A Global Perspective
RESEARCH PAPER NUMBER: X24
RESEARCH PAPER MNEMONIC: XANIM24
RESEARCH PAPER NAME: ANIMAL RIGHTS AND TRADE
-
Abstract
-
Issue Background
-
Related TED Cases
-
Comparison and Contrast
-
Policy Implications
-
Further Information
I. Abstract
The following case analysis focuses on the treatment and use of animals
around the world. The treatment of animals has led to great debate among
both animal protection groups who seek to protect species and environmental
groups who focus on the protection of habitats. Individual governments
have also entered the debate due to trade interests and the desire to protect
emerging markets which deal with animal issues. The subsequent study pulls
together several different cases in an effort to summarize some of the
predominant issues related to animals.
II. Issue Background
There are two distinct camps which encompass those who are devoted to animal
rights issues. There are the animal welfare theorists and there are the
animal rights theorists. It is important to distinguish between these two
groups because this has a major impact on trade, and other socioeconomic
issues that relate to animals.
The animal welfare theorists believe that the interests of animals are
important considerations, but they assert that these interests may be sacrificed
for the greater good in society. The basic tenets of animal welfare theory
are humane care and use. (Guither and Swanson, p. 1) There only stipulation
is that there be solid societal reasons for placing the welfare of animals
secondary to the will of humans. Furthermore, they believe that " any animal
exploitation be done 'humanely' and that animals not be subjected to 'unnecessary
pain'."(Francione, p. 1) Animal welfarists are not of one mind on all issues.
Some animal welfarists believe that animal interests can be ignored in
deference to the gains of humans whether financial or pure amusement, while
others believe that there must be more solid justifications for the use
of animals.
The animal rights theorists believe that animals are imbued with rights
that cannot be forfeited for human gain. Animal rightists concentrate on
whether "human beings have the right to view animals as resources and what
rights animals are entitled to as living, feeling beings." (Guither and
Swanson, p. 2) Thus the question of use is not a factor. If this theory
were to be implemented to its fullest, it would call for: "the adoption
of vegetarian diets; the elimination of wool, leather, or fur for clothing
or ornamental purposes; and the abolition of animals used for leisure activities,
such as in hunting, horse and dog racing, zoos, circuses, or aquariums."
(Guither and Swanson, p. 2) These theorists contend that animal rights
are limited, but these theorists go one step further in protecting animals
than their colleagues in the animal welfare camp.
These two camps are of crucial importance when viewed in light of public
policy. For example, our legal system currently has a welfarist approach.
As Gary L. Francione, Co-Director of the Animal Rights Law Center at Rutgers
University, writes:
"The law recognizes that animals have interests in being treated
'humanely' or in being kept free from 'unnecessary suffering'. These laws
require that we 'balance' human interests against these animal interests;
despite such laws, we still have pigeon shoots, facial branding, castration
without anesthesia, circuses, rodeos, etc. These uses of animals are completely
'unnecessary' and 'inhumane' as these terms are used in ordinary language,
but they are all protected under the law."(Francione, p.2)
The reason animals are not completely protected under the law is because
they are recognized as the property of humans rather than independent beings.
Consequently, since animals are property in the eyes of the law, it is
up to the owners of the property to see how it is used and or misused.
Property rights are considered the most fundamental rights in most countries,
but as long as animals are considered human property, laws formed to protect
animals will be viewed as guidelines not laws.
It is important to note that within these two camps there are two more
subdivisions. These are the reformists and the abolitionists. The reformists
are those who seek to address the plight of animals from within the current
system. They do not seek to isolate themselves form those who are in opposition,
instead they attempt to solve the problems slowly from within. The abolitionists,
unlike the reformists, are much more proactive. The abolitionists ardently
work to eradicate the misuse and maltreatment of animals. Their efforts
attempt to "destroy the fur apparel industry, stop veal production, stop
laboratory animal research and product testing, promote vegetarian diets,
and ban hunting."(Guither and Swanson, p. 2)
Here are some brief summaries of related cases that can be retrieved
through the TED database.
III. Related TED Cases: Summaries
The bear case concentrates on the trade of bear parts, specifically the
bear gallbladders, to many Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,
and China. These bear parts are valued in these Asian markets for their
medicinal value and as aphrodisiacs. The primary source for these bears
became the United States now that the Asian bear population has declined
dramatically. Once the North American bear trade was discovered, legislation
was enacted to protect the bear population in the US. Consequently, China
has "set up bear farming operations in many parts of the country to produce
bear products." B5-1. China is now the leading exporter of bear parts to
the other Asian markets.
