Animal Law Review
First Page
1
Abstract
This article will review examples of laws and judicial opinions that have granted rights to nonhumans, including the examples listed above, as well as a judicial opinion that grants protections, but not rights, to nonhumans. The analysis of these laws and judicial opinions is meant to answer the question of whether using the enchanted word "rights," as opposed to anthropocentric protections, confers a substantive benefit to nonhumans. Part II forms an analytical framework defining the procedural and substantive aspects of non-human rights. Part III applies that framework to judicial opinions from Argentina and the United States and analyzes whether there is a difference between the biocentric rights granted by one versus the anthropocentric protections granted by the other. Part IV applies the framework to legislation in New Zealand and compares the benefits to those of the Argentinian and U.S. judicial opinions to determine if the legislation offer more protection than the biocentric rights and anthropocentric whether there is a difference between the biocentric rights granted by one versus the anthropocentric protections granted by the other. Part IV applies the framework to legislation in New Zealand and compares the benefits to those of the Argentinian and U.S. judicial opinions to determine if the legislation offer more protection than the biocentric rights and anthropocentric protections of the judicial opinions. Part V offers a conclusion.
Recommended Citation
Joel W. Glazer,
Nonhuman Rights or Protections: A Discussion of the Functional Difference, if any, Between Laws Providing Either Biocentric Rights or Anthropocentric Protections for Nonhumans,
27
Animal L. Rev.
1
(2021).
Available at:
https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/alr/vol27/iss1/2