Amicus letter filed by 33 UK-based animal law experts supporting the right to liberty for Amahle,... more Amicus letter filed by 33 UK-based animal law experts supporting the right to liberty for Amahle, Nolwazi, and Mabu, 3 elephants confined in the at the Fresno Chaffee Zoo.
The name 'orangutan' is derived from the Malay words 'orang' (person) and 'hutan' (forest). Orang... more The name 'orangutan' is derived from the Malay words 'orang' (person) and 'hutan' (forest). Orangutan thus means 'person of the forest'. Alongside humans, they belong to the great ape genus and share 97% of their DNA with us. They are not only sentient, social and emotionally complex, but also highly intelligent creatures who have demonstrated the ability for self-awareness, tool-use, complex communication and the ability to discuss the past. They are also deeply empathetic, finding each other's yawns and laughs infectious. They have been documented trying to save others in distress. Some even thoroughly enjoy a magic trick. But are they 'persons' in law?
An amicus curiae brief signed by 36 UK-based legal academics, barristers and solicitors with expe... more An amicus curiae brief signed by 36 UK-based legal academics, barristers and solicitors with expertise in animal law in support of recognising Happy the elephant as a legal person with a right to bodily liberty.
In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Brit... more In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) published a joint open letter to the British Government calling for a repeal of a legal exemption that permits the slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The RSPCA and BVA argue that repealing the exemption is required on grounds of animal welfare, claiming that non-stun slaughter causes unnecessary pain and suffering. By contrast, Islamic and Jewish groups assert that non-stun slaughter, when properly conducted, is both humane and a religious requirement for least some followers of their faiths. This article considers whether imposing a ban on non-stun slaughter is compatible with obligations to protect religious freedom and non-discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights. It will conclude that it can be and, when done to protect animal welfare, falls within Contracting States’ margin of appreciation.
This article draws upon a neo-Gramscian analysis of world order to critically assess the relation... more This article draws upon a neo-Gramscian analysis of world order to critically assess the relationship between neo-liberal globalization and socioeconomic rights. It argues that, notwithstanding the well-documented discursive tensions that appear to exist between neo-liberalism and socioeconomic rights, the latter have been reconceptualized in a manner that is congruent with the hegemonic framework of the former in a number of international institutional settings. This has been achieved in part through three discursive framing devices which will be termed ‘socioeconomic rights as aspirations’, ‘socioeconomic rights as compensation’, and ‘socioeconomic rights as market outcomes’. The article will conclude by arguing that, despite such appropriation, there are still fruitful possibilities for counterhegemonic articulations of socioeconomic rights to contest neo-liberal globalization.
In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Brit... more In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) published a joint open letter to the British Government calling for a repeal of a legal exemption that permits the slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The RSPCA and BVA argue that repealing the exemption is required on grounds of animal welfare, claiming that non-stun slaughter causes unnecessary pain and suffering. By contrast, Islamic and Jewish groups assert that non-stun slaughter, when properly conducted, is both humane and a religious requirement for least some followers of their faiths. This article considers whether imposing a ban on non-stun slaughter is compatible with obligations to protect religious freedom and non-discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights. It will conclude that it can be and, when done to protect animal welfare, falls within Contracting States' margin of appreciation.
This article considers objections to current litigation strategies of the US-based Nonhuman Right... more This article considers objections to current litigation strategies of the US-based Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), which seek to extend legal personhood and liberty rights to nonhuman animals who possess 'practical autonomy'. By tying personhood to intellectual abilities, so the objections go, such strategies endanger the present legal standing of humans with profound cognitive impairments. This article will argue that such cause for concern is largely misplaced for two reasons. First, the NhRP argue that practical autonomy is only a sufficient condition for personhood, not a necessary one. Second, drawing on theoretical and empirical literature, the article will argue that speciesism itself is a multiplier of oppressive theories, attitudes, beliefs and practices that negatively affect marginalized humans, including humans with cognitive impairments. The NhRP's attempts to reduce speciesism in the legal domain are thus hypothesized as being part of the solution to discrimination against marginalized humans, not as part of the problem.
Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey (eds), Ethical Vegetarianism and Veganism (Routledge 2018), 2018
One of the motivating factors for adopting a vegan diet is the belief that it is wrong to intenti... more One of the motivating factors for adopting a vegan diet is the belief that it is wrong to intentionally kill animals. Yet field animals are often intentionally killed by farmers with traps and poisons in order to protect the plant crops that vegans consume. This article argues that there are, nevertheless, moral distinctions between these types of intentional killings-as well as the practices they support-that make it, all else equal, morally easier to support the production, purchase and consumption of plant products over the production, purchase and consumption of animal products. Three morally salient distinctions between these types of intentional killing practices are identified and discussed: the first relates to different levels of consumer knowledge, the second draws a distinction between necessary and contingent wrongful features of a practice and the third differentiates between two modes of harmful intentional agency – eliminative and opportunistic.
This article argues that criminal liability for offences against animals under UK law should be e... more This article argues that criminal liability for offences against animals under UK law should be extended to include offences of killing, even if the death caused is painless and does not interfere with property rights or biodiversity. I defend this position by appealing to two norms that have significant purchase in the UK legal context: (1) the value of protecting animal welfare and (2) the harm principle as a basis for criminalisation. It will be argued that killing itself is a welfare issue, as it deprives sentient beings of future good experiences and can reduce their lifetime wellbeing to levels lower than it otherwise would have been. Joel Feinberg's normative work on criminalisation is drawn upon to argue that the harm principle, properly conceived, restricts liberty to protect both humans and other sentient animals from harm, including the harm of death in some instances. Potential objections to this claim are considered and rejected.
Legislation is currently going through parliament which recognises animals as sentient beings. Wh... more Legislation is currently going through parliament which recognises animals as sentient beings. What are the implications of recognising sentience for the killing of animals?
An article for the Free From Harm Website discussing the trial of Canadian activist Anita Krajnc ... more An article for the Free From Harm Website discussing the trial of Canadian activist Anita Krajnc and the moral incongruities of the law’s classification of animals as property.
This article argues that, while socioeconomic rights have the potential to contribute to the cont... more This article argues that, while socioeconomic rights have the potential to contribute to the contestation of austerity measures and the reimagining of a " postneoliberal " order, there are a number of features of socioeconomic rights as currently constructed under international law that limit these possibilities. We identify these limitations as falling into two categories: " contingent " and " structural. " Contingent limitations are shortcomings in the current constitution of socioeconomic rights law that undermine its effectiveness for challenging austerity measures. By contrast, the structural limitations of socioeconomic rights law are those that pertain to the more basic presuppositions and axioms that provide the foundations for legal rights discourse. We address these limitations and conclude by arguing that it is possible to harness the strengths of socioeconomic rights discourse while mitigating its shortcomings. A key element in moving beyond these shortcomings is the development of an understanding of such rights as just one component in a portfolio of counterhegemonic discourses that can be mobilized to challenge neoliberalism and austerity.
Amicus letter filed by 33 UK-based animal law experts supporting the right to liberty for Amahle,... more Amicus letter filed by 33 UK-based animal law experts supporting the right to liberty for Amahle, Nolwazi, and Mabu, 3 elephants confined in the at the Fresno Chaffee Zoo.
The name 'orangutan' is derived from the Malay words 'orang' (person) and 'hutan' (forest). Orang... more The name 'orangutan' is derived from the Malay words 'orang' (person) and 'hutan' (forest). Orangutan thus means 'person of the forest'. Alongside humans, they belong to the great ape genus and share 97% of their DNA with us. They are not only sentient, social and emotionally complex, but also highly intelligent creatures who have demonstrated the ability for self-awareness, tool-use, complex communication and the ability to discuss the past. They are also deeply empathetic, finding each other's yawns and laughs infectious. They have been documented trying to save others in distress. Some even thoroughly enjoy a magic trick. But are they 'persons' in law?
