Charlotte Blattner, Dr. iur., LL.M. (Harvard) | University of Bern (original) (raw)

Videos by Charlotte Blattner, Dr. iur., LL.M. (Harvard)

Tiere international besser schützen? Juristin Charlotte Blattner zeigt wie. Für ihre bahnbrechend... more Tiere international besser schützen? Juristin Charlotte Blattner zeigt wie. Für ihre bahnbrechende Arbeit erhält sie den Marie Heim-Vögtlin-Preis 2020. Im Video redet sie über ihre Forschung und ihren wissenschaftlichen Werdegang.
#MarieHeimVoegtlin #FrauenInForschung #Wissenschaft, #Wissenschaftspreis #Tierrecht

6 views

Books by Charlotte Blattner, Dr. iur., LL.M. (Harvard)

For centuries, animals have worked alongside humans in a wide variety of workplaces, yet they are... more For centuries, animals have worked alongside humans in a wide variety of workplaces, yet they are rarely recognized as workers or accorded labour rights. Many animal rights advocates have argued that using animals for their labour is inherently oppressive, and that animal labour should therefore be abolished. Recently, however, some people have argued that work can be a source of meaning, self-development and social membership for animals, as it is for humans, and that our goal should be to create good work for animals, not to abolish work. In this volume, an international and interdisciplinary group of scholars explores the benefits and drawbacks of animal labour as a site for interspecies justice. What kind of work is good work for animals? What kinds of labour rights are appropriate for animal workers? Can animals consent to work? Would recognizing animals as “workers” improve their legal and political status, or would it simply reinforce the perception that they are beasts of burden? Can a focus on labour help create bonds between the animal rights movement and other social justice movements? These and other questions are explored in depth. While the authors defend a range of views on these questions, their contributions make clear that the question of labour deserves a central place in any account of justice between humans and animals.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Extraterritorial jurisdiction stands at the juncture of international law and animal law and prom... more Extraterritorial jurisdiction stands at the juncture of international law and animal law and promises to open a path to understanding and resolving the global problems that challenge the core of animal law. As corporations have relocated and the animal industry (agriculture, medical research, entertainment, etc.) has dispersed its production facilities across the territories of multiple states, regulatory gaps and fears of a race to the bottom have become a pressing issue of global policy. This book provides enough background to allow readers to understand why extraterritorial jurisdiction must respond to these developments, counters objections that readers might raise, and describes how to improve animal law in tandem. The heart of the work is a fully-fledged catalogue of options for extraterritorial jurisdiction, which states can employ to strengthen their animal laws. The book offers top-down perspectives drawn from general international law and trade law, and complements them by a bottom-up up view from the perspective of animal law. The approach connects the law of jurisdiction to substantive law and opens up deeper questions about moral directionality, state and corporate duties owed animals, and the comparative advantages of constitutional, criminal, and administrative animal law. To ensure that extraterritorial animal law does not become complicit in oppressing ethnic and cultural minorities, the book offers critical interdisciplinary perspectives, informed by posthumanist and postcolonialist discourse. Readers will further learn when and how extraterritorial jurisdiction violates international law, and the consequences of exercising it illegally under international law. This work answers questions about how and why extraterritorial jurisdiction can overcome the steepest hurdles for animal law and help move us toward a just global interspecies community.

This research project is a dissertation at the intersection of international law and animal law. ... more This research project is a dissertation at the intersection of international law and animal law. The thesis is embedded in the doctoral program "Law and Animals - Ethics at Crossroads" of the Law Faculty of the University of Basel. It is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) through the prestigious Doc.CH grant. The thesis is supervised by Prof. Dr. iur. Anne Peters, University of Basel, and co-supervised by Prof. Dr. iur. Christine Kaufmann, University of Zurich, and, as a third member of the phD committee, by Dr. Gieri Bolliger, a global expert for animal law.

In light of the corporate multinational activity, corporate relocations, and the dispersion of production steps in the animal industry (agriculture, food, clothing, medical research, etc.) over various states' territories, it is increasingly unclear which state is competent to regulate which production steps involving animal welfare. As the industry is remarkably mobile, states are sensitive to threats of corporate relocations. Moral and ethical convictions of one state's population (for example the European public's hostility to seal slaughter) might lead some states or regulatory entities (such as the European Union) to adopt stricter legal standards of animal welfare with extraterritorial effects. It is therefore important to study the limits which international law places on the nation states' extraterritorial jurisdiction. Although states exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in many fields of law (notably competition law, banking law, and criminal law), it is largely unknown to what extent this is happening with regard to animal welfare, and the international legal principles governing this field have never been studied. The thesis aims to provide answers to the following central research questions: 1) What are the legal options under international law for a state to apply national animal welfare standards to animals situated in foreign countries? 2) What is the specific content of animal welfare standards that might be imposed in an extraterritorial way?

