| Acknowledgements |
|
vii | |
|
|
|
xiii | |
|
|
|
xv | |
|
|
|
xix | |
| Introduction |
|
1 | (7) |
|
1 The Current Legal Status of Animals |
|
|
8 | (26) |
|
|
|
8 | (2) |
|
II The Property Status of Animals |
|
|
10 | (4) |
|
A Animals as Simple Property |
|
|
10 | (2) |
|
B Animals as More than Simple Property |
|
|
12 | (2) |
|
III Legislation Protecting Animals |
|
|
14 | (11) |
|
A The History of Animal Protection |
|
|
15 | (3) |
|
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
|
|
19 | (3) |
|
D Species-Specific Provisions |
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
E Limits of Animal Protection Laws: Exclusions and Exceptions |
|
|
23 | (2) |
|
|
|
25 | (3) |
|
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
C Direct Legal Protections |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
VI Animal Protection Laws in Practice |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
|
|
31 | (3) |
|
2 Welfarism vs Abolitionism, a Dichotomy? |
|
|
34 | (20) |
|
|
|
34 | (1) |
|
|
|
35 | (4) |
|
A Bigger Cages! Classic Welfarism and the Humane Treatment of Animals |
|
|
35 | (3) |
|
B Critiques of Classic Welfarism |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
|
|
39 | (5) |
|
A No Cages! The Abolitionist Case for Ending Animal Exploitation |
|
|
40 | (2) |
|
B Critiques of Abolitionism |
|
|
42 | (2) |
|
|
|
44 | (4) |
|
A First Bigger Cages, Then No Cages! New Welfarism's Hybrid Approach |
|
|
44 | (2) |
|
B Critiques of New Welfarism |
|
|
46 | (2) |
|
|
|
48 | (4) |
|
A Cooperation Instead of Abolition: Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka's Theory of Shared Multispecies Communities |
|
|
48 | (2) |
|
B Dialogue over Debate: Melanie Joy's Plea for a Multi-Pronged Strategy |
|
|
50 | (2) |
|
|
|
52 | (2) |
|
3 Philosophical Foundations of Animal Rights |
|
|
54 | (22) |
|
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
II Peter Singer's Utilitarianism |
|
|
55 | (3) |
|
A Extending the Scope of Moral Concern to Animals |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
B How Animals' Interests Ought to be Considered |
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
III Tom Regan's Deontological Approach |
|
|
58 | (4) |
|
A Regan's Critique of Utilitarianism |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
B Inherent Value and Subjects-of-a-Life |
|
|
60 | (2) |
|
IV Martha Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach |
|
|
62 | (4) |
|
A Nussbaum's Critique of Other Approaches |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
B The Capabilities Approach |
|
|
63 | (3) |
|
V Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka's Political Theory |
|
|
66 | (3) |
|
A The Political Turn in Animal Ethics and Animal Studies |
|
|
66 | (1) |
|
B Zoopolis's Differentiated Theory of Animal Rights |
|
|
67 | (2) |
|
VI Critical Approaches to Animal Rights |
|
|
69 | (5) |
|
A The Ecofeminist Critique |
|
|
69 | (2) |
|
B The Conservationist Critique |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
C The Contractualist Critique |
|
|
72 | (2) |
|
|
|
74 | (2) |
|
4 The Legal Theory of Animal Rights |
|
|
76 | (25) |
|
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
II Are Animals Fit to have Legal Rights? |
|
|
77 | (6) |
|
A The Choice-Based Approach to Rights |
|
|
77 | (2) |
|
B Evaluating the Choice-Based Approach |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
C The Interest-Based Approach to Rights |
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
D Evaluating the Interest-Based Approach |
|
|
81 | (2) |
|
III Do Animals Already have Legal Rights? |
|
|
83 | (9) |
|
A Animals Already have Legal Rights: The Thin Conception |
|
|
83 | (3) |
|
B The Thin Conception: A Review |
|
|
86 | (2) |
|
C Animals do not Yet have Legal Rights: The Thick Conception |
|
|
88 | (4) |
|
IV Would Animals Need to Become Legal Persons? |
|
|
92 | (6) |
|
A The Traditional View: Legal Personhood is Necessary for Rights-Holdership |
|
|
93 | (2) |
|
B The Unorthodox View: Legal Personhood is not Necessary for Rights-Holdership |