: The decision on behalf of the EC ,(now named EU), to adopted legislation
providing for a ban on importation of specified goods, mostly furs, that
>
Transfer interrupted!
l trapping methods fell below internationally accepted standards of humanity."
EC6-1. The governments that were effected the most from this June 1991
EC Ban include the United States, Greenland, and Canada. This case includes
an emphasis on the baby seal trade in Canada where leg trap were used to
capture the seals. The case includes commentary on the cultural and economic
reactions from EU trading partners.
: This case focuses on the EU ban on the importation of hormone-treated
meat into EU countries. This ban spurred a lot of reaction from EU trading
partners, especially the US who have just recently taken this case to dispute
settlement negotiations because they view this ban as a violation of the
GATT. The debate about hormone use centers around the issue of safety.
The EU maintains that it is their sovereign right to ban the importation
of hormone treated beef because of its potential negative medical effects.
Furthermore, the EU argues that this ban is well within the bounds of the
GATT because it is non- discriminatory. No meat that has been treated with
hormones is allowed for sale in the EU irrespective of country of the hormone
treated beef exporter. Nonetheless, the exporting countries respond by
arguing that scientists have deemed some types of hormones safe, hence
this ban is unnecessary and contrary to the GATT provisions on transparency.
: This case concentrates on the Rhinoceros part trade, particularly rhino
horns, in and among various Asian markets. Though China, the primary actor
in this dispute, pledged to bound this trade as a signatory to the CITES
agreement, it seems that their actions betray their formal promises. The
US has responded to this threat to the endangered rhino population, by
both the threat and imposition of trade sanctions aimed at both China and
Taiwan.
: As referred to earlier in the Harp Seal case description, the Canadian
cod fisheries are suffering due to the grave depletion of cod stores especially
in the Newfoundland area. This case describes the history of overfishing
in the area. The case explores the law of the sea issues involved in the
EU fishing in the Canadian exclusive economic zone (eez) of the coast of
Newfoundland and the northeast Canadian coastline. The EU been fishing
in the Canadian eez in response to worldwide quotas on cod fishing that
have forced them to find other sources of cod outside of their coastal
boundaries.
: This case is can be linked to the EU- Beef case. This case is similar
in terms of the factor in question, beef sales. The mad cow disease, Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy, that made the headlines across the world has
had a devastating effect on the British beef industry. The tragedy of this
disease lies in the fact that it can only be diagnosed after the death
of the subject, either the cow, or the person who has ingested the diseased
beef. The British government is now faced with the arduous task of reestablishing
faith in British beef in both domestic and foreign markets.
: This case focuses on harp seals, particularly baby harp seals. However,
this case differs from the harp seal case in that it concentrates on the
killing of seals for their pelts. This case illustrates the conflict between
culture, ethics, and economic realities. The case talks about the Eskimo
and Inuit history of dependence on seals for their blubber, meat , and
fur... Animal rights groups are dismayed by the inhumane killing of baby
seals by these Eskimo populations.
: Much like the baby seal case, this case focuses on the long tradition
of the whale hunt by Eskimo- culture. This tradition of whale farming was
not a problem at first because of the high population of whales; however,
now that the population has dwindled due to commercial whaling, animal
rights activists have begun to object. The bowhead whale population is
the species that is in the most danger of extinction. Though this population
is protected because of its decreasing numbers, the threat oft he whale
hunt has not ceased. The US has sought to protect the interests of the
Eskimo heritage without further harming the fate of the bowhead whales.
: The Harp seal case analyzes the current state of affairs with the current
seal harvests that have been taking place in Canada on an increasing scale.
This case study explores the many facets of these mass killings including
the use of the harvested seal parts. One of the foci of the study is the
seal penis trade between China and Canada and it's sociopolitical implications.
The case also discusses the controversy surrounding the topic which is
mitigated by the struggle between the animal rights activists and the Canadian
Ministry of Fisheries.
IV. Comparison and Contrast
All of the above cases reflect the delicate balance between culture, ethics,
environment, politics, trade and animal rights. Though the subject matter
differs from case to case, the predicaments have similar implications.
For example, the rhino case, the bear case, and the whale case, all involve
cultural and economic actions that run contrary to the protection of an
endangered species. The beef hormone case and the Mad Cow case also have
direct relations to one another, the mad cow problem is particularly injurious
to the British economy who has weak export base outside of the EU. The
British sale of beef within the EU, as well as internationally, will be
tainted for quite a while. This is particularly true within the EU since
their refusal to import hormone treated beef highlights their fears about
the medical consequences of tainted beef.