An amicus curiae brief signed by 36 UK-based legal academics, barristers and solicitors with expe... more An amicus curiae brief signed by 36 UK-based legal academics, barristers and solicitors with expertise in animal law in support of recognising Happy the elephant as a legal person with a right to bodily liberty.
In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Brit... more In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) published a joint open letter to the British Government calling for a repeal of a legal exemption that permits the slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The RSPCA and BVA argue that repealing the exemption is required on grounds of animal welfare, claiming that non-stun slaughter causes unnecessary pain and suffering. By contrast, Islamic and Jewish groups assert that non-stun slaughter, when properly conducted, is both humane and a religious requirement for least some followers of their faiths. This article considers whether imposing a ban on non-stun slaughter is compatible with obligations to protect religious freedom and non-discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights. It will conclude that it can be and, when done to protect animal welfare, falls within Contracting States’ margin of appreciation.
This article draws upon a neo-Gramscian analysis of world order to critically assess the relation... more This article draws upon a neo-Gramscian analysis of world order to critically assess the relationship between neo-liberal globalization and socioeconomic rights. It argues that, notwithstanding the well-documented discursive tensions that appear to exist between neo-liberalism and socioeconomic rights, the latter have been reconceptualized in a manner that is congruent with the hegemonic framework of the former in a number of international institutional settings. This has been achieved in part through three discursive framing devices which will be termed ‘socioeconomic rights as aspirations’, ‘socioeconomic rights as compensation’, and ‘socioeconomic rights as market outcomes’. The article will conclude by arguing that, despite such appropriation, there are still fruitful possibilities for counterhegemonic articulations of socioeconomic rights to contest neo-liberal globalization.
In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Brit... more In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) published a joint open letter to the British Government calling for a repeal of a legal exemption that permits the slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The RSPCA and BVA argue that repealing the exemption is required on grounds of animal welfare, claiming that non-stun slaughter causes unnecessary pain and suffering. By contrast, Islamic and Jewish groups assert that non-stun slaughter, when properly conducted, is both humane and a religious requirement for least some followers of their faiths. This article considers whether imposing a ban on non-stun slaughter is compatible with obligations to protect religious freedom and non-discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights. It will conclude that it can be and, when done to protect animal welfare, falls within Contracting States' margin of appreciation.
This article considers objections to current litigation strategies of the US-based Nonhuman Right... more This article considers objections to current litigation strategies of the US-based Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), which seek to extend legal personhood and liberty rights to nonhuman animals who possess 'practical autonomy'. By tying personhood to intellectual abilities, so the objections go, such strategies endanger the present legal standing of humans with profound cognitive impairments. This article will argue that such cause for concern is largely misplaced for two reasons. First, the NhRP argue that practical autonomy is only a sufficient condition for personhood, not a necessary one. Second, drawing on theoretical and empirical literature, the article will argue that speciesism itself is a multiplier of oppressive theories, attitudes, beliefs and practices that negatively affect marginalized humans, including humans with cognitive impairments. The NhRP's attempts to reduce speciesism in the legal domain are thus hypothesized as being part of the solution to discrimination against marginalized humans, not as part of the problem.
Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey (eds), Ethical Vegetarianism and Veganism (Routledge 2018), 2018
One of the motivating factors for adopting a vegan diet is the belief that it is wrong to intenti... more One of the motivating factors for adopting a vegan diet is the belief that it is wrong to intentionally kill animals. Yet field animals are often intentionally killed by farmers with traps and poisons in order to protect the plant crops that vegans consume. This article argues that there are, nevertheless, moral distinctions between these types of intentional killings-as well as the practices they support-that make it, all else equal, morally easier to support the production, purchase and consumption of plant products over the production, purchase and consumption of animal products. Three morally salient distinctions between these types of intentional killing practices are identified and discussed: the first relates to different levels of consumer knowledge, the second draws a distinction between necessary and contingent wrongful features of a practice and the third differentiates between two modes of harmful intentional agency – eliminative and opportunistic.
