Into the Void: International Law and the Protection of Animal Welfare
| Date | 01 November 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12076 |
| Author | Steven White |
| Published date | 01 November 2013 |
Into the Void: International Law and the
Protection of Animal Welfare
Steven White
Griffith University, Brisbane
Abstract
Animal welfare is not currently regulated by a single, comprehensive international law instrument. This article considers
prevailing frameworks in international law that address animal welfare in some way, but by themselves do not meet
the hallmarks of an effective global protection regime, including comprehensiveness and enforceability. Emerging
frameworks that might fill the gap in global animal welfare protection include a universal declaration on animal wel-
fare, the entrenchment of World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) animal health standards and an international
convention for the protection of animal welfare. While the prospects of any of these models succeeding in the short
term are uncertain at best, the challenge now is to think carefully about what legal form an international framework
for animal protection might take.
Policy Implications
•Currently there is a significant gap in the international protection of animal welfare. Prevailing international frame-
works with implications for animal welfare lack comprehensiveness and enforceability.
•New frameworks for global animal protection are being developed, but may still fall short of providing a compre-
hensive and enforceable global protection regime.
•While the short-term prospects for the adoption of a new international framework are not good, now is the time
for citizens and their political representatives, policy makers, lawyers and scientists to think carefully about the form
international protection should take, so as to be ready when a suitable political opportunity for advancement
arises.
The treatment of animals has been described as ‘the
next great social justice movement’(Weisbrot, 2013,
p. xi) and as ‘a major unresolved problem of social
justice in the world today’(Cao, 2013). A key dimension
of this ‘unresolved problem’is a poorly developed
international regime of legal protection for animals.
Legal protection of animal welfare varies widely across
different national jurisdictions, from long-established,
enforceable animal welfare standards in some nations
(typically developed countries) to the complete absence
of such standards in other nations (typically developing
countries). Even within those countries where animal
welfare laws are in place, the law may be heavily quali-
fied –providing protection to animals in some settings
and not in others –and the concept of protection itself
may vary from a narrow prohibition of cruelty to a
wider conception that requires the meeting of an ani-
mal’s basic welfare needs (such as those expressed
through the Five Freedoms). Complicating matters fur-
ther, federal jurisdictions such as the US and Australia
may have state-based regulation that can vary across
the country, including on matters as fundamental as
who counts as an ‘animal’.
Given the variability in the domestic protection
accorded to animals by individual countries, it should not
be surprising that there is currently no global legal
agreement concerned specifically with the welfare and
treatment of individual animals. A number of interna-
tional instruments address animals directly, but with a
focus on their preservation, trade and/or use rather than
on their welfare or treatment. Equally importantly, some
international frameworks, especially those addressing glo-
bal commercial trade, have important indirect implica-
tions for animal welfare. The first part of this article
assesses the extent to which protection of the welfare
and treatment of animals is currently addressed in inter-
national legal agreements. Given the lack of a coherent
international legal regime, a number of proposals have
Global Policy (2013) 4:4 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12076 ©2013 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 4 . Issue 4 . November 2013 391
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial