed to recognize herself in this concept, the right to be alone is neither universal nor primary.
The right to be alone is distinctly American for another reason: Carter extracts it from a dissenting opinion Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1928. This is the same Louis Brandeis who, while yet an attorney in 1890, sowed within American jurisprudence an entirely novel right when he published, with Samuel Warren, “The Right to Privacy” in the Harvard Law Review.
Filed under: animal ethics, animal law, animal scholarship | Tagged: animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, human rights, The Primary Right | 4 Comments »
Posted on March 18, 2013 by spencelo
When one considers the idea of ‘veganism,’ the notion that it is a religion—one relevantly similar to traditional religions—may strike some not only as obviously false but also absurd. Isn’t veganism (obviously) a diet at the very least or a philosophy at best? What does it offer on the ‘big questions’ usually associated with religion, such as those pertaining to the origin of the universe, the after-life, supernatural beings, and the human soul? Most people I’m sure, including vegans, do not consider veganism to be a religion as such, even though it may be required or encouraged by certain religions.
However, as illustrated in a recent lawsuit in Ohio, it turns out that veganism could qualify as a religion under federal anti-discrimination law. Professor Sherry F. Colb explained the ongoing case in her recent piece. Sakile Chenzira, a former customer service representative at a hospital, refused a mandatory flu shot (produced in chicken eggs) because it conflicted with her convictions as an ethical vegan, which resulted in the termination of her employment. She then sued the hospital alleging that the firing constituted religious discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer…to discharge any individual…because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”). In a ruling denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss, the federal district court judge held that Chenzira’s claim may actually have merit. Read More
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal law, animal rights, animal scholarship, veganism | Tagged: religion, Sherry F. Colb | 7 Comments »
Posted on March 16, 2013 by spencelo
One (unfortunate) reality of blogging, especially for a slow writer like myself, is that it’s impossible to write about everything one reads, and yet there is so much important information and valuable perspectives to share. So from time to time (perhaps weekly), in lieu of my regular manner of blogging, I’ll simply offer quick links of articles, podcasts, videos, etc., that I’ve found worth examining—and hope others will too. Enjoy! Read More
Filed under: animal law, animal rights, animal scholarship, animal welfare, blogging, veganism | Tagged: blawg links | Leave a comment »