安妮·彼得斯,《国际法中的动物》

Cebuan Bliss
{"title":"安妮·彼得斯,《国际法中的动物》","authors":"Cebuan Bliss","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2077365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The “animal turn,” prompting us to question the hegemonic understanding of animals as mere resources, is gaining increasing attention in legal academic literature.1 Animals in International Law is, therefore, a helpful guide for this period, providing a comprehensive picture of the ways in which animals are affected by domestic and international law. The book provides detail and clarity about the way animals are classified in the eyes of the law and in academic literature, such as the distinction between domestic and wild animals. It also reviews the treatment of animals by different institutions and in different contexts, such as in the European Union. The book explains the significance of international law for animals, detailing its impact on regional, national and local policy. We are beginning to experience a paradigm shift in legal scholarship due to growing work on concepts such as Earth system law, which acknowledges that law has tended to privilege humans to the detriment of other natural entities, widening the definition of legal subjects deserving of rights to include non-humans.2 However, Earth system law and related movements focus on systems, rather than individuals, which means that the interests of the individuals within these systems are subsumed in the pursuit of a utilitarian greater good. Professor Anne Peters draws on her historically grounded previous work, including on international human rights law, to make the case in Animals in International Law for the importance of individual non-human rights.3 Chapter I notes that there is no international treaty that grants rights to animals in a broad sense, or that accords them universal standards of welfare.4 The book also addresses the sparse legal provisions in international law on wild animal welfare specifically, adding to the growing body of scholarly literature focusing on this question.5 Furthermore, in Chapter I, Animals in International Law puts forward the assertion that where international law leads, it sets a precedent that others follow. Peters argues that the international codification of fundamental rights for animals would convey both practical and symbolic benefits (24). Further elucidated are the reasons why current legal systems are not wholly adequate for the enactment of animal rights because these systems are designed for purposes to further human interests, which directly conflict with these goals. Current legal systems, she explains, are not zoo-centric. For example, the private and corporate rights model and rights of nature (469) protect the interests of humans, their assets, and ecosystems as a whole, but not","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anne Peters, Animals in International Law\",\"authors\":\"Cebuan Bliss\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13880292.2022.2077365\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The “animal turn,” prompting us to question the hegemonic understanding of animals as mere resources, is gaining increasing attention in legal academic literature.1 Animals in International Law is, therefore, a helpful guide for this period, providing a comprehensive picture of the ways in which animals are affected by domestic and international law. The book provides detail and clarity about the way animals are classified in the eyes of the law and in academic literature, such as the distinction between domestic and wild animals. It also reviews the treatment of animals by different institutions and in different contexts, such as in the European Union. The book explains the significance of international law for animals, detailing its impact on regional, national and local policy. We are beginning to experience a paradigm shift in legal scholarship due to growing work on concepts such as Earth system law, which acknowledges that law has tended to privilege humans to the detriment of other natural entities, widening the definition of legal subjects deserving of rights to include non-humans.2 However, Earth system law and related movements focus on systems, rather than individuals, which means that the interests of the individuals within these systems are subsumed in the pursuit of a utilitarian greater good. Professor Anne Peters draws on her historically grounded previous work, including on international human rights law, to make the case in Animals in International Law for the importance of individual non-human rights.3 Chapter I notes that there is no international treaty that grants rights to animals in a broad sense, or that accords them universal standards of welfare.4 The book also addresses the sparse legal provisions in international law on wild animal welfare specifically, adding to the growing body of scholarly literature focusing on this question.5 Furthermore, in Chapter I, Animals in International Law puts forward the assertion that where international law leads, it sets a precedent that others follow. Peters argues that the international codification of fundamental rights for animals would convey both practical and symbolic benefits (24). Further elucidated are the reasons why current legal systems are not wholly adequate for the enactment of animal rights because these systems are designed for purposes to further human interests, which directly conflict with these goals. Current legal systems, she explains, are not zoo-centric. For example, the private and corporate rights model and rights of nature (469) protect the interests of humans, their assets, and ecosystems as a whole, but not\",\"PeriodicalId\":52446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2077365\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2077365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“动物转向”促使我们质疑对动物仅仅是资源的霸权理解,这在法律学术文献中越来越受到关注因此,《国际法中的动物》是这一时期的有益指南,全面介绍了动物受到国内法和国际法影响的方式。这本书详细而清晰地介绍了动物在法律和学术文献中的分类方式,比如家养动物和野生动物的区别。它还审查了不同机构和不同背景下的动物待遇,例如在欧盟。这本书解释了国际法对动物的重要性,详细说明了它对地区、国家和地方政策的影响。由于对地球系统法等概念的研究越来越多,我们开始经历法律学术的范式转变。地球系统法承认,法律倾向于赋予人类特权,损害其他自然实体,扩大了应享有权利的法律主体的定义,包括非人类然而,地球系统法律和相关运动关注的是系统,而不是个人,这意味着这些系统中个人的利益被纳入对功利主义更大利益的追求中。安妮·彼得斯(Anne Peters)教授利用她以前的历史工作,包括国际人权法方面的工作,在《国际法中的动物》一书中阐述了个人非人权的重要性第一章指出,没有任何国际条约赋予动物广义的权利,也没有任何国际条约赋予动物普遍的福利标准这本书还专门论述了国际法中关于野生动物福利的稀疏法律规定,为关注这一问题的日益增长的学术文献增添了新的内容此外,在第一章“国际法中的动物”中提出了这样一种主张,即国际法在哪里起作用,它就在哪里树立先例,其他国家就会效仿。Peters认为,对动物的基本权利进行国际编纂将带来实际的和象征性的好处(24)。进一步阐明的原因是,目前的法律制度并不完全适合制定动物权利,因为这些制度是为了促进人类利益而设计的,这与这些目标直接冲突。她解释说,目前的法律体系并不是以动物园为中心的。例如,私人和公司权利模式以及自然权利(469)保护人类、人类资产和整个生态系统的利益,但并非如此
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Anne Peters, Animals in International Law
The “animal turn,” prompting us to question the hegemonic understanding of animals as mere resources, is gaining increasing attention in legal academic literature.1 Animals in International Law is, therefore, a helpful guide for this period, providing a comprehensive picture of the ways in which animals are affected by domestic and international law. The book provides detail and clarity about the way animals are classified in the eyes of the law and in academic literature, such as the distinction between domestic and wild animals. It also reviews the treatment of animals by different institutions and in different contexts, such as in the European Union. The book explains the significance of international law for animals, detailing its impact on regional, national and local policy. We are beginning to experience a paradigm shift in legal scholarship due to growing work on concepts such as Earth system law, which acknowledges that law has tended to privilege humans to the detriment of other natural entities, widening the definition of legal subjects deserving of rights to include non-humans.2 However, Earth system law and related movements focus on systems, rather than individuals, which means that the interests of the individuals within these systems are subsumed in the pursuit of a utilitarian greater good. Professor Anne Peters draws on her historically grounded previous work, including on international human rights law, to make the case in Animals in International Law for the importance of individual non-human rights.3 Chapter I notes that there is no international treaty that grants rights to animals in a broad sense, or that accords them universal standards of welfare.4 The book also addresses the sparse legal provisions in international law on wild animal welfare specifically, adding to the growing body of scholarly literature focusing on this question.5 Furthermore, in Chapter I, Animals in International Law puts forward the assertion that where international law leads, it sets a precedent that others follow. Peters argues that the international codification of fundamental rights for animals would convey both practical and symbolic benefits (24). Further elucidated are the reasons why current legal systems are not wholly adequate for the enactment of animal rights because these systems are designed for purposes to further human interests, which directly conflict with these goals. Current legal systems, she explains, are not zoo-centric. For example, the private and corporate rights model and rights of nature (469) protect the interests of humans, their assets, and ecosystems as a whole, but not
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
期刊最新文献
Lost in Translation? Why Outdated Notions of Normativity in International Law Explain Germany’s Failure to Give Effect to the Ramsar Convention of 1971 Wild Things: Animal Rights in EU Conservation Law Addressing Illegal Transnational Trade of Totoaba and Its Role in the Possible Extinction of the Vaquita Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1