Joe Wills
@drjoewills.bsky.social
Associate Professor, University of Leicester. Research interests: animal rights law, human rights law, legal theory. 🌱
See more info here: ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/...
Jeju Island (South Korea) Law: rights of Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins
ecojurisprudence.org
November 20, 2025 at 4:34 PM
See more info here: ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/...
... and then he pardoned *everyone* who was convicted of violent crimes that day. We live in an upside down world where people who try to execute coups aren't held accountable but journalists who report it (albeit not maximally accurately) are.
November 10, 2025 at 2:23 PM
... and then he pardoned *everyone* who was convicted of violent crimes that day. We live in an upside down world where people who try to execute coups aren't held accountable but journalists who report it (albeit not maximally accurately) are.
Past attempts to charge animal rescuers with theft/burglary have failed because they've been able to adduce evidence that the rescued animals were so sick and unwell they lacked market value. The jury get to see what commodified animals are reduced to. Not surprised prosecutors don't want that!
October 30, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Past attempts to charge animal rescuers with theft/burglary have failed because they've been able to adduce evidence that the rescued animals were so sick and unwell they lacked market value. The jury get to see what commodified animals are reduced to. Not surprised prosecutors don't want that!
(obviously a very truncated version of the timeline there, but it catches the essence of what happened)
October 29, 2025 at 11:35 AM
(obviously a very truncated version of the timeline there, but it catches the essence of what happened)
congratulations on this publication Aristi, I'll be there!
October 28, 2025 at 12:16 PM
congratulations on this publication Aristi, I'll be there!
I doubt that social contract theory - let alone classical social contract theory - should be the basis for protection of legal rights today. But even if it were, its clear that its implications for animals are far less obvious than the Michigan court suggests.
October 23, 2025 at 11:27 AM
I doubt that social contract theory - let alone classical social contract theory - should be the basis for protection of legal rights today. But even if it were, its clear that its implications for animals are far less obvious than the Michigan court suggests.
Meanwhile, Rousseau - the third of the classical social contract theorists - expressly stated that animals' inability to partake in the social contract is irrelevant to whether they should be protected, noting that they 'ought to partake of natural right... because they are sentient beings'.
October 23, 2025 at 11:27 AM
Meanwhile, Rousseau - the third of the classical social contract theorists - expressly stated that animals' inability to partake in the social contract is irrelevant to whether they should be protected, noting that they 'ought to partake of natural right... because they are sentient beings'.
Locke explicitly discusses the possibility of animal personhood. In particular he recounts a traveller's tale of coming across a rational, conversable parrot and intimates that were such a creature to exist, they would be a person. We now definitively know that chimpanzees are such creatures.
October 23, 2025 at 11:27 AM
Locke explicitly discusses the possibility of animal personhood. In particular he recounts a traveller's tale of coming across a rational, conversable parrot and intimates that were such a creature to exist, they would be a person. We now definitively know that chimpanzees are such creatures.
The more pertinent social contract theorist for the US context is John Locke. Locke distinguished between the 'man' (i.e. human) and the 'person'. Persons are self-aware, psychologically connected individuals. The unrefuted evidence in this lawsuit shows chimpanzees meet this Lockean definition.
October 23, 2025 at 11:27 AM
The more pertinent social contract theorist for the US context is John Locke. Locke distinguished between the 'man' (i.e. human) and the 'person'. Persons are self-aware, psychologically connected individuals. The unrefuted evidence in this lawsuit shows chimpanzees meet this Lockean definition.
The court cites Hobbes here, but Hobbes pointed out that 'children, fools, and madmen' could not participate directly in the social contract either. Nonetheless he notes that they may be 'personated by guardians'. Similarly animals can be so 'personified' in Hobbesian terms by human agents.
October 23, 2025 at 11:27 AM
The court cites Hobbes here, but Hobbes pointed out that 'children, fools, and madmen' could not participate directly in the social contract either. Nonetheless he notes that they may be 'personated by guardians'. Similarly animals can be so 'personified' in Hobbesian terms by human agents.
Ruling here: curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...
Better approach articulated here: www.icare-animals.org/publications
Better approach articulated here: www.icare-animals.org/publications
October 22, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Ruling here: curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...
Better approach articulated here: www.icare-animals.org/publications
Better approach articulated here: www.icare-animals.org/publications