Possible actions

As it was mentioned before, the fact that animals don't have legal personality makes their protection during transportation non-efficient. What can we do then keeping in mind the existence of some regulation at international level and in some national legislatures? In order for our idea to be implemented we would need broad interpretation and some imagination: )

People all over the world and in Russia in particular know the general logic of all oppressed and objectionable: when the national courts are deaf to your arguments go to the European Court of Human Rights. As the owner of an animal that was injured during transportation, and whose demands for justice are ignored at the national level, will I be able to go to this court? To answer that question, let us start with the practise of that court.

According to Sandra Tsygantsova, “The ECHR has ruled on the application of Article 10 in relation to animal protection in six cases, each of which concerned the legality

of restrictions on freedom of expression”. ^{^[14]} This is a bad sign, because all of this cases are not about rights of animals per se. Still, it is really good that the agenda of animal rights is at least in some sense a concern for the European Court.

In the limitations we talked about “Right to a Healthy Environment” as an existing but inefficient regulation in our case. However, here is how we can override this limitation and use it as an effective tool. Tsygantsova cited Judge Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque who said that animals “can be protected " as part of a healthy, balanced and sustainable environment" within the framework of the obligation under Article 8 " to avoid actions and activities that may have harmful consequences for public health and the environment". ^{^[15]}

As an owner and in case I believe states don’t protect the animals during transportation I can ask the ECHR to protect my right to a healthy environment. For state to do that would mean to pay more attention to such cases and adopt more progressive laws regarding the airline companies. Potentially, that is how international law can protect animals in planes and trains.

At the same time, we can imagine such an action which would go in line with modern practise of international law. Related NGOs are expected to react to the cases at the national level and then include them into the global agenda. National and international law have some room for maneuver, and it is the attention from the global community that can make difference. It is not only legal personality that can help. “... The attitude to animals " as to children" and consideration of their well-being in divorce proceedings (Alaska (2016), Illinois (2017)) it is not a sign

of recognition of legal personality for a being, but only establishes a more responsible attitude towards the object of law due to one or another motivation (in this case, recognition of the presence of feelings in animals and the undesirability of their excessive anxiety)”^{^[16]}. We see that national practise shows some ways for international regulation. In the case of transportation it is productive to claim that animals are just like children: airline companies have to provide them with special conditions, but safety of the conditions for babies is a much bigger concern. From the experience of NGO fights for the rights of children we know they can affect and insure implementation of international law.

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 345 6 Следующая ⇒