English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released
Contribution to Festschrift

Rights of Nature Include Rights of Domesticated Animals

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons236852

Peters,  Anne
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66978-5_2
(Publisher version)

Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Peters, A. (2023). Rights of Nature Include Rights of Domesticated Animals. In P. B. Donath, A. Heger, M. Malkmus, & O. Bayrak (Eds.), Der Schutz des Individuums durch das Recht: Festschrift für Rainer Hofmann zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 15-30). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-66978-5_2.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000F-A38D-A
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.