The article seeks to reflect on the animal theme. Not only a brief perspective of legal historical evolution, but, in particular, about the legal regime emerging from the 2017 reform of the Portuguese Civil Code. In our opinion, the reform was timid, confusing and disappointing. In large part, the applicable regime turns out to be, in large part, the regime of things, applicable on a subsidiary basis. Furthermore, with regard to the right to property, it no longer applies only to things, admitting ownership of animals. However, respect for animal welfare, namely the guarantee of access to water and food, as well as the guarantee of access to medical and veterinary care, including prophylactic, identification and vaccination measures, coexist poorly with the property itself. On the other hand, with regard to the occupation, perplexities remain. Especially with regard to the content of articles 1318 and 1323 CC. And, of course, with regard to the implications arising from the legal nature of the animal. In fact, it matters to know if we are dealing with a thing, an object, a tertium genus or a subject of rights. On the other hand, apart from the options of the Portuguese legislator, we analyze, very briefly, recent theories, whose common denominator is a clear defense and affirmation of animal rights.
| Published in | International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 4, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14 |
| Page(s) | 177-186 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Animal, Tertium Genus, Animal Welbeing, Anthropocentrism, Speciesism, Trust, Animal Rights, Zoopolis
| [1] | ARAÚJO, Fernando, A Hora dos Direitos dos Animais, Coimbra, 2003. |
| [2] | ASCENSÃO, Oliveira, Direito Civil: Reais, 5th ed., Coimbra, 1993. |
| [3] | BONFANTE, Pietro, Corso di Diritto Romano, Vol. II, Milan, 1968. |
| [4] | BRADSHAW, Karen, “Animal Property Rights” in University of Colorado Law Review, no. 89, 2018, pp. 810-861. |
| [5] | BRÜNINGHAUS, Birgit, Die Sttellung des Tieres im Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Berlin, 1992. |
| [6] | CABRAL, Filipe, Fundamentação dos Direitos dos Animais, Alcochete, 2015. |
| [7] | CORDEIRO, Barreto Menezes, “A Natureza Jurídica dos Animais à Luz da Lei no. 8/2017, of 3 March, in Revista de Direito Civil, Year 2, no. 2, 2017, pp. 317-336. |
| [8] | CORDEIRO, António Menezes, Tratado de Direito Civil Português, Vol. III, Coimbra, 2000. |
| [9] | CORDEIRO, António Menezes, Da Modernização do Direito Civil, Coimbra, 2004, p. 57 |
| [10] | CORREIA, Fernando Alves, O Plano Urbanístico e o Princípio da Igualdade, Coimbra, 1989. |
| [11] | CUNHA, Paulo Ferreira da, Direitos Fundamentais: Fundamentos e Direitos Sociais, Lisbon, 2014. |
| [12] | DONALDSON, Sue e Will Kymlicka, Zopopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights, Oxford, 2013. |
| [13] | DUARTE, Rui Pinto, Curso de Direitos Reais, 4th ed., Cascais, 2020. |
| [14] | ECKSTEIN, Ernst, “Das Schatz und Fundregal und seine Entwicklung in den deutschen Rechten” in Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, no. 31, 1910, pp. 193-204. |
| [15] | ERBEL, Gunther, “Rechtsschutz für Tiere: Eine Bestandsaufnahme anlässlich der Novellierung des Tierschutzgesetzes” in Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 1986, p. 1254. |
| [16] | FAVRE, David, “Equitable Self-Ownership for Animals” in Duke Law Journal, no. 50, pp. 473-502. |
| [17] | FRANCIONE, Gary, Introduction to Animal Rights, Philadelphia, 1999. |
| [18] | GARNER, Robert, A Theory of Justice for Animals: Animal Rights in a Nonideal World, Oxford, 2013. |
| [19] | GASPARINI, Lucia, Il Patrimonio Culturale Immateriale, Milan, 2014. |
| [20] | GOMES, Carla Amado, “Direito dos Animais: Um Ramo Emergente” in Animais: Deveres e Direitos, Lisbon, 2014, pp. 48-67. |
| [21] | HEUSLER, Andreas, Institutionen des deutschen Privatrechts, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1885. |
| [22] | HÖRSTER, Heinrich, A Parte Geral do Código Civil Português, Coimbra, 2011. |
| [23] | JUSTO, António Santos, Direitos Reais, 3rd ed., Coimbra, 2011. |
| [24] | LADWIG, Bernd, Politische Philosophie der Tierrechte, Berlim, 2020. |
| [25] | LEITÃO, Menezes, Direitos Reais, 6th ed., Coimbra, 2017. |
| [26] | LINHARES, José Aroso de, "A Ética do Continuum das Espécies e a Resposta Civilizacional do Direito", in Boletim da Faculdade de Direito, Vol. 79, Coimbra, 2003, pp. 197-216. |
| [27] | LOVELOCK, James, Ages of Gaia, Oxford, 1988. |
| [28] | MATOS, Filipe Albuquerquee Mafalda Miranda Barbosa, O Novo EstatutoJurídico dos Animais, Coimbra, 2017. |
| [29] | MELLO, Alberto Sá e “Os Animais no Ordenamento Jurídico Português: Algumas Notas” in the Revista da Ordem dos Advogados journal, Vol. No. 77, 2017, pp. 95-116. |
| [30] | MONCADA, Cabral de, Lições de Direito Civil, Vol. II, 2nd ed., Coimbra, 1955. |
| [31] | NEVES, Helena Telino, A Controversa Definição da Natureza Jurídica dos Animais” in Animais: Deveres e Direitos, Lisbon, 2014, pp. 81-89. |
| [32] | NUSSBAUM, Martha, Frontiers of Justice, London, 2006. |
| [33] | PALANDT, Otto, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Kommentar, 47th ed., Munich, 1988. |
| [34] | PEREIRA, ANDRÉ DIAS, “Tiro aos Pombos na Jurisprudência Portuguesa” in Cadernos de Direito Privado, no. 12, 2005, pp. 41-45. |
