Articles for tag: One Health, Pandemic Treaty, Pandemie, Tierrechte, WHO

One Health – One Welfare – One Rights

The projected WHO Pandemic Agreement, as currently under negotiation, will most likely contain a detailed prescription of a One Health approach (Art. 1(d) and Art. 5 of the INB negotiating text of 30 October 2023). This contribution examines the legal potential of a One Health approach for laws and policies towards animals raised, kept, and slaughtered for providing meat, milk, fur, and other body products for human consumption. My main argument will be that, taken seriously, the idea of One health defies a hierarchy between the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems. The inner logic of One Health is to exploit the positive feedback loops between safeguarding human, animal, and ecosystem health. This approach should modify the still prevailing unreflected and unchecked prioritisation of measures in favour of human health at the expense of and to the detriment of animal health and life. I will illustrate my claim with two policy examples.

1. April 2024

, , , ,

Environmental Protest and Civil Disobedience in Australia

In Germany, disruptive protest demanding climate change mitigation policies has provoked popular and constitutional discussion. Commentators have questioned whether acts of illegality committed as civil disobedience should be treated distinctly from ‘ordinary’ criminality and punished more leniently. In other parts of the world, however, legislative activity has singled out the illegality involved in civil disobedience to the opposite end. Legislatures have introduced laws that radically increase penalties for existing offences involved in disruptive protest and blockades, conferred new powers on police, and created new offences for previously legal forms of protest. In this post I explore an Australian legislative trend of the last decade that specifically targets environmental civil disobedience by imposing additional criminal penalties upon its exercise. The Australian case study is a cautionary tale of what can follow a failure to recognise democratic value in civil disobedience and treat it with constitutional nuance.

31. Juli 2023

, , ,

Klimaschutz geht durch den Magen

Am 25. September 2022 stimmt die Schweiz über die eidgenössische Volksinitiative „Keine Massentierhaltung in der Schweiz (Massentierhaltungsinitiative)“ ab. Die Initiative fordert das Ende der industriellen Tierproduktion bzw. die Abkehr von der Massentierhaltung und den Aufbruch hin zu einer zukunftsfähigen, tierfreundlich(er)en und ressourcenschonenden Landwirtschaft. Obschon die Initiative primär ein tierschutzpolitisches Anliegen verfolgt, ist sie insbesondere für die Klimapolitik von grösster Bedeutung.

13. September 2022

, , , ,

Standing for Piglets

In a non-acceptance order of 14 May 2021, the German Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept a constitutional complaint submitted by the German Branch of the animal rights organization PETA for adjudication. The Constitutional Court missed an opportunity to open the constitution to non-anthropocentric approaches. A constitutional amendment might be necessary to explicitly terminate the long-standing mediatization of the natural environment with its negative consequences for the effectiveness of environmental law and protection.

9. Juni 2021

, , ,

Nation of Animal Lovers

On May 12, 2021, the UK government published an Action Plan for Animal Welfare setting out reform plans to protect animals both within its borders and overseas. In this plan, the UK government pledges to further steps in its efforts to promote animal welfare and to recognize animals as sentient beings in law. As the ‘Nation of Animal Lovers’ the UK has a comparatively impressive record of animal welfare legislation. Yet, the tone of government communication is tainted by adversity against the EU in the context of Brexit.

17. Mai 2021

, ,

In Defence of Green Civil Disobedience

Throughout history, failure of the state to address and redress pressing social problems has given rise to political acts of civil disobedience. While activists typically claim that their illegal actions are justified either legally or morally in that they are necessary to protect a higher good, such necessity defences have so far been ‘notoriously unsuccessful’ before courts. Recent judicial developments suggest that this may be about to change, and that unlawful protest can be a legitimate response to a persistent pattern of state inaction.

30. Oktober 2020

, ,

Toward Hominid and Other Humanoid Rights: Are We Witnessing a Legal Revolution?

On 3 November 2016, an Argentinian judge granted habeas corpus relief to Cecilia, a person held captive in a small cage. Nothing out of the ordinary – except for the fact that Cecilia is not a battered woman or abused girl, but a chimpanzee kept at Mendoza zoo. This 1 % genetic difference turns this into a landmark judgment of potentially revolutionary proportions. For the first time in legal history, a court explicitly declared an animal other than human a legal person who possesses inherent fundamental rights. This judgment marks a radical breach with the deeply entrenched legal tradition of categorizing animals as rightless things (the person’s antithesis), and demonstrates that the previously impenetrable legal wall between humans and animals can be surmounted. The question seems no longer if, but when.

30. Dezember 2016

,