Brussels Parliament unanimously voted to recognize animals – previously categorized with property and immobile goods – as a special category.
On November 23, 2018, the Brussels Parliament unanimously voted to recognize animals – previously categorized with property and immobile goods – as a special category. Under the new legislation, animals will be categorized as “a living being endowed with sensitivity, interests of its own and dignity, that benefits from special protection.”
Similar measures
that would codify this understanding of animals as sentient beings are
reportedly being considered at the federal level in Belgium, as well.
According to the Brussels Secretary of State in charge of animal welfare,
Bianca Debaets, “The ultimate aim is for animals to benefit finally from the
legal status that corresponds to their biological nature.”
Brussels is not alone in amending its law to recognize animals are more than
“things” or mere property. In 2015, France[1], New Zealand[2] and Quebec[3]
similarly amended their laws to recognize animals as sentient beings.
Most recently, in September 2018, Slovakia updated the definition of
“animals” in its Civil Code to reflect that they are living beings, not
things. The Slovak Spectator reports that under the new definition, “animals
will enjoy special status and value as living creatures that are able to
perceive the world with their own senses. Provisions on movable things apply
to animals but not if it contradicts the nature of an animal as a living
creature.”
Several countries have also included provisions relating to animal
sentience, dignity, or protection in their constitutions, most recently
Austria in 2013[4] and Egypt in 2014[5].
In the U.S., animals are classified as property and for the most part
considered to be “objects” under the law. However, some state legislatures
have addressed animal sentience. For example, as a result of legislation
that the Animal Legal Defense Fund helped draft and pass in 2013, Oregon law
recognizes that “animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain,
stress and fear[6].”
What effect these laws will have on everyday practices or enforcement
remains to be seen, but they are undoubtedly a step in the right direction
and signal a growing awareness that the law is antiquated in many cases when
it comes to its conception of animals. Animals are different from “property”
in significant and intrinsic ways, and the law should evolve to recognize
them as such.
Footnotes:
Return to: Litigation