Abstract
The current trend to grant nature and natural entities rights is deficient to the extent it leaves domestic animals out of the legal picture. The 2022 Ecuadorian Constitutional Court judgment on the wild monkey Estrellita manifests the undue legal privileging of wild animals over domesticated animals. Estrellita extended rights of nature to wild animals, although the recognition of rights of nature amounts to false indigenisation and organised hypocrisy. The rationales offered for rights of nature, ranging from materialism over animism, are less convincing than the explanation for rights that are due to animals because of their ability to suffer. Three further practical functions of legal rights (resistance against commodification, shifting the burden of explanation and justification, and off-setting political powerlessness) are highly relevant for animals. Especially domesticated animals need legal rights more than mountains.
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Anne Peters, LL.M. (Harvard), Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Titular Professor at the University of Basel, Honorary Professor at the University of Heidelberg and the Freie Universität Berlin and L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the Law School of the University of Michigan, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and Associate Member of the Institut de Droit International.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Stone (1972), pp. 450–501.
- 2.
Kauffmann (2020).
- 3.
46 provisions on the law of nature were adopted or ongoing in 2019, Kauffmann (2020).
- 4.
- 5.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022.
- 6.
Constitución de la República del Ecuador, published in the Official Register October 20, 2008, https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/ecuador_constitution_english_1.pdf, accessed 30.11.2022.
- 7.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 66.
- 8.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 66 (emphasis added).
- 9.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 121.
- 10.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 145.
- 11.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 145.
- 12.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, heading of section 5.1.3; see also heading of section 5.1.6. (emphasis added).
- 13.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 66 (emphasis added).
- 14.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 72.
- 15.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, section 5.1.2.
- 16.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 64.
- 17.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 97.
- 18.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 103.
- 19.
- 20.
O’Donnell et al. (2020).
- 21.
- 22.
Jones (2021), p. 79 with references.
- 23.
Petersmann (2021), pp. 118–119 incl. fn. 110.
- 24.
- 25.
Boyd (2017), pp. 170–171, recounts how US American environmental NGOs worked together with Ecuadorian activists to lobby for and design the relevant provisions in the Ecuadorian constitution.
- 26.
Leopold (1949), pp. 224–225.
- 27.
Regan (2004), p. 362.
- 28.
See on Estrellita above Sect. 3. Also, all successful animal rights cases so far concerned wild (captured) animals.
- 29.
Descola (2005).
- 30.
Bar-Ona et al. (2018). Humans and poultry are not counted here.
- 31.
Cf. e.g. ICRC, Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict: Rules and Recommendations Relating to the Protection of the Natural Environment under International Humanitarian Law, with Commentary, ICRC, Geneva, 2020, Preliminary Considerations, para. 16 (p. 18), www.icrc.org/en/document/guidelines-protection-natural-environment-armed-conflict-rules-and-recommendations-relating, accessed 30.11.2022.
- 32.
Stilt (2021), p. 285.
- 33.
Davies (2017), p. 68 and 72.
- 34.
Constitutional Court of Guatemala, 08.11.2019, No. 452-2019, p. 50.
- 35.
Tauli Corpuz (2007), p. 28. In 2007, the author was Presidenta del Foro Permanente para Cuestiones Indígenas de las Naciones Unidas and later became Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples (2014–2020).
- 36.
Cf. preambles of the 1945 United Nations (UN) Charter, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
- 37.
Animals could also be awarded “rights” as things in the mentioned neo-material framework, which is however, as I pointed out, not convincing.
- 38.
- 39.
Nagel (1974).
- 40.
Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness of 7 July 2012, http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf, accessed 30.11.2022.
- 41.
Birch (2017), p. 3.
- 42.
Although sentience in the narrow sense is a capacity broadly speaking (the capacity to experience a condition as good or bad), it is a purely passive one. Focusing on sentience does not bear the danger of ableism.
- 43.
Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness of 7 July 2012.
- 44.
Proctor et al. (2013).
- 45.
