Browse by title

The legal and moral significance of animals has generated a considerable corpus of scholarship. The discourse in relation to the moral significance of animal interests is characterised by the juxtaposition of advocates of animal welfare on the one hand and animal rights on the other. In general, law responds to animal interests through welfare legislation, which regulates the ‘humane’ treatment of non-human animals in order to mitigate animal suffering. Domestic jurisdictions respond to animal welfare concerns through anti-cruelty legislation. However, animal welfare legislation applies predominantly to domestic and agricultural animals. The situation in relation to the regulation of wildlife, both on the domestic and international plane, differs considerably from the approach to domestic and agricultural animals. Legal scholars have criticised the lack of wildlife welfare protection. The views in relation to the ignorance on wildlife range from despair expressed by one commentator who argued that ‘wild animal welfare law is sparse, bordering on the non-existent at the international level’ to glimmers of hope in the recognition that international environmental law is not wholly agnostic in relation to this issue. It is, however, abundantly clear that wildlife law (of the majority of jurisdictions) as well as international wildlife law do not contain welfare protection as an objective but rather the focus of wildlife law is to pursue the sustainable use and conservation of wildlife law. This approach is indicative of the anthropocentric and instrumental ethic that underlies the disconnect between the objectives of animal welfare and conservation.