This article argues that criminal liability for offences against animals under UK law should be e... more This article argues that criminal liability for offences against animals under UK law should be extended to include offences of killing, even if the death caused is painless and does not interfere with property rights or biodiversity. I defend this position by appealing to two norms that have significant purchase in the UK legal context: (1) the value of protecting animal welfare and (2) the harm principle as a basis for criminalisation. It will be argued that killing itself is a welfare issue, as it deprives sentient beings of future good experiences and can reduce their lifetime wellbeing to levels lower than it otherwise would have been. Joel Feinberg's normative work on criminalisation is drawn upon to argue that the harm principle, properly conceived, restricts liberty to protect both humans and other sentient animals from harm, including the harm of death in some instances. Potential objections to this claim are considered and rejected.
Legislation is currently going through parliament which recognises animals as sentient beings. Wh... more Legislation is currently going through parliament which recognises animals as sentient beings. What are the implications of recognising sentience for the killing of animals?
An article for the Free From Harm Website discussing the trial of Canadian activist Anita Krajnc ... more An article for the Free From Harm Website discussing the trial of Canadian activist Anita Krajnc and the moral incongruities of the law’s classification of animals as property.
This article argues that, while socioeconomic rights have the potential to contribute to the cont... more This article argues that, while socioeconomic rights have the potential to contribute to the contestation of austerity measures and the reimagining of a " postneoliberal " order, there are a number of features of socioeconomic rights as currently constructed under international law that limit these possibilities. We identify these limitations as falling into two categories: " contingent " and " structural. " Contingent limitations are shortcomings in the current constitution of socioeconomic rights law that undermine its effectiveness for challenging austerity measures. By contrast, the structural limitations of socioeconomic rights law are those that pertain to the more basic presuppositions and axioms that provide the foundations for legal rights discourse. We address these limitations and conclude by arguing that it is possible to harness the strengths of socioeconomic rights discourse while mitigating its shortcomings. A key element in moving beyond these shortcomings is the development of an understanding of such rights as just one component in a portfolio of counterhegemonic discourses that can be mobilized to challenge neoliberalism and austerity.
2016
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Forthcoming
Abstract:
This article argues ... more 2016
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Forthcoming
Abstract: This article argues that, while socioeconomic rights have the potential to contribute to the contestation of austerity measures and the reimagining of a “postneoliberal” order, there are a number of features of socioeconomic rights as currently constructed under international law that limit these possibilities. We identify these limitations as falling into two categories: “contingent” and “structural.” Contingent limitations are shortcomings in the current constitution of socioeconomic rights law that undermine its effectiveness for challenging austerity measures. By contrast, the structural limitations of socioeconomic rights law are those that pertain to the more basic presuppositions and axioms that provide the foundations for legal rights discourse. We address these limitations and conclude by arguing that it is possible to harness the strengths of socioeconomic rights discourse while mitigating its shortcomings. A key element in moving beyond these shortcomings is the development of an understanding of such rights as just one component in a portfolio of counterhegemonic discourses that can be mobilized to challenge neoliberalism and austerity.
Uploads
Papers by Joe Wills
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Forthcoming
Abstract:
This article argues that, while socioeconomic rights have the potential to contribute to the contestation of austerity measures and the reimagining of a “postneoliberal” order, there are a number of features of socioeconomic rights as currently constructed under international law that limit these possibilities. We identify these limitations as falling into two categories: “contingent” and “structural.” Contingent limitations are shortcomings in the current constitution of socioeconomic rights law that undermine its effectiveness for challenging austerity measures. By contrast, the structural limitations of socioeconomic rights law are those that pertain to the more basic presuppositions and axioms that provide the foundations for legal rights discourse. We address these limitations and conclude by arguing that it is possible to harness the strengths of socioeconomic rights discourse while mitigating its shortcomings. A key element in moving beyond these shortcomings is the development of an understanding of such rights as just one component in a portfolio of counterhegemonic discourses that can be mobilized to challenge neoliberalism and austerity.
Link to article: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2786893
Keywords: socioeconomic rights, neoliberalism, austerity, IFIs, IMF, progressive realisation, retrogression, transnational, extraterritoriality, ICESCR, Greece