Main Article Content
The current legal categorisation of animals as property has its historical roots in Roman Law. The long history of this status prompts one to wonder whether it reflects modern community attitudes. It is, however, difficult to answer this question, as there is a dearth of empirical data on attitudes towards the legal status of animals. In light of the widely-accepted relationship between law and community attitudes, particularly in democratic societies, this paper highlights the need for empirical examinations of social attitudes towards the legal status of animals. It is suggested that such empirical exercises can help scholars and lawmakers more accurately understand whether a change in the legal status of some or all animals is politically achievable. Empirical studies of community attitudes can also provide direction to scholars, who theorise legal frameworks to define the legal status of animals, and animal advocacy groups, which seek to educate the community about the legal status of animals.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Manuscript authors are responsible for obtaining copyright permissions for any copyrighted materials included within manuscripts. The authors must provide permission letters, when appropriate, to the Society Register Editors.
In addition, all published papers in Society Register are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern CC BY-NC 4.0 as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.
Anleu, Sharyn L R. 2000. Law and Social Change. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Bagaric, Mirko and Keith Akers. 2012. Humanising Animals: Civilising People. Sydney, Australia: CCH.
Bogdanoski, Tony. 2013. “A Companion Animal’s Worth: The Only ‘Family Member’ Still Regarded as Legal Property.” Pp. 84-103 in Animal Law in Australasia: Continuing the Dialogue. 2nd ed. Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press.
Blackstone, William. 1794. Commentaries on the Laws of England. 12th ed. London, UK: A Strahan and W. Woodfall.
Burstein, Paul. 2006. “Why Estimates of the Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy are Too High: Empirical and Theoretical Implications.” Social Forces 84(4):2273.
Cao, Deborah. 2015. Animal Law in Australia. Pyrmont, Australia: Law Book Co of Australia.
Castro, Paula. 2012. “Legal Innovation for Social Change: Exploring Change and Resistance to Different Types of Sustainability Laws.” Political Psychology 33(1):105.
Cummings, Michael K. 2002. “Programs and Policies to Discourage the use of Tobacco Products.” Oncogene 21:7349.
Cupp, Richard Jr. 2007. “A Dubious Grail: Seeking Tort Law Expansion and Limited Personhood as Stepping Stones towards Abolishing Animals’ Property Status.” SMU Law Review 60(1): 3.
Cupp, Richard Jr. 2016. “Focusing on Human Responsibility Rather than Legal Personhood for Nonhuman Animals.” Pace Environmental Law Review 33:517.
Cupp, Richard Jr. 2018. “Litigating Nonhuman Animal Legal Personhood.” Texas TechLaw Review 50:25.
Deckha, Maneesha. 2015. “Vulnerability, Equality, and Animals.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 27(1):47.
Domingo, Rafael. 2011. “Gaius, Vattel and the New Global Law Paradigm.” The European Journal of International Law 22(3):627.
Favre, David. 2000. “Equitable Self-ownership for Animals.” Duke Law Journal 50:473.
Favre, David. 2004. “A New Property Status for Animals: Equitable Self-ownership.” Pp. 234-50 in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Favre, David. 2010. “Living Property: A New Status for Animals within the Legal System.” Marquette Law Review 93:1021.
Francione, Gary L. 1995. Animals, Property and the Law. Philadelphia PA: Temple University
Francione, Gary L. 1996. Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Philadelphia PA: Temple University Press.
Francione, Gary L. 2000. Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Philadelphia PA: Temple University Press.
Francione, Gary. 2007. “Reflections on Animals, Property and the Law and Rain Without Thunder.” Law and Contemporary Problems 70:9.
Francione, Gary L. 2008. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Francione, Gary L. and Robert Garner. 2010. The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? New York: Columbia University Press.
Friedman, Lawrence M. 1973. “General Theory of Law and Social Change.” Pp. 17- in Law and Social Change. Toronto, Canada: Osgoode Hall Law School.
Friedman, Lawrence. 1996. “Borders: On the Emerging Sociology of Transnational Law.” Stanford Journal of International Law 32:65.
Garner, Robert. 2002. “Political Ideology and the Legal Status of Animals.” Animal Law 8:77.
Garner, Robert. 2010a. “A Defence of a Broad Animal Protectionism” Pp. 108-142 in The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? New York: Columbia University Press.
Garner, Robert. 2010b. “Animals, Ethics and Public Policy.” The Political Quarterly 81(1): 123.
Garner, Rober. 2016. “Animals, Politics and Democracy.” Pp. 103-18 in The Political Turn in Animal Ethics. London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Gibson, Dale. 1985. “Public Opinion and Law: Dicey to Today.” Pp. 1 in Law in a Cynical Society? Opinion and Law in the 1980’s. Calgary, Canada: Carswell Legal Publications.
Harari, Yuval Noah. 2011. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. London, UK: Vintage.
Herzog, Harold, Andrew N Rowan and Daniel Kossow. 2001. “Social Attitudes and Animals.” Pp 55-69 in The State of the Animals. Washington DC: Humane Society Press.
Jacobs, Lawrence R. 2014. “The Contested Politics of Public Value.” Public Administration Review 74(4):480.
Komberg, Allan and Harold D Clarke. 1992. Citizens and Community: Political Support in a Representative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Korsgaard, Christine M. 2013. “Personhood, Animals, and the Law.” Think 12(34):25.
Kurki, Visa A. J. 2017a. “Why Things Can Hold Rights: Reconceptualising the Legal Person.” Pp. 69-90 in Legal Personhood: Animals, Artificial Intelligence and the Unborn. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Kurki, Visa. 2017b. “Animals, Slaves, and Corporations: Analysing Legal Thinghood.” German Law Journal 18(5):1069.
Lidón-Moyano, Cristina. 2017. “Impact of the Spanish Smoking Laws on Tobacco Consumption and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: A Longitudinal Population Study.” Addictive Behaviours 75:30.
Lovvorn, Jonathan R. 2006. “Animal Law in Action: The Law, Public Perception, and the Limits of Animal Rights Theory as a Basis for Legal Reform.” Animal Law 12:133.
Maloney, Michelle. 2018. “Environmental Law: Changing the Legal Status of Nature: Recent Developments and Future Possibilities.” Law Society of NSW Law Journal 49:78.
Naffine, Ngaire. 2009. Law’s Meaning of Life: Philosophy, Religion, Darwin and the Legal Person. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
Naffine, Ngaire. 2012. “Legal Personality and the Natural World: On the Persistence of the Human Measure of Value.” Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 3:68.
Orbell, Sheina. 2009. “Social Cognitive Beliefs, Alcohol and Tobacco Use: A Prospective Community Study of Change Following a Ban on Smoking in Public Places.” Health Psychology 28(6):753.
Pietrzykowski, Tomasz. 2017. “The Idea of Non-personal Subjects of Law.” Pp. 49-68 in Legal Personhood: Animals, Artificial Intelligence and the Unborn. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Pietrzykowski, Tomasz. 2018. Personhood Beyond Humanism: Animals, Chimeras, Autonomous Agents and the Law. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Plotke, David. 1997. “Representation is Democracy.” Constellations 4(1):28.
Pottage, Alain. 2004. “Introduction: The Fabrication of Persons and Things.” Pp. 1-39 in Law, Anthropology and the Constitution of the Social: Making Persons and Things. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, Adam. 2010. Democracy and the Limits of Self-Governance. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 2013. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Selznick, Philip. 2006. “The Jurisprudence of Communitarian Liberalism.” Pp 19-32 in Communitarianism in Law and Society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Shyam, Geeta. 2018. “Is the Classification of Animals as Property Consistent with Modern Community Attitudes?” The University of New South Wales Law Journal 41:1418-44.
Sifris, Adiva. 2010. “Lesbian Parenting in Australia: Demosprudence and LegalChange.” Pp. 8-27 in Current Trends in the Regulation of Same-sex Relationships. NSW, Australia: Federation Press.
Stein, Leslie A. 1979. “The Theoretical Bases of Locus Standi” Pp. 3-23 in Locus Standi. Sydney, Australia: Law Book Co.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2003. “The Rights of Animals.” The University of Chicago Law Review 70(1):387.
Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2001. A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tideman, Nicolaus. 1994. “Capacities and Limits of Democracy.” AEA Papers and Proceedings 84(2):349.
Thomas, Joeseph A. C. 1976. Textbook of Roman Law. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Trahan, J. R. 2008. “The Distinction between Persons & Things: An Historical Perspective.” Journal of Civil Law Studies 1:9.
Tudor, Steven. 2010. “Some Implications for Legal Personhood of Extending Legal Rights to Non-Human Animals.” Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 35:134.
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Tyler, Tom R. and John M Darley. 2000. “Building a Law-Abiding Society: Taking Public Views About Morality and the Legitimacy of Legal Authorities into Account When Formulating Substantive Law.” Hofstra Law Review 28(3):707.
Vago, Steven and Steven E Barkan. 2017. Law and Society. 11th ed. New York: Taylor Francis Group.
White, Steven. 2013. “British Colonialism, Australian Nationalism and the Law: Hierarchies of Wild Animal Protection.” Monash University Law Review 39(2):452.
White, Steven. 2016. “Standards and Standard-setting in Companion Animal Protection.” Sydney Law Review 38(4):463.
Wintgens, Luc J. 2007. “Legitimacy and Legitimation from the Legisprudential Perspective.” Pp. 3-42 in Legislation in Context: Essays in Legisprudence. New York: Ashgate.
Wise, Steven M. 2000 Rattling the Cage: Towards Legal Rights for Animals. New York: Perseus Publishing.
Wise, Steven, M. 2002. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. New York: Perseus Books.
Wise, Steven M. 2004. “Animal Rights, One Step at a Time.” Pp. 19-50 in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. New York: Oxford University Press.