DOCSLIB.ORG

Rsda 1 2017-1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rsda 1 2017-1 UNIVERSITÉ DE LIMOGES OBSERVATOIRE DES MUTATIONS INSTITUTIONNELLES ET JURIDIQUES UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTPELLIER INSTITUT DE DROIT EUROPÉEN DES DROITS DE L’HOMME Sous la direction de JEAN-PIERRE MARGUÉNAUD Sous la rédaction en chef de FLORENCE BURGAT JACQUES LEROY CLAIRE VIAL 1/2017 UNIVERSITÉ DE LIMOGES OBSERVATOIRE DES MUTATIONS INSTITUTIONNELLES ET JURIDIQUES UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTPELLIER INSTITUT DE DROIT EUROPÉEN DES DROITS DE L’HOMME DOSSIER THÉMATIQUE LES POISSONS DIRECTEUR Jean-Pierre MARGUÉNAUD, Professeur de Droit privé et de Sciences criminelles, Université de Limoges, Membre de l'Institut de Droit Européen des Droits de l'Homme-I.D.E.D.H. (EA 3976), Université de Montpellier RÉDACTEURS EN CHEF Florence BURGAT, Directeur de recherche en philosophie, Inra-SAE2/UMR 8547 Cnrs-Ens Jacques LEROY, Professeur de Droit privé, Doyen honoraire, Directeur du Centre de Recherche Juridique Pothier, Université d’Orléans Claire VIAL, Professeur de Droit public, Université de Montpellier, I.D.E.D.H. (EA 3976) RÉDACTRICES EN CHEF ADJOINTES Lucille BOISSEAU-SOWINSKI, Maître de conférences en droit privé, Université de Limoges Ninon MAILLARD, Maître de conférences en Histoire du Droit, Université de Nantes, Droit et Changement Social (UMR 6297) SECRÉTAIRES GÉNÉRAUX Xavier PERROT, Professeur en Histoire du Droit, FDSE - OMIJ, Université de Limoges Claire VIAL, Professeur de Droit public, Université de Montpellier, I.D.E.D.H. (EA 3976) COMITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE Suzanne ANTOINE, Docteur en Droit, Président de chambre honoraire de la Cour d’appel de Paris Olivier DUBOS, Professeur de Droit public, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux 4 Elisabeth de FONTENAY, Philosophe, Maître de Conférences Honoraire Geneviève GIUDICELLI-DELAGE, Professeur de Droit privé, Université Paris 1, Présidente de l’Association de Recherches Pénales Européennes Xavier LABBÉE, Professeur de Droit privé, Université Lille 2 Jean-François LACHAUME, Professeur émérite de Droit public, Université de Poitiers Marie-Angèle HERMITTE, Directeur de recherche au CNRS, Directeur d’études à l’EHESS François PASQUALINI, Professeur de Droit privé, Université Paris Dauphine Hélène PAULIAT, Professeur de Droit public, Université de Limoges Catherine PRÉAUBERT, Docteur en Droit, Avocat à Mayotte Michel PRIEUR, Professeur émérite de Droit public, Doyen honoraire, Université de Limoges Jacques RAYNARD, Professeur de Droit privé, Université de Montpellier Thierry REVET, Professeur de Droit privé, Université Paris 1 Philippe REIGNÉ, Agrégé des facultés de droit, Professeur du CNAM Frédéric SUDRE, Professeur de Droit public, Université de Montpellier COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION Caroline BOYER-CAPELLE, Maître de conférences en droit public, Université de Limoges Florence BURGAT, Directeur de recherche en philosophie, Inra- SAE2/UMR 8547 Cnrs-Ens Émilie CHEVALIER, Maître de conférences en droit public, Université de Limoges Clotilde DEFFIGIER, Professeur de Droit public, Université de Limoges Olivier DUBOS, Professeur de Droit public, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux 4 Geneviève GIUDICELLI-DELAGE, Professeur de Droit privé, Université Paris 1, Présidente de l’Association de Recherches Pénales Européennes Christine HUGON, Professeur de Droit privé, Université de Montpellier Olivier LE BOT, Professeur de Droit Public, Université Aix-Marseille Jacques LEROY, Professeur de Droit privé, Doyen honoraire, Directeur du Centre de Recherche Juridique Pothier, Université d’Orléans Ninon MAILLARD, Maître de conférences en Histoire du Droit, Université de Nantes, Droit et Changement Social (UMR 6297) Jean-Pierre MARGUÉNAUD, Professeur de Droit privé et de Sciences criminelles, Université de Limoges, Membre de l'Institut de Droit Européen des Droits de l'Homme-I.D.E.D.H. (EA 3976), Université de Montpellier Séverine NADAUD, Maître de conférences HDR, Université de Limoges Damien ROETS, Professeur de Droit privé, Doyen de la Faculté de Droit et des Sciences Économiques, Université de Limoges Claire VIAL, Professeur de Droit public, Université de Montpellier, I.D.E.D.H. (EA 3976) SECRÉTAIRE DE RÉDACTION François PÉLISSON, Ingénieur d’études, Université de Limoges *** Direction, administration OMIJ IDEDH 5 Rue Félix Éboué 39, rue de l’Université 87031 Limoges Cedex 1 34060 Montpellier Cedex 2 Tél :+33 5 55 34 97 36 Tél : +33 4 34 43 29 71 Fax : +33 5 55 34 97 01 Courriel : [email protected] Courriel : [email protected] Site Internet : Site Internet : http://idedh.edu.umontpellier.fr/publications http://www.unilim.fr/omij Mode de parution 2 numéros par an / ISSN 2258-0530 Revue Semestrielle de Droit Animalier – RSDA 1/2017 SOMMAIRE AVANT-PROPOS ........................................................................................11 I. ACTUALITÉ JURIDIQUE ....................................................................13 SÉLECTION DU SEMESTRE Les militants