| [35] | PEREIRA, António Maria, “Ética e Touradas” in Boletim da Ordem dos Advogados, no. 28, 2003, pp. 47-55. |
| [36] | PINTO, Paulo Mota, “Estatuto Jurídico Civil dos Animais”, in Direito dos Animais, 2018, available at www.cej.mj.pt. |
| [37] | RAMOS, José Luís, "Animal: Coisa ou Tertium Genus" in Estudos Dedicados ao Professor Doutor Carvalho Fernandes, Vol. II, Lisbon, 2011, pp. 221-256. |
| [38] | RAMOS, José Luís, “Tiro aos Pombos: Uma Violência Injustificada” in Cadernos de Justiça Administrativa, no. 87, May, 2011, pp. 29-41. |
| [39] | RAMOS, José Luís, Manual de Direitos Reais, 2nd ed., Lisbon, 2020. |
| [40] | REGAN, Tom, The Case for Animal Rights, Berkeley, 1983. |
| [41] | REGAN, Tom, Animal Rights, Human Wrongs, Lanham, 2003. |
| [42] | RYDER. Richard, Victims of Science, London, 1973. |
| [43] | RYDER, Richard, Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism, Oxford, 1989. |
| [44] | SINGER. Peter, Animal Liberation, New York, 1975. |
| [45] | SINGER, Peter, Practical Ethics, Cambridge, 1979. |
| [46] | SINGER, Peter, The Expanding Circle, Ethics and Sociobiology, Oxford, 1981. |
| [47] | TELLES, Correa, Digesto Portuguez, Vol. I, 5th ed., Coimbra, 1860. |
| [48] | VIEIRA, José Alberto, Direitos Reais, 3rd ed., Coimbra, 2020. |
| [49] | VON BRINZ, Alois, Lehrbuch der Pandektn, Vol. I, 2nd ed. Erlangen, 1887. |
APA Style
Jose Luis Bonifácio Ramos. (2021). The Animal Issue Revisited: Tertium Genus or Subject. International Journal of Law and Society, 4(3), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14
ACS Style
Jose Luis Bonifácio Ramos. The Animal Issue Revisited: Tertium Genus or Subject. Int. J. Law Soc. 2021, 4(3), 177-186. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14
AMA Style
Jose Luis Bonifácio Ramos. The Animal Issue Revisited: Tertium Genus or Subject. Int J Law Soc. 2021;4(3):177-186. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14,
author = {Jose Luis Bonifácio Ramos},
title = {The Animal Issue Revisited: Tertium Genus or Subject},
journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
volume = {4},
number = {3},
pages = {177-186},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20210403.14},
abstract = {The article seeks to reflect on the animal theme. Not only a brief perspective of legal historical evolution, but, in particular, about the legal regime emerging from the 2017 reform of the Portuguese Civil Code. In our opinion, the reform was timid, confusing and disappointing. In large part, the applicable regime turns out to be, in large part, the regime of things, applicable on a subsidiary basis. Furthermore, with regard to the right to property, it no longer applies only to things, admitting ownership of animals. However, respect for animal welfare, namely the guarantee of access to water and food, as well as the guarantee of access to medical and veterinary care, including prophylactic, identification and vaccination measures, coexist poorly with the property itself. On the other hand, with regard to the occupation, perplexities remain. Especially with regard to the content of articles 1318 and 1323 CC. And, of course, with regard to the implications arising from the legal nature of the animal. In fact, it matters to know if we are dealing with a thing, an object, a tertium genus or a subject of rights. On the other hand, apart from the options of the Portuguese legislator, we analyze, very briefly, recent theories, whose common denominator is a clear defense and affirmation of animal rights.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - The Animal Issue Revisited: Tertium Genus or Subject AU - Jose Luis Bonifácio Ramos Y1 - 2021/08/18 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14 DO - 10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14 T2 - International Journal of Law and Society JF - International Journal of Law and Society JO - International Journal of Law and Society SP - 177 EP - 186 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-1908 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210403.14 AB - The article seeks to reflect on the animal theme. Not only a brief perspective of legal historical evolution, but, in particular, about the legal regime emerging from the 2017 reform of the Portuguese Civil Code. In our opinion, the reform was timid, confusing and disappointing. In large part, the applicable regime turns out to be, in large part, the regime of things, applicable on a subsidiary basis. Furthermore, with regard to the right to property, it no longer applies only to things, admitting ownership of animals. However, respect for animal welfare, namely the guarantee of access to water and food, as well as the guarantee of access to medical and veterinary care, including prophylactic, identification and vaccination measures, coexist poorly with the property itself. On the other hand, with regard to the occupation, perplexities remain. Especially with regard to the content of articles 1318 and 1323 CC. And, of course, with regard to the implications arising from the legal nature of the animal. In fact, it matters to know if we are dealing with a thing, an object, a tertium genus or a subject of rights. On the other hand, apart from the options of the Portuguese legislator, we analyze, very briefly, recent theories, whose common denominator is a clear defense and affirmation of animal rights. VL - 4 IS - 3 ER -
Information
Email: