动物基本权利承认中的理想主义与现实主义之分

Q4 Social Sciences
M. Susi
{"title":"动物基本权利承认中的理想主义与现实主义之分","authors":"M. Susi","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-40655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary theoretical discourse views animals as a vulnerable group, and also recognizes their capability of mental suffering. The question why this recognition has not been translated into a global and universally accepted accordance of fundamental rights to certain groups of animals is relevant for animal rights protection, while at the same time it illustrates the divide between the idealistic and normative dimensions of law. It appears that humans have known for thousands of years that at least some animals are capable of mental suffering and constitute a vulnerable group. Changes in animal rights protection have led to some changes in legislation, but these are not fundamental and do not concern the strive toward universal recognition that animals have fundamental rights. This means that there must be some other, decisive factors that are needed to move forward from the stage of vulnerability recognition to the normative development stage.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The divide between idealism and practicality in animals' fundamental rights recognition\",\"authors\":\"M. Susi\",\"doi\":\"10.5937/pravzap0-40655\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Contemporary theoretical discourse views animals as a vulnerable group, and also recognizes their capability of mental suffering. The question why this recognition has not been translated into a global and universally accepted accordance of fundamental rights to certain groups of animals is relevant for animal rights protection, while at the same time it illustrates the divide between the idealistic and normative dimensions of law. It appears that humans have known for thousands of years that at least some animals are capable of mental suffering and constitute a vulnerable group. Changes in animal rights protection have led to some changes in legislation, but these are not fundamental and do not concern the strive toward universal recognition that animals have fundamental rights. This means that there must be some other, decisive factors that are needed to move forward from the stage of vulnerability recognition to the normative development stage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pravni Zapisi\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pravni Zapisi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-40655\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravni Zapisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-40655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当代理论话语将动物视为一个弱势群体,同时也承认动物承受精神痛苦的能力。为什么这种承认没有转化为全球和普遍接受的对某些动物群体的基本权利的规定,这个问题与动物权利保护有关,同时它也说明了法律的理想主义和规范层面之间的分歧。人类似乎在几千年前就知道,至少有一些动物能够承受精神痛苦,构成了一个脆弱的群体。动物权利保护的变化导致了立法上的一些变化,但这些变化不是根本的,也与争取普遍承认动物拥有基本权利的努力无关。这意味着必须有一些其他的决定性因素,才能从认识脆弱性阶段进入规范发展阶段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The divide between idealism and practicality in animals' fundamental rights recognition
Contemporary theoretical discourse views animals as a vulnerable group, and also recognizes their capability of mental suffering. The question why this recognition has not been translated into a global and universally accepted accordance of fundamental rights to certain groups of animals is relevant for animal rights protection, while at the same time it illustrates the divide between the idealistic and normative dimensions of law. It appears that humans have known for thousands of years that at least some animals are capable of mental suffering and constitute a vulnerable group. Changes in animal rights protection have led to some changes in legislation, but these are not fundamental and do not concern the strive toward universal recognition that animals have fundamental rights. This means that there must be some other, decisive factors that are needed to move forward from the stage of vulnerability recognition to the normative development stage.
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
Pravni Zapisi
Pravni Zapisi Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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