The questions are approached by the classic (international) legal, and thus hermeneutic methods. I will identify the relevant customary and conventional rules, and notably examine to what extent the principles developed in other fields of law are transferrable to animal regulation. The pertinent international norms are interpreted according to the acknowledged principles of interpretation as endorsed in articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The method is doctrinal, and includes teleologic, historical, and systematic considerations.

Papers by Charlotte Blattner, Dr. iur., LL.M. (Harvard)

Animal Labour, 2019

The question of animal labour has emerged as an important topic in both the academic study of hum... more The question of animal labour has emerged as an important topic in both the academic study of human–animal relations and in public debates about the rights of animals. While the human use of animal labour has been a site of intense instrumentalization and exploitation, some people argue that (good) work can be a site of cooperation, mutual flourishing, and shared social membership between humans and animals, and that recognizing animals as ‘workers’ could have a transformative effect on our relationships with them. This introductory chapter explores some of the developments in animal ethics and animal studies that have informed this new interest in animal labour, and in particular how animal labour can be seen as overcoming the ‘welfarist–abolitionist’ dichotomy that dominates the field. It also explores some of the obvious challenges and dilemmas that animal labour raises, including questions of consent, labour rights, and the link to other social justice movements. The chapter con...

Der Verzehr lebender Tiere wird langst nicht mehr nur im sudostasiatischen Raum angeboten, doch f... more Der Verzehr lebender Tiere wird langst nicht mehr nur im sudostasiatischen Raum angeboten, doch fehlt eine Aufarbeitung dieses Food-Trends im Schweizer Rechtsraum. Dieser Artikel stellt die neuesten wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse uber die Empfindungsfahigkeit lebend gegessener Tiere vor und untersucht im Hauptteil, ob die schweizerische Tierschutzgesetzgebung diese strafrechtlich adaquat schutzt.

Der Artikel ficht die Aussage an, dass der Bericht «Kosten und Potenzial der Reduktion von Treibh... more Der Artikel ficht die Aussage an, dass der Bericht «Kosten und Potenzial der Reduktion von Treibhausgasen in der Schweiz» des Bundesamtes fur Umwelt (BAFU) eine gesamtheitliche Betrachtung dieser Potenziale unter einheitlichen Annahmen sowie eine konsistente Beurteilung der jeweiligen Kosten vorstellt. Dazu werden zunachst die Zielsetzung, Vorgehensweise und Massnahmenfindung des Berichtes vorgestellt. Die aufgezeigten Lucken des Berichts werden anhand des Postulatsauftrags, gesetzlicher Bestimmungen, sowie internationaler Verbindlichkeiten verdeutlicht. Im Rahmen eines kurzen Fazits wird schliesslich auf Alternativen eingegangen.

Further development within the field of animal law seems to be at an impasse, lost among the pote... more Further development within the field of animal law seems to be at an impasse, lost among the potential paths presented by its traditional influences: international treaty law, domestic animal welfare regulations, and trade law. First, classical elements of global animal treaty law are limited to preservationist aspirations, insusceptible to the questions of how animals are treated or how they cope with their environment. Second, animal welfare regulation is understood as a matter confined to national territories. In cross-border dialogue, animal matters have been reduced to allegations of imperialism, which is not conducive to furthering animal interests. Third, animals are regarded as commodities in international trade law, rendering their regulation an undesirable barrier to trade. These present deficiencies deprive global animal law of its significance as a dynamic instrument responsive to global challenges, be they ethical, environmental, economic, technological, or social in na...

Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change, 2019

Disability & Society, 2020

Abstract Work is a central conduit to justice for the disability rights movement, which claims th... more Abstract Work is a central conduit to justice for the disability rights movement, which claims that through work, persons with disabilities may find meaning, belonging, and a sense of worthiness, and be taken seriously as rights-holders. Proponents of the right to work argue that over time, a combination of work, public education, and activism will erode social, cultural, and political barriers to full participation in society. But this emphasis on the right to work necessarily excludes people who cannot work and undermines their claims to other rights. A disability rights program founded on a work ethic that goes along with the right to work draws lines of inclusion and exclusion, cultivates harmful ideas of worthiness, produces a duty to work, and de-values alternative modes of living. Solutions to better deal with the fraught intersection of work and disability are thus unlikely to emerge from singling out the disability rights movement. Only if we cast the net wider and grapple with the root problems of the work ethic in tandem – by addressing issues of time, valuing alternative ways of being, building social, economic, and political scaffolds to make visible people’s experiences at and expectations of work, and, potentially, exercising the refusal to work – can work become a place of empowerment and flourishing for all. Points of Interest: The right to work is a central gateway for persons with disabilities for social inclusion. States have crafted a range of policies to give effect to this right, but these have not changed the reality that most people with disabilities are either unemployed, facing poverty, or are socially excluded. Post-work scholarship makes a compelling case that the right to work cannot be remedied for people with disabilities by looking at their experience alone; the problems at the intersection of disability and work might be particularly pronounced or obvious, but they are part and parcel of wider issues plaguing the world of work as currently conceptualized. By fruitfully combining new advances in post-work scholarship and critical disability rights theory, this article describes the most urgent changes needed to remedy the fraught intersection of work and disability. To make the right to work for people with disabilities, we must reconsider issues of time, value alternative ways of being, build social, economic, and political scaffolds to make visible and effective people’s experiences at and expectations of work, and exercise a refusal to work.

6 views

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Animal Labour, 2019

Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change, 2019

Disability & Society, 2020

Animal Studies Journal, 2020

Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, 2020

Society & Animals, 2020

Animal studies scholars are increasingly engaging with nonhuman animals firsthand to better under... more Animal studies scholars are increasingly engaging with nonhuman animals firsthand to better understand their lifeworlds and interests. The current 3R framework is inadequate to guide respectful, non-invasive research relations that aim to encounter animals as meaningful participants and safeguard their well-being. This article responds to this gap by advancing ethical principles for research with animals guided by respect, justice, and reflexivity. It centers around three core principles: non-maleficence (including duties around vulnerability and confidentiality); beneficence (including duties around reciprocity and representation); and voluntary participation (involving mediated informed consent and ongoing embodied assent). We discuss three areas (inducements, privacy, and refusing research) that merit further consideration. The principles we advance serve as a starting point for further discussions as researchers across disciplines strive to conduct multispecies research that is ...

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2020

Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2019

In: What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law? 95-120 (Randall S. Abate ed., 2d ed., ELI Press, Washington DC) (peer-reviewed) (2020)

Impact assessments are a popular regulatory tool in environmental law and human rights law that i... more Impact assessments are a popular regulatory tool in environmental law and human rights law that identify and evaluate the risks and benefits of projects and policy proposals, and share this information with specific interest groups or the public. Impact assessments are established among governments by treaties, delegated by regional law (like the EIA and EMAS regulation in the EU), domestic law (like NEPA), or set up by international organizations (like the UNEP’s Goals and Principles of Environmental Impact Assessments). When it comes to legislative proposals, development, research projects, and the like impacting the lives of animals, only a few of these bodies demand that the benefits and risks of these initiatives be made transparent, and this is usually done in a cursory manner.
This chapter aims to forge a path for “animal impact assessments.” First, it examines the rationale and nature of impact assessments as used in environmental law and human rights law, bringing to the fore their promises for our quest to make the world a more just place for animals. In an age of corporate governance, impact assessments can be a powerful tool to obtain knowledge about how animals are treated abroad and about whether a state carries the responsibility to regulate those actions. Impact assessments break the silence that marks the exploitation of animals and force us to acknowledge and recognize the magnitude and gravity of suffering inflicted on animals.
The chapter then addresses existing impact assessments that take into account animals but that fall short of taking animals seriously as sentient and conscious co-inhabitants of this world. Building on this premise, the chapter formulates a more capacious baseline expectation as to what projects and proposals animal impact assessments must cover, and their substantive and formal parameters. Regarding the substantive parameters, impact assessments should contain the following elements: problem definition, objectives of the planned project or policy proposals, their benefits and risks, measures available to mitigate adverse effects, alternative options to fulfill them, and feasibility assessments. This seems straightforward, but opens up intricate debates on whether alternatives must be “practical and feasible” (hence limiting the power of impact assessments to push for alternatives). As to the formal parameters, this section of the chapter considers requirements of independence, transparency, public participation, accountability, and funding.
The third section of the chapter focuses on a much-discussed debate on impact assessments, namely, whether they are merely process-based or also outcome-based, demanding that decision-makers act in a specific manner, in particular by performing a “balancing process.” In a staggering 17 cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that NEPA is process-based and merely requires agencies to amass data and “consider” various alternatives, placing them under no duty to choose the most environmentally sound option. If the same is to be expected from animal impact assessments, namely that we merely gather data about the billions of animals whose most fundament interests we subject to our myopic desires, without questioning the legitimacy of this practice, how does this affect our evaluation of their exploitation? Does it not simply pervert our senses? Would it be better to continue “living the lie”? This chapter will work through these conundrums and conclude by formulating its own approach, drawing on social impact assessments (which allow for balancing interests in pursuance of its ultimate objective of improving development outcomes for communities) and human rights impact assessments (which do not allow for the balancing of impacts on the individual against the interests of the greater good).

In: Animals in Our Midst: The Challenges of Co-existing with Animals in the Anthropocene 65-78 (Bernice Bovenkerk & Josef Kulartz eds., Springer, Berlin) (peer-reviewed) (2021)

Agency is central to humans’ individual rights and their organization as a community. Human agenc... more Agency is central to humans’ individual rights and their organization as a community. Human agency is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights through guaranteed rights, such as the right to life, basic education, freedom of expression, and the freedom to form personal relationships, which all protect humans from tyranny and oppression. Though studies of animal agency consistently suggest that we grossly underestimate the capacity of animals to make decisions, determine and take action, and to organize themselves individually and as groups, few have concerned themselves with whether and how animal agency is relevant for the law and vice versa. Currently, most laws offer no guarantee that animals’ agency will be respected, and fail to respond when animals resist the human systems that govern them. This failure emerges from profound prejudices and deep-seated anthropocentric biases that shape the law, including law-making processes. Law and law-making operating exclusively as self-judging systems is widely decried and denounced—except in animal law. This chapter identifies standpoint acknowledge- ment as a means to dismantle these tendencies, and provides instructions on how to ask the right questions. It concludes by calling for an “animal agency turn” across disciplines, to challenge our assumptions about how we ought to organize human- animal relationships politically and personally, and to increase our civic competence and courage, empathy, participation, common engagement, and respect for animal alterity.

In: “Like an Animal”: Critical Animal Studies Approaches to Borders, Displacement, and Othering (Natalie Khazaal & Núria Almiron eds., Brill, Leiden) (peer-reviewed) (2021)

Traditionally, human and nonhuman animal migration were thought to occupy distinct and separate s... more Traditionally, human and nonhuman animal migration were thought to occupy distinct and separate sociopolitical spheres of knowledge. We romanticize the migration of other animals, taking an overly naturalistic view of the journey of gray whales, caribou, or deer as they follow the change of seasons across international borders. But when we theorize about human migration, we tend to do so with worry and concern about displacement, persecution, safety, and the threat of mass movements. As a consequence, human and nonhuman animal migration are considered in separate categories, with different demographics and definitions, governed by wholly separate legal documents.

This chapter shows that the idea that human and nonhuman animal migration must be understood separately and in isolation from one another is rigorously put to the test by climate change. Whole populations of humans and other animals will be threatened to migrate toward the poles as their habitat is destroyed by global warming, mounting environmental disasters, and the encroaching ocean. The law—compartmentalized, siloized, reactive, and often oppressive—is not prepared to face these challenges. To address and begin to resolve the challenges of climate change on migration, we must resolve the deep-seated, structural problems that plague human and nonhuman animal migration law—including deregulation, illegalization, and securitization, and the human-animal borderlands that connects these. Drawing on the work of human and nonhuman animal migration experts and new research on rehumanization, this chapter examines this cutting-edge intersection from a legal perspective and sketches the policy goals and measures that can help avert a global migration crisis and build up interspecies resilience.

In: Justice and Food Security in a Changing Climate 64-72 (Hanna Schübel & Ivo Wallimann-Helmer eds., Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands) (peer-reviewed) (2021)

The climate crisis is often presented as a crisis for humans. It is, however, also a crisis for o... more The climate crisis is often presented as a crisis for humans. It is, however, also a crisis for other animals with whom we share this planet. This raises the question of what we owe to animals in this crisis, which is not merely an ethical one. Indeed our relationships with other animals are distinctively political, raising new demands for policy making and change in political institutions and practices. In this process, it is key to recognize nonhuman animal agency, in order to do justice to them and to be able to overcome the human exceptionalism that led to the ecological crises we are facing.