de l'association L 214 devant le tribunal correctionnel JEAN-PIERRE MARGUÉNAUD ............................................................................15 JURISPRUDENCE CHRONIQUES DROIT CIVIL DES PERSONNES ET DE LA FAMILLE FABIEN MARCHADIER ......................................................................................25 RESPONSABILITÉ CIVILE JEAN MOULY ...................................................................................................35 CONTRATS SPÉCIAUX KITERI GARCIA ET CHRISTINE HUGON ..............................................................41 DROIT CRIMINEL JACQUES LEROY ..............................................................................................51 DROIT ADMINISTRATIF CAROLINE BOYER-CAPELLE ET PASCAL COMBEAU ............................................55 DROIT SANITAIRE SONIA DESMOULIN-CANSELIER ........................................................................71 DROIT DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT SÉVERINE NADAUD ..........................................................................................79 DROIT DE L’UNION EUROPÉENNE ET DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE ÉMILIE CHEVALIER ..........................................................................................91 DROIT CONSTITUTIONNEL OLIVIER LE BOT...............................................................................................95 CULTURES ET TRADITIONS CLAIRE VIAL ..................................................................................................103 DROITS ÉTRANGERS ALLISON FIORENTINO, MARTINE LACHANCE ET MARION BOURGINE-RENSON .115 Sommaire PROPRIÉTÉS INTELLECTUELLES ALEXANDRE ZOLLINGER .................................................................................149 SOMMAIRES DE JURISPRUDENCE (sous la coordination de Caroline Boyer- Capelle et Delphine Tharaud) LALIA ANDASMAS, BRIGITTE DES BOUILLONS, CAROLINE BOYER-CAPELLE, DAVID CHAUVET, SOPHIE DUTHOIT-LULOV, MARINE GRENET ET DELPHINE THARAUD165 LÉGISLATION CHRONIQUE (sous la responsabilité de Lucille Boisseau-Sowinski et de Jordane Ségura-Carissimi) LUCILLE BOISSEAU-SOWINSKI, JORDANE SEGURA-CARISSIMI ET SOPHIE DUTHOIT-LULOV ...........................................................................................183 BIBLIOGRAPHIE REVUE DES PUBLICATIONS Les tergiversations animalières : du coq à l’âme JOËL KIRSZENBLAT ........................................................................................201 COMPTE-RENDU D’OUVRAGE L’insatiable désir de manger toute chair : L’humanité carnivore en question NINON MAILLARD ..........................................................................................207 II. DOSSIER THÉMATIQUE : « LES POISSONS » ...................................................................................213 TRIBUNE CONTRADICTOIRE La campagne mondiale « Qui sont les poissons ? » YVES BONNARDEL ..........................................................................................215 La salmoniculture PIERRE SIGLER ..............................................................................................231 POINTS DE VUE CROISÉS PSYCHANALYSE Poi(S)sons… GHILAINE JEANNOT-PAGÈS ............................................................................257 DROITS RELIGIEUX Être « de la nature du poisson » sans être « véritable » poisson : le cas de la Macreuse, oiseau comme animal, poisson comme chère NINON MAILLARD ..........................................................................................263 Revue Semestrielle de Droit Animalier – RSDA 1/2017 ÉCONOMIE La disparition du saumon atlantique. De l’épopée du poisson sauvage à l’aquaculture industrielle. JEAN-JACQUES GOUGUET ..............................................................................281 LES ARCHIVES DES ANIMAUX PRÉSENTATION D’UNE NOUVELLE RUBRIQUE EGLE BARONE VISIGALLI ................................................................................303 III. DOCTRINE ET DÉBATS .................................................................305 DOCTRINE CONCOURS JULES MICHELET JEAN-PIERRE MARGUÉNAUD ..........................................................................307 Promotion Jean-Marie Coulon. Janvier 2017 JEAN-PIERRE MARGUÉNAUD ..........................................................................309 Proposition de réforme instaurant la Liste Positive des mammifères non domestiques pouvant être détenus comme animaux de compagnie CÉLIA FONTAINE ...........................................................................................313 CONCOURS « DROIT DE L’ANIMAL ET DEMAIN ? » DE LA FONDATION 30 MILLIONS D’AMIS Introduction LUCILLE BOISSEAU-SOWINSKI ........................................................................331 Proposition
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reportable in the Supreme Court of India Civil
    1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5387 OF 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007) Animal Welfare Board of India …. Appellant Versus A. Nagaraja & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5388 OF 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10281 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5389-5390 OF 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18804-18805 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5391 OF 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13199 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5392 OF 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13200 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5393 OF 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4598 of 2013) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5394 OF 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12789 of 2014) (@ SLP(C) CC…4268 of 2013) Page 1 2 WRIT PETITION (C) NO.145 OF 2011 AND T.C. (C) Nos.84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 127 of 2013 K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We are, in these cases, concerned with an issue of seminal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under our Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion and ethology, which we have to examine, in connection with the conduct of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races etc. in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with particular reference to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short ‘the PCA Act’), the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 (for short “TNRJ Act”) and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty on Animals and Related Rights
    PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020) CRUELTY ON ANIMALS AND RELATED RIGHTS Maithili Chaudhury1, Nilanjan Chakraborty2 1,2 Asst. Professer, Faculty of Legal Studies, Siksha O Anusandhan Email: [email protected], [email protected] Maithili Chaudhury, Nilanjan Chakraborty: Cruelty On Animals And Related Rights -- Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 17(6). ISSN 1567-214x Keywords: Animal Rights, Animal Husbandry, Anti-cruelty ethic, Social Ethic ABSTRACT Businesses and occupations must remain consistent with social ethics or risk losing their freedom. An important social ethical issue that has arisen over the past four decades is animal welfare in various areas of human use. The ethical interest of the society has outgrown the conventional morality of animal cruelty, which originated in biblical times and is embodied in the laws of all civilized societies. There are five major reasons, most notably the substitution of husbandry-based agriculture with industrial agriculture, for this new social concern. This loss of husbandry to industry has threatened the traditional fair contract between humans and animals, leading to significant animal suffering on four different fronts. Because such suffering is not caused by cruelty, it was necessary to express social concerns with a new ethic for animals. Since ethics is based on pre-existing ethics rather than ex nihilo, society has looked for its properly modified ethics for humans to find moral categories that apply to animals. This concept of legally encoded rights for animals has emerged as a plausible vehicle for reform. The paper provides brief summary of the animal welfare board of India, legal capacity in order to possess rights and tries to establish relation between legal personhood and rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Jallikattu (Part-II) What the Future Portends for Tamil Nadu
    Jallikattu (Part-II) What the future portends for Tamil Nadu. (N.T.Ravindranath) Dated: 03-04-2017 Hearing petitions filed by Animal Welfare Society of India (AWSI), PETA and other animal rights organizations against Tamil Nadu government’s ordinance allowing Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India on January 31, 2017 refused to stay the ordinance. However, the court expressed its displeasure over the developments in Tamil Nadu by severely criticizing the state government for its failure to control the law and order situation in the state while trying to implement the court directive on Jallikattu. The court’s decision was welcomed by all sections of people in Tamil Nadu as it defused tension and prevented a renewed flare-up in Tamil Nadu. However, the final verdict in the case is yet to be delivered. The Jallikattu is a rural bull-taming sport conducted only in five southern districts of Madurai, Theni, Thiruchirapally, Pudukottai and Dindigul in Tamil Nadu. This harvest sport is generally held in the month of January as part of the harvest festival ‘Pongal’. Though this event is held only in a few villages of five southern districts of Tamil Nadu, it is quite a popular rural sport attracting a large number of villagers. The bulls participating in the game rarely get injured. But many brave men who participate in this dare-devil event get injured every year and some of them get killed also. But people of Tamil Nadu still love this sport and they are very angry over the ban on Jallikattu imposed on it by the Supreme Court in 2014, in response to the demands and objections raised by some animal rights activists.
    [Show full text]
  • Dossier : Questions D'éthique Animale
    Ethica Volume 22, No 1 (Printemps 2018) Liminaire Dossier : Questions d’éthique animale Coordonné par François Jaquet et Angela Martin1 La question animale : une perspective pluridisciplinaire Les philosophes se sont toujours intéressés au statut moral des animaux non humains. Dans l’Antiquité déjà, Aristote, les Épicuriens et les Stoïciens soutenaient que les bêtes n’étaient pas concernées par la justice parce que dépourvues de raison, à quoi Porphyre (1979) et Plutarque (2002) rétorquaient que le respect leur était dû en vertu de leur seule sensibilité2. Quelques siècles plus tard, des thèses similaires furent défendues notamment par René Descartes (1973) et Emmanuel Kant (1986, 1997), d’une part, et par Michel de Montaigne (1962), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1973) et Jeremy Bentham (1907), de l’autre. Ce n’est pourtant qu’à la fin du XXe siècle que l’éthique animale s’est constituée comme discipline philosophique à part entière – plus précisément en 1975, année de publication de l’ouvrage fondateur Animal Liberation, du philosophe australien Peter Singer. Dans le chapitre premier de La Libération animale, où il expose la théorie qu’il applique par la suite à des pratiques concrètes, Singer affirme que « tous les animaux sont égaux », une thèse souvent mal comprise. Car l’affirmation égalitariste n’est pas descriptive : il ne s’agit en aucun cas de prétendre que les animaux possèdent les mêmes capacités que leurs cousins humains. Elle est normative : les animaux sont nos égaux en ce sens que nous devons à leurs intérêts la même considération que nous devons aux intérêts similaires de nos congénères. Les animaux – la plupart de ceux que nous exploitons du moins – sont sentients, c’est-à-dire capables de ressentir des choses agréables ou désagréables.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasonable Humans and Animals: an Argument for Vegetarianism
    BETWEEN THE SPECIES Issue VIII August 2008 www.cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism Nathan Nobis Philosophy Department Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA USA www.NathanNobis.com [email protected] “It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold.” - Peter Singer “It's a matter of taking the side of the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done.” - Harriet Beecher Stowe In my experience of teaching philosophy, ethics and logic courses, I have found that no topic brings out the rational and emotional best and worst in people than ethical questions about the treatment of animals. This is not surprising since, unlike questions about social policy, generally about what other people should do, moral questions about animals are personal. As philosopher Peter Singer has observed, “For most human beings, especially in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form of contact with non-human animals is at mealtimes: we eat Between the Species, VIII, August 2008, cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ 1 them.”1 For most of us, then, our own daily behaviors and choices are challenged when we reflect on the reasons given to think that change is needed in our treatment of, and attitudes toward, animals. That the issue is personal presents unique challenges, and great opportunities, for intellectual and moral progress. Here I present some of the reasons given for and against taking animals seriously and reflect on the role of reason in our lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm Animal Funders Briefings
    BRIEFING SERIES February, 2019 v1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Smart Giving: Some Fundamentals 2 Supporting Alternative Foods To Farmed Animal Products 4 Veg Advocacy 7 Corporate Campaigns For Welfare Reforms 9 Fishes 12 Legal and Legislative Methods 13 A Global Perspective on Farmed Animal Advocacy 15 Shallow Review: Increasing Donations Through Your Donation 19 2 Smart Giving: Some Fundamentals How Much To Give? There are a number of approaches to how much to give, Why Give? including: For the world: There are over 100 hundred billion farmed animals alive at any moment in conditions that Giving what you don’t need cause severe suffering, that number has been increasing over time and is projected to continue to do so. Consuming animal products is associated with many x % Pledging a set percentage negative health outcomes and animal agriculture is a chief cause of environmental degradation—causing approximately 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. % Giving to reach a personal best For you: Giving activates the brain’s reward centers, Some people give everything above what is necessary to resulting in increased life satisfaction and happiness. satisfy their needs, in part because of evidence that high levels of income have diminishing returns on wellbeing. How Can We Help Identify Cost-effective Funding Thousands of people (including some of the wealthiest) How To Give? Opportunities? publicly pledge some set percentage for giving. Pledging could increase your commitment to giving, further Effective giving is important because top Farmed Animal Funders release briefings and research connect you with a giving community, and inspire others. giving options are plausibly many times more different promising areas.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Guardianship of Animals.Pdf
    Edna Cardozo Dias Lawyer, PhD in Law, Legal Consultant and University Professor The Legal Guardianship of Animals Belo Horizonte - Minas Gerais 2020 © 2020 EDNA CARDOZO DIAS Editor Edna Cardozo Dias Final art Aderivaldo Sousa Santos Review Maria Celia Aun Cardozo, Edna The Legal Guardianship of Animals / — Edna Cardozo Dias: Belo Horizonte/Minas Gerais - 2020 - 3ª edition. 346 p. 1. I.Título. Printed in Brazil All rights reserved Requests for this work Internet site shopping: amazon.com.br and amazon.com. Email: [email protected] 2 EDNA CARDOZO DIAS I dedicate this book To the common mother of all beings - the Earth - which contains the essence of all that lives, which feeds us from all joys, in the hope that this work may inaugurate a new era, marked by a firm purpose to restore the animal’s dignity, and the human being commitment with an ethic of life. THE LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP OF A NIMALS 3 Appreciate Professor Arthur Diniz, advisor of my doctoral thesis, defended at the Federal University of Minas Gerais - UFMG, which was the first thesis on animal law in Brazil in February 2000, introducing this new branch of law in the academic and scientific world, starting the elaboration of a “Animal Rights Theory”. 4 EDNA CARDOZO DIAS Sumário Chapter 1 - PHILOSOPHY AND ANIMALS .................................................. 15 1.1 The Greeks 1.1.1 The Pre-Socratic 1.1.2 The Sophists 1.1.3 The Socratic Philosophy 1.1.4 Plato 1.1.5 Peripathetism 1.1.6 Epicureanism 1.1.7 The Stoic Philosophy 1.2 The Biblical View - The Saints and the Animals 1.2.1 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Animal Equality 2015
    Additional information - for Animal Charity Evaluators - Assessment of Animal Equality 2015 Due date: October 7th 2015 1 1. What are your goals? Your vision? Your mission? (Update after strategic lines 2015) Vision Animal Equality works to create a world without animal suffering. Mission Animal Equality is a voice for farmed animals all over the world inspiring society and companies to adopt compassionate choices. 2. What are our objectives of the year? Goals in 3 or 5 years? Strategy Plan 2016 ­ 2020: Animal Equality has just finished its strategic plan for 2016­2020 and is working with an external company to have it summarized and transformed into a more visual document. As part of the strategic plan the organization has done a thorough internal and external analysis. Internal analysis: compilation of the financial, relations, material goods, management, function, procedures, dynamics of the organization in 8 countries. It has given insight to some of the internal problems that must be addressed as part of the strategy plan. As part of the external analysis we have analysed the education, legislation and companies in the 8 countries we are working in. This adds on to our STEP and SWOT analysis carried out sometime ago,as well as to the meat study being carried out in Germany to give AE an idea of what will be the areas of focus of the organization in the next years taking into account the organization's reality and resources. The organization’s country and international directors then had a 3 day meeting to discuss the organization's reality, identity and focus in the upcoming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Sentience Denial: Muddying the Waters
    Sneddon, Lynne U.; Lopez-Luna, Javier; Wolfenden, David C.C.; Leach, Matthew C.; Valentim, Ana M.; Steenbergen, Peter J.; Bardine, Nabila; Currie, Amanda D.; Broom, Donald M.; and Brown, Culum (2018) Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters. Animal Sentience 21(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1317 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sneddon, Lynne U.; Lopez-Luna, Javier; Wolfenden, David C.C.; Leach, Matthew C.; Valentim, Ana M.; Steenbergen, Peter J.; Bardine, Nabila; Currie, Amanda D.; Broom, Donald M.; and Brown, Culum (2018) Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters. Animal Sentience 21(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1317 Authors Lynne U. Sneddon, Javier Lopez-Luna, David C.C. Wolfenden, Matthew C. Leach, Ana M. Valentim, Peter J. Steenbergen, Nabila Bardine, Amanda D. Currie, Donald M. Broom, and Culum Brown This article is available in Animal Sentience: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/ animsent/vol3/iss21/1 Animal Sentience 2018.115: Sneddon et al. on Sentience Denial Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been reviewed, revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. Instructions: animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/guidelines.html Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters Lynne U.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Scientific Defense of a Vegetarian Diet
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons College of the Pacific aF culty Books and Book All Faculty Scholarship Chapters 9-2009 The irsF t Scientific efeD nse of a Vegetarian Diet Ken Albala University of the Pacific, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cop-facbooks Part of the Food Security Commons, History Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Albala, K. (2009). The irF st Scientific efeD nse of a Vegetarian Diet. In Susan R. Friedland (Eds.), Vegetables (29–35). Totnes, Devon, England: Oxford Symposium/Prospect Books https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cop-facbooks/86 This Contribution to Book is brought to you for free and open access by the All Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of the Pacific aF culty Books and Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The First Scientific Defense of a Vegetarian Diet Ken Albala Throughout history vegetarian diets, variously defined, have been adopted as a matter of economic necessity or as a form of abstinence, to strengthen the soul by denying the body’s physical demands. In the Western tradition there have been many who avoided flesh out of ethical concern for the welfare of animals and this remains a strong impetus in contemporary culture. Yet today, we are fully aware scientifically that it is perfectly possible to enjoy health on a purely vegetarian diet. This knowledge stems largely from early research into the nature of proteins, and awareness, after Justus von Leibig’s research in the nineteenth century, that plants contain muscle-building compounds, if not a complete package of amino acids.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society
    Proceedings of the Conference Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society held at the University of Exeter, UK 10 March 2012 © CPAS convenors, editors and individual named contributors, 2013 Some rights reserved Copyright in contributions to these proceedings rests with their respective authors. Copyright to the overall collection and arrangement and to any other material in this document rests with the convenors of CPAS and the editors of its proceedings. In the spirit of open-access publishing and with a commitment to the intellectual commons, reuse and distribution of these proceedings for non-commercial purposes is permitted and encouraged, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution± NonCommercial±NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales licence, which can be read at: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ Amongst other things, this licence requires that you attribute material you reproduce to its author, and make clear to those you share it with that they too may reproduce it under the terms of the licence. Anything outside the licence, especially commercial use, requires the express permission of the editors and conference convenors, or of individual authors. Requests to the former should be directed to: [email protected] Edited by Chris Calvert and Jessica Gröling Contents Introduction by the editors 5 Chris Calvert and Jessica Gröling — Contributions in brief — About CPAS — Acknowledgements — Conference programme Campaigning techniques 11 Keynote address by Dr Richard D. Ryder Animal rights: moral crusade or social
    [Show full text]
  • Animals in the Public Debate: Welfare, Rights, and Conservationism in India Daniela Berti
    Animals in the Public Debate: Welfare, Rights, and Conservationism in India Daniela Berti To cite this version: Daniela Berti. Animals in the Public Debate: Welfare, Rights, and Conservationism in India. Reli- gions, MDPI, 2019, 10 (8), pp.475. 10.3390/rel10080475. hal-02291943 HAL Id: hal-02291943 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02291943 Submitted on 19 Sep 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. religions Article Animals in the Public Debate: Welfare, Rights, and Conservationism in India Daniela Berti National Centre for Scientific Research, 75016 Paris, France; [email protected] Received: 16 June 2019; Accepted: 5 August 2019; Published: 13 August 2019 Abstract: This paper proposes a survey of the many ways in which people look at and deal with animals in contemporary India. On the basis of ethnographic research and of multiple written sources (judgments, newspapers, websites, legal files, activist pamphlets, etc.), I present some of the actors involved in the animal debate—animal activists, environmental lawyers, judges, and hunter-conservationists—who adopt different, though sometimes interconnected, approaches to animals. Some of them look at animals as victims that need to be rescued and treated in the field, others fight for animals in Parliament or in Court so that they can be entitled to certain rights, others are concerned with the issue of species survival, where the interest of the group prevails on the protection of individual animals.
    [Show full text]