Advanced

Högre (d)juridisk status – starkare djurrättsskydd? - En rättskomparativ analys av djurrättsskyddet i Sverige i jämförelse med Tyskland och Schweiz

Hansson Ganslandt, Andreas (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
En av de mer grundläggande strukturerna i världens rättssystem, uppdelningen mellan rättssubjekt och rättsobjekt, har de senaste 20 åren mött utmaningar från djurrättsförespråkare. Genom att sätta djurs bristande rättsliga skydd i relation till deras juridiska status har man argumenterat för att djurs rättsliga skydd aldrig kan tillgodoses på ett tillfredställande vis så länge de ses som rättsliga objekt. I Sverige behandlas djur fortfarande i rättslig mening som objekt och saker, men i Tyskland och Schweiz har man i sin civilrättslagstiftning deklarerat att djur inte är saker. Syftet med denna uppsats har varit att undersöka huruvida djur åtnjuter ett starkare rättsligt djurskydd i Tyskland och Schweiz, där de i rättslig mening inte... (More)
En av de mer grundläggande strukturerna i världens rättssystem, uppdelningen mellan rättssubjekt och rättsobjekt, har de senaste 20 åren mött utmaningar från djurrättsförespråkare. Genom att sätta djurs bristande rättsliga skydd i relation till deras juridiska status har man argumenterat för att djurs rättsliga skydd aldrig kan tillgodoses på ett tillfredställande vis så länge de ses som rättsliga objekt. I Sverige behandlas djur fortfarande i rättslig mening som objekt och saker, men i Tyskland och Schweiz har man i sin civilrättslagstiftning deklarerat att djur inte är saker. Syftet med denna uppsats har varit att undersöka huruvida djur åtnjuter ett starkare rättsligt djurskydd i Tyskland och Schweiz, där de i rättslig mening inte definieras som saker, än i Sverige där de rättsligt behandlas som saker. Vidare har uppsatsen också haft som syfte att analysera huruvida dessa deklarationer innebär några förändringar i uppdelningen mellan rättsliga subjekt och objekt.

I uppsatsen ges en kort historisk bakgrund till uppdelningen mellan rättsliga subjekt och objekt och en presentation av de mest centrala argumenten från de djurrättsförespråkare som argumenterar för en förändring av djurens juridiska status. Genom att tillämpa både en rättsdogmatisk och en rättskomparativ metod analyseras svensk, tysk och schweizisk djurrätt utifrån de frågor som är i fokus för djurrättsförespråkare, nämligen intresseavvägningar mellan djur och människor, djurs skydd vid brott samt partsbehörighet och ersättning vid brott och skada.

I analysen framkommer det inte några avgörande skillnader mellan det svenska djurrättsskyddet och det tyska och det schweiziska. Trots att tysk och schweizisk lagstiftning föreskriver att djur inte är saker så har man lämnat kvar möjligheten att rättsligt behandla djur som saker så länge det inte går emot några djurskyddsbestämmelser. I vissa frågor går det till och med att finna att Sveriges djurrättskydd är starkare, exempelvis gällande slakt och djurförsök. I det enda avseendet som det tyska och schweiziska djurrättskyddet erbjuder starkare skydd till djur, nämligen talerätt i rättsprövningar, antyder analysen att detta beror mindre på djurens juridiska status och mer på det faktum att Tyskland och Schweiz har lyft upp djurskyddsfrågan på grundlagsnivå. Slutligen går det inte heller att finna att de tyska och schweiziska deklarationerna om att djur inte är saker ska ha skapat någon förändring i uppdelningen mellan rättsliga subjekt och objekt. (Less)
Abstract
One of the more fundamental structures of the world's legal systems, the division between legal persons and legal objects, has over the last 20 years faced challenges from animal rights advocates. By putting deficiencies in animal legal protection in relation to the legal status of animals, it has been argued that the legal protection of animals can never be satisfactorily met so long as they are seen as legal objects. In Sweden animals are still treated, in legal terms, as objects and things, but in Germany and Switzerland, their civil laws has declared that animals are not things. The purpose of this essay has been to investigate whether animals enjoy stronger legal protection in Germany and Switzerland, where they are not defined in... (More)
One of the more fundamental structures of the world's legal systems, the division between legal persons and legal objects, has over the last 20 years faced challenges from animal rights advocates. By putting deficiencies in animal legal protection in relation to the legal status of animals, it has been argued that the legal protection of animals can never be satisfactorily met so long as they are seen as legal objects. In Sweden animals are still treated, in legal terms, as objects and things, but in Germany and Switzerland, their civil laws has declared that animals are not things. The purpose of this essay has been to investigate whether animals enjoy stronger legal protection in Germany and Switzerland, where they are not defined in legal terms as things, in relation to Sweden, where they are treated legally as things. Furthermore, this essay has also had the purpose of analyzing whether these declarations involve any changes in the division between legal persons and objects.