In: Justice and Food Security in a Changing Climate 349-355 (Hanna Schübel & Ivo Wallimann-Helmer eds., Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands) (peer-reviewed) (2021)

In 2017, 78.7% of the Swiss people voted to enshrine the concept of 'food security' in the Federa... more In 2017, 78.7% of the Swiss people voted to enshrine the concept of 'food security' in the Federal Constitution. Originally prompted by agricultural interest groups for reasons of protectionism and then revamped by the Swiss Parliament, the new article 104a includes a wide array of demands for food policy, including protection of agricultural land, local production, conservation of natural resources and their effective use, responsiveness to market demand, and trade relations contributing to sustainable development. As a one-of-its-kind constitutional norm on food security, the now four-year-old article still raises questions about its precise scope and normative content. In particular, it is often said that the norm is largely symbolic. We shed light on these developments by examining the emergence of the norm and embedding it in the broader international discourse on food policy. We show that Switzerland's understanding of food security is greatly flawed, as it seeks to secure its own access to goods without regard to their environmental footprint and effect on human rights abroad. In line with Switzerland's climate and human rights commitments, we propose new ways to interpret food security, including moving away from market needs, distinguishing foodtypes based on whether they thwart food security in the long term, paying attention to food security elsewhere, and giving effect to considerations of distributive justice.

Cross-border trade, industry outsourcing, and animal migration are increasingly challenging state... more Cross-border trade, industry outsourcing, and animal migration are increasingly challenging states that want to take their commitment to protecting animals seriously. When multinationals threaten to outsource, even the most powerful states succumb to economic pressure and give corporations what they so avidly desire: laissez-faire. Some argue this is an inevitable consequence of globalization; others say it prompts us to question whether animal law is not better off being regulated by international law. This chapter takes a third path. Instead of proposing that nations seek agreement on low and mostly ineffective animal welfare standards, it posits extraterritorial jurisdiction as a promising avenue for animal law, and takes trophy hunting as its example to illustrate the many jurisdictional options for states to overcome regulatory gaps in animal law and make animal issues more visible on the international plane.

For scholars who specialize in animal labour, those rights and institutions include the right to ... more For scholars who specialize in animal labour, those rights and institutions include the right to remuneration, safe working conditions, retirement, medical care, and collective bargaining (Cochrane, 2016). These rights flow quite naturally from the concept of animal labour and help us envision more just working relations with animals, but are they sufficient to ensure work is a place of happiness and meaning for animals? In the case of human workers, we claim to prevent their exploitation by acknowledging their right to freely choose their work and the concomitant prohibition of forced labour. Does the right to self-determination form part of the emancipatory project of “animal labour,” too? Should animals be able to decide whether they want to work or not, or what type of work they want to do? These questions form the centre of the first part of this chapter. In the second part, the author explains how animals’ right to self-determination could be secured at work, examining different models of dissent, assent, and consent and the best way to design these to secure animals’ agency, both in theory and practice.

