Animals’ Mental Suffering Paradigm in Estonian Judicial and Media Environment
Abstract
In the European context, animal rights legislation is relying on human rights language, since it aims to protect the animals from mental suffring. The fact that a legal norm is not labelled as a human rights norm does not alter its content. This article also shows that in the Estonian judicial system the concept of animals deserving protection of their fundamental rights is accepted by default. The reasoning of court judgments indicates that the main reason for criminal sanction is the violation of animals fundamental right not to be killed or tortured. The article supports the thesis that it is clear that there is an urgent need to recognize the animal rights in legislation directly and the need of such application of these laws by courts; altogether with placing such conviction in public awareness.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alston P., Conjuring Up New Human Rights: A Proposal for Quality Control, “American Journal of International Law” 1984, Vol. 78.
Balkin J.M., How Social Movements Change (or Fail to Change) the Constitution: Th Case of the New Departure, “Suffolk Law Review” 2005, Vol. 39.
Beaulieu A., The Status of Animality in Deleuze’s Thught, “Journal for Critical animal Studies” 2011, Vol. 9(1/2).
Bentham J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, “Courier Corporation” 2012, Vol. 311.
Bekof M., The Emotional Lives of Animals, Novato 2007.
Brownlie I., Th Rights of Peoples in Modern International Law, [in:] Th Rights of Peoples, ed. by J. Crawford, Oxford 1988.
Cowen, T., Policing Nature, “Environmental Ethics” 2003, Vol. 25(2).
Deckha M., Critical Animal Studies and Animal Law, “Animal Law” 2012, Vol. 18.
Deckha M., Th Subhuman as a Cultural Agent of Violence, “Journal for Critical animal Studies” 2010, Vol. 8(3).
Delouse G., Guattari F., A Thusand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, transl. B. Massumi, Minneapolis–London 1987.
DeCoux E.L., Speaking for the Modern Prometheus: The Signifiance of Animal Suffering to the Abolition Movement, “animal Law” 2009, Vol. 16(9).
Donnelly J., Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, Ithaca–London 1989.
Duckler G., The Economic Value of Companion Animals: A Legal and Anthropological Argument for Special Valuation, “Animal Law” 2002, Vol. 8.
Ferdowsian R.H. et al., Signs of Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Chimpanzees, “PLoS One” 2011, Vol. 6(6).
Francione G.L., Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, “Rutgers Law Review” 1996, Vol. 48.
Francione G.L., Th Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research: Necessity and Justification, “The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics” 2007, Vol. 35(2).
Hamilton n.D., One Bad Day: Thoughts on the Difference Between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, “Michigan Law Review. First Impressions” 2008, Vol. 106.
Kirkwood, J.K., Sainsbury A.W., Ethics of Interventions for the Welfare of Free-Living Wild Animals, “animal Welfare” 1996, Vol. 5.
Nussbaum M.C., Animal Rights: Th Need for a Thoretical Basis, “Harvard Law review” 2001, Vol. 114(5).
Nussbaum M.C., Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership, Cambridge 2006.
Palizzi A.
n., Torts – Damages – Owner Entitled to Recover for Mental Suffring Based on Sentimental Value of a Pet, “Wayne Law review” 1965, Vol. 11.
Panzera M., Sickness and Abnormal Behaviors as Indicators of Animal Suffring, “Relations Beyond Anthropocentrism” 2013, Vol. 1(1).
Park M., Singer P., Th Globalization of Animal Welfare: More Food Does Not Require More Suffering, “Foreign Affairs” 2012, Vol. 91.
Animals’ Mental Suffring Paradigm in Estonian Judicial and Media Environment 25
Payne R., Animal Welfare, Animal Rights, and the Path to Social Reform: One Movement’s Struggle for Coherency in the Quest for Change, “Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law” 2002, Vol. 9.
Saluja P.G., Judicial review of prosecutorial decisions: Implications for animal welfare in Scotland, “Journal of animal Welfare Law” 2014.
Sapontzis S.F., Predation, “Ethics and animals” 1984, Vol. 5(2).
Schachter O., International Law in Theory and Practice, Dordrecht 1991.
Simma B., Alston P., The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Ius Cogens, and General Principles, “Australian Year Book of International Law” 1992, Vol. 12.
Singer P., Ethics and Animals, “Behavioral & Brain Sciences” 1990, Vol. 13.
Special Eurobarometer 225: Social Values, Science and Technology.
Stone C.D., Should Trees Have Standing? – Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, “Southern California Law Review” 1972, Vol. 45.
Sozmen B.I., Harm in the Wild: Facing Non-Human Suffring in Nature, “Ethical Thory and Moral Practice” 2013, Vol. 16(5).
Sunstein C.R., Enforcing Existing Rights, “animal Law”, 2002, Vol. 8.
Tomasik B., The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering, “relations Beyond anthropocentrism” 2015, Vol. 3(2).
Van Wijk A., Hardeman M., Endenburg N., Animal abuse: Offnder and offnce characteristics. A descriptive study, “Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offnder Profiing” 2018, Vol. 15(2).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/ppa.2018.1.9-25
Date of publication: 2019-07-02 09:16:32
Date of submission: 2019-01-11 22:55:54
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.