作为动物福利和反虐待的动物保护:对欧盟海豹产品禁令的宗谱重新审视

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Judith Renner
{"title":"作为动物福利和反虐待的动物保护:对欧盟海豹产品禁令的宗谱重新审视","authors":"Judith Renner","doi":"10.1177/00471178231191290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article suggests a way to inquire into animal protection politics as a specific field of international politics which regulates human-animal relations. Based on a genealogical analysis of the emergence of animal protection thinking in 19th and 20th century Great Britain, it argues that animal protection is structured by two specific strategies, anti-cruelty and animal welfare, that constitute our knowledge of what animal protection is and how it can be achieved. Whereas animal welfare suggests that animal protection means the meticulous technical standardisation of animal use along the scientific knowledge about particular species’ stress levels, anti-cruelty takes a moral approach and suggests that animal protection can be achieved by taming the cruel human subject by means of legal prohibition. The article uses these strategies as an interpretative lens for analysing the EU’s behaviour in the seal products case. It argues that the ban of the trade in seal products can be understood as the result of the anti-cruelty strategy gaining dominance in the EU debates on its seal policy. Moreover, in the ensuing WTO struggle the moral undertones of anti-cruelty made it possible for the EU to frame the ban as the protection of public morals under Article XX (a) GATT and thus to establish animal protection as a legitimate ground for trade restrictions. The antagonistic identity construction attached to anti-cruelty moreover made it possible for the EU to constitute itself as a morally superior subject and to re-emerge as a normative power in the context of animal protection. The article concludes by reflecting about further avenues for research on international animal protection politics.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Animal protection as animal welfare and anti-cruelty: a genealogical re-examination of the EU seal products ban\",\"authors\":\"Judith Renner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00471178231191290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article suggests a way to inquire into animal protection politics as a specific field of international politics which regulates human-animal relations. Based on a genealogical analysis of the emergence of animal protection thinking in 19th and 20th century Great Britain, it argues that animal protection is structured by two specific strategies, anti-cruelty and animal welfare, that constitute our knowledge of what animal protection is and how it can be achieved. Whereas animal welfare suggests that animal protection means the meticulous technical standardisation of animal use along the scientific knowledge about particular species’ stress levels, anti-cruelty takes a moral approach and suggests that animal protection can be achieved by taming the cruel human subject by means of legal prohibition. The article uses these strategies as an interpretative lens for analysing the EU’s behaviour in the seal products case. It argues that the ban of the trade in seal products can be understood as the result of the anti-cruelty strategy gaining dominance in the EU debates on its seal policy. Moreover, in the ensuing WTO struggle the moral undertones of anti-cruelty made it possible for the EU to frame the ban as the protection of public morals under Article XX (a) GATT and thus to establish animal protection as a legitimate ground for trade restrictions. The antagonistic identity construction attached to anti-cruelty moreover made it possible for the EU to constitute itself as a morally superior subject and to re-emerge as a normative power in the context of animal protection. The article concludes by reflecting about further avenues for research on international animal protection politics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Relations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191290\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191290","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

动物保护政治作为调节人与动物关系的国际政治的一个特定领域,本文提出了一种探讨动物保护政治的方法。通过对19世纪和20世纪英国动物保护思想出现的谱系分析,本文认为动物保护是由两种具体的策略构成的,即反虐待和动物福利,这两种策略构成了我们对动物保护是什么以及如何实现动物保护的认识。动物福利表明,动物保护意味着对动物使用的细致技术标准化,以及对特定物种压力水平的科学知识,而反残忍则采取道德途径,表明动物保护可以通过法律禁止来驯服残忍的人类主体来实现。本文将这些策略作为分析欧盟在海豹产品案例中的行为的解释性镜头。它认为,海豹产品贸易禁令可以理解为反虐待战略在欧盟关于其海豹政策的辩论中占据主导地位的结果。此外,在随后的世贸组织斗争中,反虐待的道德含义使欧盟有可能根据关贸总协定第20 (a)条将禁令框架为保护公共道德,从而将动物保护作为贸易限制的合法依据。此外,反虐待所附带的对抗性身份建构使欧盟有可能将自己塑造为道德上优越的主体,并在动物保护的背景下重新成为规范性力量。文章最后对国际动物保护政治的进一步研究方向进行了思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Animal protection as animal welfare and anti-cruelty: a genealogical re-examination of the EU seal products ban
This article suggests a way to inquire into animal protection politics as a specific field of international politics which regulates human-animal relations. Based on a genealogical analysis of the emergence of animal protection thinking in 19th and 20th century Great Britain, it argues that animal protection is structured by two specific strategies, anti-cruelty and animal welfare, that constitute our knowledge of what animal protection is and how it can be achieved. Whereas animal welfare suggests that animal protection means the meticulous technical standardisation of animal use along the scientific knowledge about particular species’ stress levels, anti-cruelty takes a moral approach and suggests that animal protection can be achieved by taming the cruel human subject by means of legal prohibition. The article uses these strategies as an interpretative lens for analysing the EU’s behaviour in the seal products case. It argues that the ban of the trade in seal products can be understood as the result of the anti-cruelty strategy gaining dominance in the EU debates on its seal policy. Moreover, in the ensuing WTO struggle the moral undertones of anti-cruelty made it possible for the EU to frame the ban as the protection of public morals under Article XX (a) GATT and thus to establish animal protection as a legitimate ground for trade restrictions. The antagonistic identity construction attached to anti-cruelty moreover made it possible for the EU to constitute itself as a morally superior subject and to re-emerge as a normative power in the context of animal protection. The article concludes by reflecting about further avenues for research on international animal protection politics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Relations
International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: International Relations is explicitly pluralist in outlook. Editorial policy favours variety in both subject-matter and method, at a time when so many academic journals are increasingly specialised in scope, and sectarian in approach. We welcome articles or proposals from all perspectives and on all subjects pertaining to international relations: law, economics, ethics, strategy, philosophy, culture, environment, and so on, in addition to more mainstream conceptual work and policy analysis. We believe that such pluralism is in great demand by the academic and policy communities and the interested public.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信