|
|
95 | (2) |
|
C Evaluating the Traditional and Unorthodox Views |
|
|
97 | (1) |
|
|
|
98 | (3) |
|
5 Animal Rights and Human Rights |
|
|
101 | (18) |
|
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
II Should Only Humans have Human Rights? |
|
|
102 | (5) |
|
A Are Human Rights Grounded in Human Properties? The Foundationalist Approach |
|
|
102 | (3) |
|
B Are Human Rights the Outcome of Political Practices and Decisions? The Anti-Foundationalist Approach |
|
|
105 | (2) |
|
III Should Animals have Similar Rights to Humans? |
|
|
107 | (4) |
|
A Do Human and Animal Rights Flow from the Same Source? |
|
|
107 | (2) |
|
B Are Human and Animal Rights Mutually Supportive? |
|
|
109 | (2) |
|
IV How Could Human and Animal Rights be Reconciled Legally? |
|
|
111 | (6) |
|
A Rights Conflicts and the Proportionality Test |
|
|
112 | (2) |
|
B Prioritising the Rights of Minorities? |
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
C The Species Membership Approach |
|
|
115 | (2) |
|
|
|
117 | (2) |
|
6 Animal Rights in Litigation |
|
|
119 | (29) |
|
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
II Animals and the Issue of Legal Standing to Bring an Action |
|
|
120 | (4) |
|
A Cetacean Community (2003) |
|
|
121 | (1) |
|
|
|
121 | (1) |
|
C Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises (2012) |
|
|
122 | (1) |
|
|
|
123 | (1) |
|
III Animals as Subjects of Habeas Corpus |
|
|
124 | (11) |
|
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
B Hercules and Leo (2013) |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
|
|
127 | (2) |
|
|
|
129 | (2) |
|
E Beulah, Karen, and Minnie (2017) |
|
|
131 | (1) |
|
|
|
132 | (3) |
|
IV Fundamental Rights and Personhood Litigation Beyond Habeas Corpus |
|
|
135 | (10) |
|
A Animal Welfare Board of India v Nagaraja (2014) |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
|
|
137 | (1) |
|
C The Swiss Primate Rights Case (2019) |
|
|
138 | (1) |
|
|
|
138 | (3) |
|
E People for Animals v Md Mohazzim (2015) |
|
|
141 | (1) |
|
|
|
142 | (1) |
|
G Karnail Singh v State of Haryana (2019) |
|
|
143 | (1) |
|
|
|
143 | (2) |
|
|
|
145 | (3) |
|
7 Animal Rights in Legislation |
|
|
148 | (21) |
|
|
|
148 | (1) |
|
II Domestic Proposals for Animal Rights Laws |
|
|
149 | (4) |
|
A The Swiss Primate Rights Initiative |
|
|
149 | (2) |
|
B The Finnish Rights Proposal |
|
|
151 | (2) |
|
C Evaluating the Proposals |
|
|
153 | (1) |
|
III International Proposals for Animal Rights Laws |
|
|
153 | (6) |
|
A An International Treaty on Animal Rights? |
|
|
154 | (1) |
|
B Universal Declaration of Animal Rights |
|
|
155 | (1) |
|
C Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans |
|
|
156 | (1) |
|
D Evaluating the Proposals |
|
|
157 | (2) |
|
IV Drafting Animal Rights Laws |
|
|
159 | (7) |
|
A The Mechanics of Law Reform |
|
|
159 | (2) |
|
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
D The Procedural Rights of Animals |
|
|
163 | (1) |
|
E The Substantive Rights of Animals |
|
|
164 | (2) |
|
|
|
166 | (3) |
|
8 Animal Rights as a Social Justice Movement |
|
|
169 | (16) |
|
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
II The Animal Rights Movement as Abolitionist |
|
|
170 | (4) |
|
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
B The Origins of Abolitionism in Animal Rights |
|
|
171 | (2) |
|
C The Implications of Abolitionism in Animal Rights |
|
|
173 | (1) |
|
III Animal Rights and Connections with Other Rights Movements |
|
|
174 | (6) |
|
A Analogies with Other Movements to Support Animal Rights |
|
|
174 | (3) |
|
B Links with Feminism and Interlocking Oppression |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
C A Failure in the System? |
|
|
178 | (2) |
|
|
|
180 | (2) |
|
A Direct Action, Consciousness-Raising, the Use of Social Media, and New Directions |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
|
|
181 | (1) |
|
|
|
182 | (3) |
| Conclusion |
|
185 | (3) |
| Bibliography |
|
188 | (7) |
| Glossary |
|
195 | (8) |
| Index |
|
203 | |