Globalisierung interessiert uns in erster Linie, wenn mit ihr Vor- oder Nachteile für menschliche... more Globalisierung interessiert uns in erster Linie, wenn mit ihr Vor- oder Nachteile für menschliche Gesellschaften verbunden sind, sei es preiswerte Produktion, Investmentdiversifizierung oder Umweltnutzung und -verschmutzung. Entsprechend polarisiert die fortschreitende globale Ausdehnung der Massentierhaltung, Tierversuchsforschung oder Unterhaltungsindustrie in der Politik auch weniger als es Themen wie Wirtschaft oder Finanzwachstum tun. Die Internationalisierung tierschutzrechtlicher Sachverhalte führt nicht nur zu deren territorialen Ausdehnung und Proliferation, sondern regelmäßig auch zu schwächeren Informationsflüssen und einer gesellschaftlichen Distanz zur Thematik. Gleichzeitig ist mit der zunehmenden Sensibilisierung der Bevölkerung für die Anliegen der Tiere aber auch das Bewusstsein für das globalisierte Tierleid gewachsen. Sowohl der Tierrechtsaktivismus wie auch die Tierethik haben bisher noch keine befriedigenden Antworten auf diese gegensätzlichen Entwicklungen und somit auf die globale Dimensionen unseres Umgangs mit den Tieren gefunden: Die Ethik beschränkt sich in ihren Analysen vorwiegend auf tierethische Herausforderungen auf nationaler Ebene und verpasst es dadurch, auf die weitverbreitete Auffassung zu reagieren, tierschutzrechtliche Reformen wären im Lichte drohender Auslagerungen untunlich, geradezu schädlich, sowohl für Menschen wie auch für Tiere. Der vorliegende Artikel argumentiert, dass die Rechtswissenschaft im Hinblick auf diese Fragen als Ort der Neuverhandlung wirken kann, indem sie den wachsenden Herausforderungen des globalisierten „animal-industrial complex“ mit innovativen Lösungsansätzen begegnet. Aus den vielfältigen Möglichkeiten, die die Rechtswissenschaft bereithält, stechen zwei neuartige Konzepte hervor: die extraterritoriale Anwendung nationalen Tierschutzrechts und die Forderung nach Arbeitnehmerrechten für Tiere. Beide Ansätze verstehen sich als Erweiterung etablierter Rechtskonzepte, setzen am bestehenden gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit Tieren an und haben das Potenzial, als zukunftsträchtige Diskurspunkte der Tierethik und -politik in globaler Perspektive aufzutreten.

With the rising global awareness about farm animal suffering, the law that governs the treatment ... more With the rising global awareness about farm animal suffering, the law that governs the treatment of research animals is a less and less popular academic field among animal lawyers. In 2000, Google Scholar hits on “the law of animals in research” were four times that for “farm animal law,” but in 2015, there were only twice as many hits on “the law of animals in research” as hits on “farm animal law.” Prima vista, this development is surprising, since few concerns other than the treatment of animals used for scientific purposes have prompted as many legislators to adopt legal instruction on the “proper” use of animals. Today, the 3Rs enjoy global acceptance by a vast majority of states (Blattner, 2014) and prominent international organizations, such as the World Organization for Animal Health (Terrestrial Code, 2016, art. 7.1.2.3), or the Council of Europe (CoE) (Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, arts. 6.2, 7, 8). Widespread acceptance of the 3Rs is a notable achievement, since animal law is a relatively young field of law and societal attitudes about the human-animal relationship diverge sharply. But, as progressive as this widespread consensus appears, the fact that the 3Rs are accepted by so many legislators and readily endorsed by scientists and the industry behind them should give one pause (Greek, 2015).
Unfortunately, the decline of the popularity of the law of animals in research among academics does not indicate that the law sufficiently fulfils its regulatory role in this field. In fact, the law of animals in research – especially the 3R maxim that dominates this legal landscape – suffers from regulatory failure. Researchers and commissions seem to abide by refinement to a certain extent, by requiring the use of analgesics and anaesthetics or using animals they regard as less sentient (i.e., animals lower on the phylogenic scale), such as rodents and fish (e.g., Indian AWA, §37(2)(e); German AWA, §7a(2)5.); disputing less sentience of animals lower on the phylogenic scale: Tomasik, 2014). A real danger of refinement rules is that they initially appear sensitive to animals’ needs, but a closer examination reveals that refinement is often designed to make us feel better about exploiting animals, while not fulfilling the animals’ needs for basic welfare during research. For instance, pursuant to the U.S. National Research Council Guide, a pig who weighs up to 50kg can be confined for up to five years on 15 square feet (0.9 m2), without any access to the outside. The Guide states that thereby “animals can turn around and move freely without touching food or water troughs, have ready access to food and water, and have sufficient space to comfortably rest away from areas soiled by urine and feces” (U.S. NRC Guide, p.63). A pig cannot possibly exhibit natural behaviour under these circumstances. No human of the same weight has ever exhibited natural behaviour in a 0.9m2 elevator, and certainly not for over a period of five years.
Despite attempts to justify the deplorable conditions of animals in research by refinement, statistics show that two of the 3Rs, reduction and replacement, have failed thus far. Most research proposals are reviewed perfunctorily and are approved as a rule, unless applications are sloppy. For instance, by 2014, Taiwan’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) had approved 3,994 research projects and rejected only 47 (resulting in a rejection rate of 0.91%) (Miki-Kurosawa, Park, and Hong, 2014, p.288; for similar numbers in Switzerland, see Gerritsen, 2015, p.38). Worldwide numbers reflect the same trend. As a result of this lax practice, the number of animals exploited for experimental purposes worldwide is now the same as it was in the 1980s (the number dropped in 1990s and 2000s, and then increased to unprecedented levels: COM(2013) 859 final, at 3; Taylor, 2013; Taylor et al., 2008; Taylor and Rego, 2016; Bayne et al., 2015). Adopting the 3Rs has thus not reduce animal suffering: We are witnessing a steady high of animal suffering in quantitative terms, and even a rising number of animals who are forced to endure the most severe forms of research in qualitative terms (e.g., NZZ, 2016).
At the same time, societal demands for better animal protection are more common than ever before (Eurobarometer, 2016). Most citizens are concerned about the welfare of animals used in research, and agree that more needs to be done to replace animals in research (Gallup Poll, 2015; Clemence and Leaman, 2016; Pew Research Center, 2015; European Citizen’s Initiative “Stop Vivisection”). Although the 3Rs have left citizens’ demands and regulatory goals unaccomplished, they are still popular policy tools for legislators and research facilities, who use them as examples of their efforts to ameliorate the suffering of animals. That the law continues to uphold a concept, which has neither reduced, nor replaced research animals for decades, is striking. We practice refinement and call it “the 3Rs,” and fool ourselves into thinking we have sufficiently considered animals in moral terms. The worldwide acceptance and simultaneous failure of the 3Rs has turned the maxim – intentionally or not – into a means of whitewashing the images of scientists, research industries, and regulators vis-à-vis the public.
Although the 3Rs have been extensively critiqued by academics, there are few reform proposals. Most importantly, no academic contribution in the field has so far sought to change the 3Rs enough to shift the paradigm. This chapter starts to fill the knowledge gap by addressing these problems from a legal perspective, while paying careful attention to scientific knowledge. I endorse a critical positivist approach to law, pursuant to which lawyers should both interpret existing law, and contribute to gradually changing the law in normatively desirable directions. The chapter takes a comparative approach to scrutinizing the ability of legal systems to contribute to reforming the law of animals in research (functional comparative method). Throughout this chapter, I use the terms “research” and “experimentation” interchangeably as governmental or private procedures that make use of animals for fundamental research, applied research, testing, teaching, or education, that breed animals, transport, or use them in other ways until their point of death and beyond, be it in biology, medicine, biochemistry, pharmacology, physiology, psychology, or other disciplines (Cf. U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, §5C; U.S. NRC Guide, p.2).