The essay presents a brief historical background to the division between legal persons and objects and a presentation of the most central arguments from animal rights advocates who argue for a change in animal legal status. By applying both a judicial and a comparative method, Swedish, German and Swiss animal rights are analyzed on the basis of the issues that are at the center of animal rights advocates, namely the balancing of interests between humans and animals, animal protection against crime, and standing as legal party and compensation for crime and injury.

In the analysis, there are no significant differences revealed between Swedish animal rights protection and German and Swiss. Although German and Swiss legislation stipulates that animals are not things, they have retained the possibility of legal treatment of animals as things as long as it does not go against other animal welfare rights. In some cases, it is even possible to suggest that Sweden's animal rights protection is stronger, for instance in regard to slaughtering and animal testing. In the single area that the German and Swiss animal rights protection offers more protection to animals, namely the right of legal standing in trials, the analysis suggests that this depends less on the legal status of the animals and more on the fact that Germany and Switzerland have raised the animal welfare issue at the level of base law. Finally, there is nothing that suggests that the German and Swiss declarations that animals are not things should have created a change in the division between subjects and objects. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hansson Ganslandt, Andreas
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Higher legal status - stronger animal rights protection? - A comparative analysis of animal rights protection in Sweden in comparison with Germany and Switzerland
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
civilrätt, offentlig rätt, djurrätt, rättshistoria, komparativ rätt
language
Swedish
id
8940653
date added to LUP
2018-06-08 10:14:51
date last changed
2018-06-08 10:14:51
@misc{8940653,
  abstract     = {One of the more fundamental structures of the world's legal systems, the division between legal persons and legal objects, has over the last 20 years faced challenges from animal rights advocates. By putting deficiencies in animal legal protection in relation to the legal status of animals, it has been argued that the legal protection of animals can never be satisfactorily met so long as they are seen as legal objects. In Sweden animals are still treated, in legal terms, as objects and things, but in Germany and Switzerland, their civil laws has declared that animals are not things. The purpose of this essay has been to investigate whether animals enjoy stronger legal protection in Germany and Switzerland, where they are not defined in legal terms as things, in relation to Sweden, where they are treated legally as things. Furthermore, this essay has also had the purpose of analyzing whether these declarations involve any changes in the division between legal persons and objects. 
 
The essay presents a brief historical background to the division between legal persons and objects and a presentation of the most central arguments from animal rights advocates who argue for a change in animal legal status. By applying both a judicial and a comparative method, Swedish, German and Swiss animal rights are analyzed on the basis of the issues that are at the center of animal rights advocates, namely the balancing of interests between humans and animals, animal protection against crime, and standing as legal party and compensation for crime and injury. 
 
In the analysis, there are no significant differences revealed between Swedish animal rights protection and German and Swiss. Although German and Swiss legislation stipulates that animals are not things, they have retained the possibility of legal treatment of animals as things as long as it does not go against other animal welfare rights. In some cases, it is even possible to suggest that Sweden's animal rights protection is stronger, for instance in regard to slaughtering and animal testing. In the single area that the German and Swiss animal rights protection offers more protection to animals, namely the right of legal standing in trials, the analysis suggests that this depends less on the legal status of the animals and more on the fact that Germany and Switzerland have raised the animal welfare issue at the level of base law. Finally, there is nothing that suggests that the German and Swiss declarations that animals are not things should have created a change in the division between subjects and objects.},
  author       = {Hansson Ganslandt, Andreas},
  keyword      = {civilrätt,offentlig rätt,djurrätt,rättshistoria,komparativ rätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Högre (d)juridisk status – starkare djurrättsskydd? - En rättskomparativ analys av djurrättsskyddet i Sverige i jämförelse med Tyskland och Schweiz},
  year         = {2018},
}