A number of new legal provisions explicitly qualify animals as sentient beings (Art. 13 TFEU; Art. 515–514 of the French Code Civil (2015); Art. 655(3) of the Colombian Codigo Civil; Art. 333 bis of the Spanish Civil Code (2021), and others.
- 46.
Blattner (2019).
- 47.
Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Judgment AHC4806-2017 26.07.2017, Expediente T1700122130002017-00468-02) [Chucho case], passim, esp. heading 2.4.3 and 2.4.5.
- 48.
Presentación Efectuada por A.F.A.D.A Respecto del Chimpancé “Cecilia” – Sujecto no Humano (Mendoza Third Court of Guarantees, Argentina) 03.11.2016, P-72.254/15.
- 49.
In contrast, other judicial pronouncements, including the Estrellita judgment, did not reserve rights for conscious animals: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, CRR 533-2013, judgment of 31.05.2019, para. 95 (mandatory direction, herein no. 29). Cf. also Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Judgment AHC4806-2017 26.07.2017, Expediente T1700122130002017-00468-02) [Chucho case], para. 2.4.5 (p. 8 of the translation): Not “out of a petty and trivial sentimental criterion that stems from the consideration of animal suffering”.
- 50.
Albertson Fineman (2008).
- 51.
- 52.
Cf. the famous extension of “dignity” to “creatures” (including plants) by the Swiss Constitution (Art. 120(2)).
- 53.
Genesis 1:28.
- 54.
Constitutional Court of Columbia (CCC), Atrato, T-622 of 10.11.2016, para. 9.29.
- 55.
Garver (2021), p. 99.
- 56.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27.01.2022, para. 56.
- 57.
Constitutional Court of Columbia (CCC), Atrato, T-622 of 10.11.2016, para. 9.30.
- 58.
Kurzweil (1999).
- 59.
Herbrechter (2009), pp. 64–65.
- 60.
Youatt (2020), p. 142.
- 61.
Common Art. 1(2) ICCPR and ICECSR.
- 62.
“In the realm of ends everything has either a price or an intrinsic value. Anything with a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent, whereas anything that is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has intrinsic value.” Kant (1999), p. 33.
- 63.
Stucki (2020).
- 64.
See above Sect. 5.2.
- 65.
Colombian Constitutional Court (CCC), sentence C-041 of 01.02.2017, demanda de inconstitucionalidad contra el artículo 5 (parcial) de la Ley 1774 de 2016, “por medio de la cual se modifican el Código Civil, la Ley 84 de 1989, el Código Penal, el Código de Procedimiento Penal y se dictan otras disposiciones”, para. 4.3.
- 66.
See Stone (1972), p. 453.
- 67.
Stilt (2021), p. 285, fn. 74.
- 68.
- 69.
Harvey (2004).
- 70.
van Klink (2016), pp. 30–31.
References
Adloff F, Busse T (eds) (2021) Welche Rechte braucht die Natur?. Campus, Frankfurt am Main
Bar-Ona YM, Phillips R, Milo R (2018) The biomass distribution on earth. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:6506–6511
Bentham J (1789) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon, Oxford
Bétaille J (2020) Rights of nature: why it might not save the world. J Eur Environ Plan 16(1):35–64. https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01601004
Birch J (2017) Animal sentience and the precautionary principle. Anim Sentience 16(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1200
Blattner C (2019) The recognition of animal sentience by the law. J Anim Ethics 9:121–136
Boyd D (2017) The rights of nature: a legal revolution that could save the world. ECW Press, Toronto
Corrigan D, Oksanen M (eds) (2021) Rights of nature. Routledge, London/New York
Darpö J (2021) Can nature get it right? A study on rights of nature in the European context, requested by the European Parliaments’s Committee on Legal Affairs. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/4087. Accessed 30 Nov 2022
Davies M (2017) Law unlimited. Routledge, Oxford/New York
Descola P (2005) Par-delà nature et culture. Gallimard, Paris
Escobar A (2018) Designs for the pluriverse: radical interdependence: autonomy and the making of the worlds. Duke University Press, Durham
Fineman MA (2008) The vulnerable subject: anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale J Law Fem 20(1):1–23
Gagliano M (2018) Thus spoke the plant: a remarkable journey of groundbreaking scientific discoveries and personal encounters with plants. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley
Garver G (2021) Are rights of nature radical enough for ecological law? In: Anker K, Burdon P D, Garver G, Maloney M, Sbert C (eds) From environmental law to ecological law. Chapter 6. Routledge, London, pp 90–103
Geisinger A (2002) A belief change theory of expressive law. Iowa Law Rev 40:35–73
Harvey P (2004) Aspirational law. Buffalo Law Rev 52:701–726
Herbrechter S (2009) Posthumanismus. Eine kritische Einführung. wbg, Darmstadt
Jones E (2021) Posthuman international law and the rights of nature. J Hum Rights Environ 12:76–101
Kant I (1999, orig. 1785) Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kapur R (2020) Gender, alterity, and human rights: freedom in a fishbowl. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Kauffman CM, Martin PL (2021) The politics of rights of nature. MIT Press, Cambridge
Kauffmann CM (2020) Mapping transnational rights of nature networks & laws: new global governance structures for more sustainable development. Prepared for the International Studies Association Annual Conference Toronto, 29 March 2020. http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload924.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2022
van Klink B (2016) Symbolic legislation: an essentially political concept. In: van Klink B, van Beers B, Poort L (eds) Symbolic legislation theory and new developments in biolaw. Springer, Cham, pp 19–31
Kurzweil R (1999) The age of spiritual machines: when computers exceed human intelligence. Penguin USA, New York
Leopold A (1949) A Sand County almanac. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Marder M (2013) Plant-thinking: a philosophy of vegetal life. Columbia University Press, New York
McAdams RH (2000) A focal point theory of expressive law. Va Law Rev 86:1649–1729
Nagel T (1974) What is it like to be a bat? Philos Rev 83:435–450
Nussbaum MC (2006) Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
O’Donnell E, Poelina A, Pelizzon A, Clark C (2020) Stop burying the lede: the essential role of indigenous law(s) in creating rights of nature. Transnatl Environ Law 9:403–427
Peters A (2021) Animals in international law. Brill, Leiden
Peters A (2022) Animal rights. In: Binder C, Nowak M, Hofbauer JA, Janik P (eds) Elgar encyclopedia of human rights. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Petersmann M-C (2021) Response-abilities of care in more-than human worlds. J Hum Rights Environ 12:102–124
Proctor HS, Carder G, Cornish AR (2013) Searching for animal sentience: a systematic review of the scientific literature. Animals 3:882–906
Regan T (2004, orig. 1983) The case for animal rights (updated with a new preface). University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles
Singer P (1975) Animal liberation: towards an end to man’s inhumanity to animals. Thorsons Publishers, Wellingborough/Northamptonshire
Stilt K (2021) Rights of nature, rights of animals. Harv Law Rev 134:276–285
Stone C (1972) Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. South Calif Law Rev 45:450–501
Stucki S (2020) Towards a theory of legal animal rights: simple and fundamental rights. Oxf J Leg Stud 40:533–560
Tănăsescu M (2022) Understanding the rights of nature: a critical introduction. Transcript, Bielefeld
Tauli Corpuz V (2007) Los pueblos indígenas y los debates internacionales sobre el agua: reflexiones y desafíos. In: UNESCO, El agua y los pueblos indígenas. UNESCO, Paris, pp 24–33
Vargas Roncancio I D (2021) Conjuring sentient beings and relations in the law: rights of nature and a comparative praxis of legal cosmologies in Latin America. In: Anker K, Burdon P D, Garver G, Maloney M, Sbert C (eds) From environmental law to ecological law. Routledge, London, pp 119–134
Youatt R (2020) Interspecies politics: nature, borders, states. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Peters, A. (2023). Rights of Nature Include Rights of Domesticated Animals. In: Donath, P.B., Heger, A., Malkmus, M., Bayrak, O. (eds) Der Schutz des Individuums durch das Recht. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66978-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66978-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-66977-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-66978-5
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)