In terms of the relationship between these related cases and that of
the original harp seal case, there are many. The rhino case and the bear
case are particularly parallel to the harp seal case because they deal
with trade in Asian markets on animal parts that are considered to have
medicinal or aphrodisiac effects in Asian cultures. The cod case is interesting
because it indirectly substantiates the claims of the opponents to the
harp seal trade. It does this by reaffirming that the cod store depletion
is a direct result of overfishing by both Canadians and Europeans. The
cod case makes no mention of the harp seal as the culprit in cod depletion.
The baby seal case is of direct linkage to the harp seal case, only it
concentrates on one subsection of the harp seal population and its potential
usage for pelts.
The links between trade and environment are only the tip of the iceberg,
the political and cultural effects are sometimes even more profound, despite
the fact that they are impossible to quantify. Treaties and international
law on these animal related issues can only limit the mistreatment. Without
a renewed commitment to animal rights from a rightist standpoint, the animal
welfairists will prevail and so will the mistreatment of animals.
V. Policy Implications
There are several policy considerations that can be offered as suggestions
for the future recognition of animal rights. One such policy choice could
be to require labeling of animal products in order to notify the consumer
of the type of production practices used. That way the consumer would be
able to make an informed choice about whether or not to support that particular
product, whether it is a seal skin jacket or a steak.
Francione offers three policy suggestions in his article "Animal
Rights and Animal Welfare". He suggests that regulation dealing with
animals must completely bar the use of the "humane treatment unnecessary
suffering standard."(Francione, p. 3) To Francione, an animal rightist,
there is no such thing as a humane infliction of pain on an animal, thus
this standard must be prohibited if substantial improvements are to be
made. He also suggested that any proposed regulation must recognize the
fact that animal interests cannot be traded away for human wants. Lastly,
he suggested that animals be considered as individual beings with independent
feelings of their own rather than be considered only as property. In other
words, Francione wants to guard against the possibility that one form of
exploitation will be substituted with another. It is essential that animals
are recognized as meritorious of their own rights.
Others, a little less radical than Francione, argue that new policy
should seek to be more humane. These individuals argue in favor of the
development of "more rigid systems of production that would be more humane."
(Guither and Swanson, p. 4) They also suggest the evolution of "humane
standards" that need to be established and enforced by the law. It will
be an extremely contentious debate surrounding what is and is not humane.
It is key to recognize the impact of agribusiness on the future
development of regulation in this area. Agribusiness forms would be much
more likely to adopt policy decisions if they did not interfere with costs
and production; however, this "interference" is an unavoidable reality.
If agribusiness firms had to expend a great deal of money changing forms
of production, testing ,and or marketing, it is likely that investment
in these firms would lessen because of the diminished returns. Animal rightists
argue that the consumers will absorb this profit gap by buying higher priced
products that are made ethically. For example, Guither and Swanson write
that "In Europe, many stores feature "free-range" eggs from hens allowed
to run in open lots. Prices reflect the higher costs as in the case of
organic foods in the United States."(Guither and Swanson, p. 5)
Not only would agribusiness pay for the costs of new policy toward
animal rights, but taxpayers will also bear the brunt of changes. This
is not included to deter policy changes; however, one must be realistic
about the costs of such changes. Due to the additions to bureaucracy that
come with policy changes, more civil servants will be needed, thus costs
to taxpayers will increase.
Though animal rights/welfare issues are not at the forefront of the
international policy agenda, they have come to be
recognized internationally through various forums. For example, the
most recent developments in the EU Beef
Hormone Case have been brought to the two year old World Trade Organization's
dispute settlement board. The
decision governing this case will be a binding international law, unlike
the conciliatory advisory opinions given by the
former GATT. With increasing publicity, will come heightened public
awareness, and only with such public
information can policy improvements be buttressed.
VI. Further Information: Bibliography
Francione, Gary L. "Animal Rights and Animal Welfare: Five Frequently Asked
Questions." http://envirolink.org/arrs/essays/five_qs.html, p. 1-4.
Guither, Harold D. and Janice Swanson. "Animal Rights and Animal Welfare."
http://ianrwww.unl.edu/farmbill/aniright.htm, p. 1-7.
Regan, Tom. "The Case for Animal Rights." http://envirolink.org/arrs/essays/case
_for_ar.html, p. 1-8.
Top of the Page