Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 7 of 7 items for

  • Author or Editor: Charlotte E. Blattner x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
In: Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change

Abstract

Traditionally, human and nonhuman animal migration were thought to occupy distinct and separate sociopolitical spheres of knowledge. We romanticize the migration of other animals, taking an overly naturalistic view of the journey of gray whales, caribou, or deer as they follow the change of seasons across international borders. But when we theorize about human migration, we tend to do so with worry and concern about displacement, persecution, safety, and the threat of mass movements. As a consequence, human and nonhuman animal migration are considered in separate categories, with different demographics and definitions, governed by wholly separate legal documents.

This chapter shows that the idea that human and nonhuman animal migration must be understood separately and in isolation from one another is rigorously put to the test by climate change. Whole populations of humans and other animals will be threatened to migrate toward the poles as their habitat is destroyed by global warming, mounting environmental disasters, and the encroaching ocean. The law—compartmentalized, siloized, reactive, and often oppressive—is not prepared to face these challenges. To address and begin to resolve the challenges of climate change on migration, we must resolve the deep-seated, structural problems that plague human and nonhuman animal migration law—including deregulation, illegalization, and securitization, and the human-animal borderlands that connects these. Drawing on the work of human and nonhuman animal migration experts and new research on rehumanization, this chapter examines this cutting-edge intersection from a legal perspective and sketches the policy goals and measures that can help avert a global migration crisis and build up interspecies resilience.

In: Like an Animal: Critical Animal Studies Approaches to Borders, Displacement, and Othering

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar are the main investors in farm animal production outside their territory, prompting a mass-adoption of concentrated animal feeding operations in investment-importing states like Iran and Pakistan. Global actors like the International Finance Corporation and the Food and Agriculture Organization espouse the Middle Eastern states’ investment strategy by generously supporting it with direct payments and feed. Because intensified animal agricultural production systems are known to cause environmental pollution, threaten public health and food security, and pose a moral hazard for animals, this article makes use of existing cross-border relationships to the Middle East to counter the growing agricultural trend towards intensification. Specifically, the article examines whether and how international investment standards, export credit standards, bilateral investment treaties, and bilateral free trade agreements can be used to encourage responsible investment and trade flows that factor in the interests of animals.

In: Middle East Law and Governance
In: Society & Animals
Authors: and

The climate crisis is often presented as a crisis for humans. It is, however, also a crisis for other animals with whom we share this planet. This raises the question of what we owe to animals in this crisis, which is not merely an ethical one. Indeed our relationships with other animals are distinctively political, raising new demands for policy making and change in political institutions and practices. In this process, it is key to recognize nonhuman animal agency, in order to do justice to them and to be able to overcome the human exceptionalism that led to the ecological crises we are facing.

Open Access
In: Justice and food security in a changing climate

Abstract

Animal studies scholars are increasingly engaging with nonhuman animals firsthand to better understand their lifeworlds and interests. The current 3R framework is inadequate to guide respectful, non-invasive research relations that aim to encounter animals as meaningful participants and safeguard their well-being. This article responds to this gap by advancing ethical principles for research with animals guided by respect, justice, and reflexivity. It centers around three core principles: non-maleficence (including duties around vulnerability and confidentiality); beneficence (including duties around reciprocity and representation); and voluntary participation (involving mediated informed consent and ongoing embodied assent). We discuss three areas (inducements, privacy, and refusing research) that merit further consideration. The principles we advance serve as a starting point for further discussions as researchers across disciplines strive to conduct multispecies research that is guided by respect for otherness, geared to ensuring animals’ flourishing, and committed to a nonviolent ethic.

Open Access
In: Society & Animals
Authors: and

In 2017, 78.7% of the Swiss people voted to enshrine the concept of ‘food security’ in the Federal Constitution. Originally prompted by agricultural interest groups for reasons of protectionism and then revamped by the Swiss Parliament, the new article 104a includes a wide array of demands for food policy, including protection of agricultural land, local production, conservation of natural resources and their effective use, responsiveness to market demand, and trade relations contributing to sustainable development. As a one-of-its-kind constitutional norm on food security, the now four-year-old article still raises questions about its precise scope and normative content. In particular, it is often said that the norm is largely symbolic. We shed light on these developments by examining the emergence of the norm and embedding it in the broader international discourse on food policy. We show that Switzerland’s understanding of food security is greatly flawed, as it seeks to secure its own access to goods without regard to their environmental footprint and effect on human rights abroad. In line with Switzerland’s climate and human rights commitments, we propose new ways to interpret food security, including moving away from market needs, distinguishing foodtypes based on whether they thwart food security in the long term, paying attention to food security elsewhere, and giving effect to considerations of distributive justice.

Open Access
In: Justice and food security in a changing climate