The 3R principles, namely refinement, reduction and replacement, have evolved into the principal ... more The 3R principles, namely refinement, reduction and replacement, have evolved into the principal standard for the regulation of animals used in research. 3R now enjoy sweeping international recognition: they are accepted both by the public as well as by legislative authorities, and have led to remarkable successes for individual animal welfare. By contrast, regulatory achievements for farm animals are, strictly speaking, non-existent. Consequently, arguments for and against the existing discrimination are examined. The findings manifest that the manner of animal use currently determining the extent of legal regulation does not justify a legal discrimination between animals used for research and farm animals. Due to the internationally accepted imperative to avoid unnecessary suffering, whose nature is indiscriminate of the categorisation of research or farm animals, a duty to apply 3R to animals in farming emerges – a conclusion that suggests itself on grounds of consistency. Based on these findings, specific suggestions on the comprehension of 3R in farming are established. First, relating to refinement in farming, elaborate rules on the breeding, raising, keeping, and slaughtering of farm animals are required. Refinement alone, however, proves to be critically inadequate to address the ethical, environmental, health, and poverty-related problems caused by current farming practices. Thus, it is analysed whether reduction methods are capable of foreclosing major implications. However, the principle of proportionality, which has evolved into an over-arching and self-perpetuating principle in most nations’ legislations and beyond, necessitates a diligent balance of interests in qualitative terms that stringently calls for replacement. A responsibility of this kind is argued to emanate from a significant number of states’ implementation of the avoidance of unnecessary animal suffering, as well as the international policy of the humane treatment of animals that are substantiated against this background.

