Author Institution Abstract's title ABSTRACT The idea of animal rights has gained momentum over the past decades. It typically entails the notion of fundamental rights that is universal moral rights that (some) animals have simply in virtue of being animals. The emergence of such human rights-like animal rights is not only reflected in a rise of academic theorizing but also observable in legal practice. In both realms there is an upcoming trend to frame animal’s rights in the language of human rights and to discuss the former as a normative derivation of the latter as 4th generation human rights. This development comes at a time when human rights are still precarious notwithstanding their status as moral legal and political lingua franca. The idea of extending human rights to [4] Saskia Stucki, animals may be seen as adding to the fragile status of human rights as it Juan Perez, challenges one of the few assumption human rights theorists generally Max Planck Institute for Human Rights and Animal Rights: agree upon: that human rights are human. It is thus likely to engender Pedro Sanchez, Comparative Public Law and International Law Divergence or Convergence? considerable criticism adverting to the detrimental effects of the incipient Carlos Navarrete, âdehumanization (and decline) of the humanist project of human rights. Branda Nava Intuitions that animal rights are bad for human rights seem to presume an antagonistic dynamism between these two species of rights. But what if to the contrary human and animal rights converged and were mutually reinforcing rather than inhibiting and asserting animal’s rights would be beneficial to humans rights? This paper sets out to explore such parallelisms overlaps and interrelations between human and animal rights. It will undertake (1) a conceptual analysis of the philosophical foundations of human rights with regard to their implications for animals. The paper will (2) furthermore examine the historical and political intertwinement between humans and animals with a special focus on the recurring theme of dehumanization through animalization. In the judeo-christian tradition as in many ancient religions the sacrifice of animals is one of the common practices to represent or symbolize the action of man with his gods. Humans are distinguished precisely from non-human animals by the performance of rites: at birth reproduction and death. It is a whole set of human activities to have a religious experience and somehow communicate with the god in whom they believe. Then in this connection between man and god we find nature that is animals. Animals are the [5] Mauro Pérez Lamb of God: From the Rite of Sacrifice to a communication link between man and god and properly the life and blood of animals. In fact today isolated communities continue to kill animals as an Bravo Vision of Brotherhood expression of religious sentiment. However we find signs of fraternity with animals in some religious traditions in christianity for example Francis of Assisi is the show par excellence and the culmination of a religious solidarity with animals where they are considered perhaps not conscious way as subjects of rights and to which they should be respected their natural life as humans. It is thus that we intend to analyze the ethical or legal presuppositions that can be derived from this religious expression more fraternal and in solidarity with nonhuman animals. From the passion of Christ to the calvary of animals, dominant christian theological paradigms have traditionally believed in the ascendancy of humankind over that of the natural world and its animals placing humans at the center of creation. Consequently animals are believed to be inferior beings at the service of people. The current environmental crisis can be seen as a reflection of this unbalanced relationship. Thus arise ethical as well as theological questions about humankind’s role and stewardship regarding Fraternité Sacerdotale From The Passion of Christ to the Calvary of animals and nature. The aim of my recent artwork is to approach these [8] Estela Torres et laique internationale questions and have these two disciplines come into dialog. Animal passion is Animals pour le respect animal series of drawings started in 2013 in conjunction with my research on animal theology. The aim of these drawings is to parallel in images and in discourse the suffering of Christ as a persecuted innocent put to death with the suffering of the innocent and the voiceless put to death which are the animals. This is done by the juxtaposition of images taken from internet about animal mistreatment with those of religious representations taken from the history of art such as scenes of the passion and crucifixion of Christ from Velazquez, Ribera, El Greco etc. In our presentation we would like to introduce the exhibition project ANIMAL LOVERS dealing with current artistic positions on human-animal relations that we realised in 2016 at nGbK Berlin (art association www.nGbK.de). The project embarks on a search for emancipated human- animal relationships. It questions to what extent animals are and can be involved as agents in social processes. According to the transdisciplinary academic field of human-animal studies a change of perspective has also emerged in the artistic research field. We collaborated with artists that regard animals not as “the other” or as a projection surface for human desires and fears but emphasize on seeing them as individuals with capabilities and rights they deal with the ramifications of a reorganisation of coexistence. After a short outline of our concept and research that includes the possibility of artistic collaboration with animals we will introduce [9] Anne Hoelck, Ute ANIMAL LOVERS: Artistic Positions On The selected art works that were contributed by 14 international artists and Meinblau e.V. artist's collectives a.o. Ant Farm, Ines Lechleitner, Hörner/Antlfinger, Hoerner Current Debate Of Human-Animal Relations SinKabeza Productions and NEOZOON. They expose critically contradictions and clichés in the daily and medialised treatment of animals perform in companionship with animals and invent scenarios of architectures that allows both humans and animals to find their bearings in the habitat of the other. Our aim is to spread our artistic research dedicated to the human- animal question and expand our network of activists artistic and academic researchers in this field. Our exhibition was accompanied by the symposium »Networking Animal Lovers« that took place on the 4th and 5th of November 2016 at ngbk Berlin and our publication including essays on the current debate of human-animal relations a.o. by Kim Stallwood Hilda Kean Will Kymlicka & Sue Donaldson and Hilal Sezgin. April 2017 by Anne Hölck and Ute Hörner. Please find the catalogue (incl.cvs) and the essay publication HERE: HTTP://WE- ANIMALS.DE/DATA/AL_CATALOGUE+ESSAYS.PDF My proposed presentation rooted in my doctoral studies on the same subject focusses on the classic mode of human-animal othering often implicit in media-based cultural discourses. My talk explores how rigid “respectively fluid“ the above alterity is via measuring ambiguity tolerance towards hybrid states (e.g. conceiving of humans as chimpanzees apes primates mammals animals; conceiving of non-human animals as persons humans etc.) As reflected in electronic archives covering 16 years of newspaper reporting in the UK (1995-2010) and then subjecting this data to both a quantitative and qualitative analysis measuring the fluctuation of this ambiguity tolerance.my results strongly indicate a distinct “millennial effect” of intolerance and human-exceptionalist essentialism under wider societal Toward an Animal Democracy Not an stress states such as war economic downturns etc. This suggests that [10] Kathleen Bryson received understandings of concrete descriptions in evolutionary theory Animal Kingdom such as “human” “animal” and even “species” may function as cultural concepts considered to be natural kinds but also are temporally malleable in both popular and academic discourses. By comparing this socially prescribed human-animal alterity to additional alterities (human-machine heterosexual- homosexual male-female) that I similarly subjected to a statistical analysis during the same 1995-2010 time period I show quantitatively and qualitatively that essentialist thinking “as expressed by ambiguity (in)tolerance in socially empowered individuals” functions as an infrahumanisation mechanism to protect one’s perceived ingroup be that humans males or heterosexuals. I argue instead for an ultrahumanisation that may allow for less anthropocentrism less androcentrism and less heterocentrism. From the perspective of social philosophy we do not start with a concept of law but with the concept of moral obligations among human beings. In the ethical sense "obligation" is a relational concept. Individuals have moral obligations to their parents, siblings, employers, etc and civic and religious obligations as well. Often philosophers say that human rights engender obligations or duties. However from the social perspective moral obligations take precedence over legal requirements. Instead of thinking that the foundation of moral obligations lies in legal rights it is better to recognize that legal rights are founded on moral obligations. From a social philosophy perspective it would be better to ask the question: which of the moral obligations we have to animals can in turn give rise to legal rights of animals? Sue Donaldson