Acceso usuarios
Despite the considerable expansion of international law into virtually all areas of modern life, to date there is no international treaty in force to protect the interests of nonhuman animals. The lack of regulation and coordination at the international level comes at a considerable cost for animals, first and foremost, but also for humans, as the recent pandemic and ongoing climate crisis emphatically demonstrate. Proposals to fill this gap have proliferated in recent years, notably with the UN Convention on Animal Health and Protection (UNCAHP) and the Convention on Animal Protection for Public Health, Animal Welfare, and the Environment (CAP). This Article is the first of its kind to provide a critical legal analysis of the two draft treaties in order to assess their likely impacts on nonhuman animals, but also on human groups affected by their consequences. It first analyzes the draft treaties’ preambular language and broader setting to determine whether the treaties are embedded in arguments about human health, environmental protection, or mitigation of climate change, or whether animals are identified as direct beneficiaries of the treaty, and what the promises and dangers of each of these approaches are. The Article then looks to the treaties’ operative clauses, uncovering two problematic dynamics of the bedrock principle of “unnecessary suffering”: First, the maintenance of anthropocentric interest prioritization; and, second, its likely promotion of “Western” ways of using animals and the concomitant framing of “non-Western” practices as “culturally backward” and “uncivilized.” The Article concludes by offering guidance on how a progressive treaty could succeed at advancing human and nonhuman animals’ interests in tandem.