Within just a few weeks, COVID-19 has caused unprecedented lockdowns, the use of extensive use of... more Within just a few weeks, COVID-19 has caused unprecedented lockdowns, the use of extensive use of emergency powers, shifts in how and who makes decisions, and unforeseen consequences for marginalized and newly marginalized individuals. Political leaders and journalists were quick to blame animals, such as bats and pangolins, as the ones “responsible for this crisis.” As a consequence, these animals were stigmatized globally; in some places, they were burned or otherwise killed by the hundreds. Framing animals as the scapegoats of the Corona crisis, however, is neither useful nor justified in the first place. Ultimately, it isn’t animals themselves, but the way in which we treat them that is the true cause of the pandemic. This contribution argues that the Corona crisis is a wake-up call to reconsider, reframe, and repurpose human-animal relationships. Among others, we will discuss linkages between pandemics and factory farming, structural similarities between human and animal oppression, and opportunities to consider animals in determining the public good, and to work toward a shared interspecies society.

In 2010, the EU has ended the century-old dispute on whether or not we should experiment on anima... more In 2010, the EU has ended the century-old dispute on whether or not we should experiment on animals. Directive 2010/63 set “the final goal of full replacement of procedures on live animals.” Implementation, however, has been extremely slow. A major reason for this is that researchers are asked to transition toward animal-free research (i) individually and (ii) voluntarily.
A promising discursive and conceptual framework that could bring about the long-awaited “paradigm-change” is Just Transition. This is a set of principles, processes, and practices that help communities phase out dominant, and damaging practices – think of coal and mining – but in a just and equitable way. Like coal, moving away from research requires large-scale, community efforts to prompt change. The steps needed to get there, and the means to observe justice on the way, must be laid out by a task force on Just Transition in Research.

Human and animal migration are thought to take place in wholly different legal worlds, subject to... more Human and animal migration are thought to take place in wholly different legal worlds, subject to distinct socio-political spheres of knowledge. To think otherwise would be to lump together marginalized people with animals, just as Trump did in May 2018: “These aren’t people, these are animals.” Human and animal migration, however, have much more in common than is typically assumed. This paper examines the definitions, demographics, and legal regulation of human and animal migration. Using a critical lens, it shows how the law subjects human and animal migrants to deregulation, illegalization, and securitization. In the coming years, this situation will be exacerbated – factually, politically, legally – due to climate change: Entire populations of humans and animals will migrate to the poles due to global warming, mounting environmental disasters, and steady sea level rise. This paper puts forward tentative policy goals and measures to avert a global migration crisis and build up interspecies resilience.

https://vimeo.com/373682775?fbclid=IwAR0wrdAaYBtgBiwmgi4OwaMSZsyzT-5UZfpsisAotTn8oX_WXdqXQIggkZs

Weltweit einzigartig vertrat Antoine Goetschel während drei Jahren die Interessen von über 700 Ti... more Weltweit einzigartig vertrat Antoine Goetschel während drei Jahren die Interessen von über 700 Tieren als „Rechtsanwalt für Tierschutz in Strafsachen“ im Kanton Zürich. Das abrupte Aus für das Amt des Tieranwalts im Jahre 2010 in Folge diverser Anpassungen an die neue eidgenössische Strafprozessordnung hinterliess eine klaffende Lücke. In Animal Spa gewährt uns der Autor seinen persönlichen Blick auf das Schweizer Tierschutzrecht, das Institut des Tieranwalts und den Vollzug der Tierschutzgesetzgebung im Straf- und Verwaltungsrecht.

Beinahe alle Wissenschaftler der Animal Studies sehen sich selbst als „Vertreter der Tiere.“ Kaum... more Beinahe alle Wissenschaftler der Animal Studies sehen sich selbst als „Vertreter der Tiere.“ Kaum jemand wird diesem Anspruch aber so gerecht wie Antoine Goetschel. Weltweit einzigartig vertrat er während drei Jahren die Interessen von über 700 Tieren als „Rechtsanwalt für Tierschutz in Strafsachen“ im Kanton Zürich. Das abrupte Aus für das Amt des Tieranwalts im Jahre 2010 in Folge diverser Anpassungen an die neue eidgenössische Strafprozessordnung hinterliess eine klaffende Lücke. In „Animal Spa“ gewährt uns der Autor seinen persönlichen Blick auf das Schweizer Tierschutzrecht, das Institut des Tieranwalts und den Vollzug der Tierschutzgesetzgebung im Straf- und Verwaltungsrecht.

published in "Animal Labour: A New Frontier of Interspecies Justice?", edited by Charlotte Blatt... more published in "Animal Labour: A New Frontier of Interspecies Justice?", edited by Charlotte Blattner, Kendra Coulter & Will Kymlicka (Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 1-25.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact