Animals In Law: Introduction

This essay opens the Special Issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law dedicated to Animality, entitled “Animals in Law”. It focuses on revealing the principal issues faced in the volume, by positioning the contributors’ works into the general theoretical perspectives which shape the social discourse over animals.     

论动物的权利主体地位

从生命伦理、生态价值角度来看,动物在法律中应具有权利主体地位。动物成为权利主体不仅为国外立法实践所证明,在法理上也是可解释的。坚持动物的权利主体地位有利于经济社会协调发展。动物权利不是单纯的立法问题,贯彻动物权利主体理念要符合国情,不能超越现有经济发展水平和忽视人们的接受程度。     

动物法律地位之探讨——兼析我国民事立法对动物的应有定位

动物保护是一个全球性的话题。对动物的保护是否必须通过改变动物的客体地位 ,使其人格化、主体化的方式方能实现 ?笔者通过对《德国民法典》的相关规定和国内外学说的考证 ,以及对动物主体化观点的剖析 ,认为动物不可能成为人类道德和法律的主体 ,动物在法律上仍是特殊的物 ,动物保护立法是动物商品价值与非商品价值、当代人利益与后代人利益冲突的产物 ,对动物的区别对待 ,实质上体现的仍是不同动物对人类的不同利益。     

饲养动物致害责任探析

动物致害责任的立法历史悠久,我国现行关于动物致害责任的民事立法规定太过原则与笼统,缺乏可操作性,难以形成利于受害人权利保护的合理的民事救济体系。未来民法典应区分不同的动物种类,适用不同的归责原则,并预设各类动物侵权类型的责任承担。     

饲养动物侵权责任的法律适用探析

动物侵权的问题不仅关系到公民个人权利的法律保障,从更高层面上看,还关系到人与自然的和谐。人类基于各种目的饲养动物,不可避免地发生动物致人损害的责任问题。法律的功能在于定纷止争,这类问题自然是侵权责任法律制度的一个重要调整对象。《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》①的颁行,为这一领域提供了法律规范的依据。本文在对前后立法变化进行说明的基础上,解析了侵权责任法中关于饲养动物致人损害责任问题的相关规定,以期为正确适用法律提供有益借鉴。     

论"动物不是物"的法理基础

从生命的起源上来看,动物和人都是作为地球的生命形式而存在的。将动物看作客体是"人类中心主义"思想在 法律上的表现,而在推行环保主义、生态主义和实施可持续发展战略的今天,赋予动物法律主体地位不仅仅是法 律做出的技术改良,更是一种构建在"非人类中心主义"基础上的全新中国法理念。     

全面禁食野生动物的法理基础与制度构建

面对新冠疫情全球蔓延,第十三届全国人大常委会第十六次会议表决通过了全面禁食野生动物的决定.全面禁食野生动物的决定主要建立在公共安全与生命伦理两大法理基础之上:前者侧重于社会整体利益的维护与风险规制,是一个功利性标准;而后者则侧重于对生命的尊重和人与自然和谐关系的维护,主要为伦理性标准.现实中,对"野生动物"概念范畴的理...     

论我国水生野生动物所有权的制度重构

我国现行立法对水生野生动物所有权规定,存在着内涵不明确,外延不周延,立法规范与实践相背离等方面的问题.国外的立法实践可为我国的立法完善提供参考思路;突破传统的物权客体理论需要理念革新;明确界定水生野生动物的所有权具有重要的制度价值.我国对水生野生动物的所有权结构应具有多元性;权利主体的权利行使方式应有所限制.     

非法偷猎、走私野生动物案件的现场勘查

近年来,面对国内非法偷猎、走私野生动物刑事案件增幅较大的现状,如何提高案件现场勘查水平是我国森林公安机关必须解决的最迫切的问题。由于野生动物案件现场勘查的对象不同,在证据固定的方法上有其特殊性,因此,需要制定必备的技术操作规范。通过对现场勘查、物证提取和保存等关键环节的研究,提出可作为重要参考依据的技术标准。     

Visibility and Invisibility of Animals in Traditional Chinese Philosophy and Law

There is yet to be any animal welfare or protection law for domestic animals in China, one of the few countries in the world today that do not have such laws. However, in Chinese imperial law, there were legal provisions adopted more than a 1,000 years ago for the care and treatment of domestic working animals. Furthermore, in traditional Chinese philosophy, animals were regarded as constituent part of the organic whole of the cosmos by ancient Chinese philosophers who saw no strict delineation between humans and non-human animals. Notwithstanding, the attitude and practice towards animals in ancient Chinese life was also ambivalent and was predicated upon the practical utility of animals for the service of humans and society. Such practice can be seen through the legal provisions in imperial China. This paper first discusses animal’s place in traditional Chinese philosophy and then in Chinese imperial law. It raises the issue of the gap discernable from the philosophical thought on animals and practice regarding animals in everyday life in China. The paper argues that given the gap in perception and attitude regarding animals, law can play an important role that moral teaching has not been able to achieve.     

The (Limited) Space for Justice in Social Animals

While differentialists deny that non-linguistic animals can have a sense of justice, assimilationists credit some animals with such an advanced moral attitude. We approach this debate from a philosophical perspective. First, we outline the history of the notion of justice in philosophy and how various facets of that notion play a role in contemporary empirical investigations of justice among humans. On this basis, we develop a scheme for the elements of justice-relevant situations and for criteria of justice that should be fruitful in studying both humans and animals. Furthermore, we investigate the conceptual connections between a sense of justice, on the one hand, and various other mental powers, on the other, and indicate which of the latter may be beyond the ken of animals. Next, we consider recent empirical research on justice-related phenomena in animals. We argue for an intermediate position: While animals can at least in principle satisfy some preconditions of justice (intentional action, rule-following), others are problematic, notably possessing a notion of desert. A space for justice in social animals exists, yet it is rather limited compared to the rich cultures of justice in humans. Finally, we reflect on some actual or alleged implications of research on animal justice. As regards justice in humans, one should avoid a simplistic image of ??natural justice?? as boiling down to equal allocation of goods. As regards justice for animals, one should be weary of the contractualist assumption that only those capable of justice themselves are deserving of ??just?? treatment.     

野生动物侵权诉讼问题研究

近年来人与野生动物争夺栖息场所和生存空间的矛盾日益凸显。野生动物侵权案件频发。不断出现的野生动物侵权问题向诉讼领域发出了挑战。野生动物侵权诉讼制度如何构建,本文试图在这一法律空白领域探析野生动物侵权法律责任的法律性质与诉讼性质、野生动物侵权赔偿的构成要件、野生动物侵权赔偿诉讼举证责任的分担等系列诉讼基本问题。     

The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research: Necessity and Justification

Discourse about the use of animals in biomedical research usually focuses on two issues: its empirical and moral use. The empirical issue asks whether the use of nonhumans in experiments is required in order to get data. The moral issue asks whether the use of nonhumans can be defended as matter of ethical theory. Although the use of animals in research may involve a plausible necessity claim, no moral justification exists for using nonhumans in situations in which we would not use humans.     

骨密度检测在野生动物司法鉴定领域的应用前景

脊椎动物的体内存在着骨骼,骨密度代表了骨骼中骨矿物质的含量.通过对骨密度测量的多种方法及其基本原理进行介绍.因不同种属动物骨骼存在着差异,通过实验验证测量“面密度”的骨密度检测方法在动物骨骼检测时存在着很大的局限性,定量CT法（Qcantitative computed Tomography,QCT）测量的是“体密度”,能够避免各种“面密度”检测方法的缺陷,在动物骨密度检测时应当作为首选.最终提出骨密度检测方法可应用于动物司法鉴定领域.