Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 147–151 | Cite as

John Hadley: Animal Property Rights: A Theory of Habitat Rights for Wild Animals

Lexington Books, Lanham, MA, 2015, x + 142 pp
  • Josh Milburn
Article

Upon seeing “animal” and “property” in a work’s title, one’s mind may be drawn to the entrenched debates about nonhuman animals (hereafter, “animals”) as property. This is not the focus of John Hadley’s Animal Property Rights. Instead, Hadley argues that free-living (“wild”) animals have a particular kind of property right in their territory, meaning that their access to and free use of the natural goods in their territory should not be unduly limited by humans. This theory of animal property rights has two central conceptual elements: a system of guardianship and the use of territory to demarcate animal property. The guardianship system requires the appointment of a human who can act on the animals’ behalf, most clearly coming to the fore when animals’ property rights clash with humans’ property rights. For example, if I seek to develop my land, but it is land used by an assortment of animals, I should, Hadley says, be legally obliged to engage in mediation with the animals...

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Kyle Shuttleworth and an anonymous reviewer for comments and to David Archard and Jeremy Watkins for their continued support. This piece was written while I was undertaking research in the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen’s University Belfast, financially supported by the Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland.

References

  1. Cochrane, Alasdair. 2012. Animal rights without liberation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cooke, Steve. 2017. Animal kingdoms: On habitat rights for wild animals. Environmental Values 26(1). http://www.whpress.co.uk/EV/EVpapers.html.
  3. Donaldson, Sue, and Will Kymlicka. 2011. Zoopolis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Milburn, Josh. 2016. The demandingness of Nozick’s ‘Lockean’ proviso. European Journal of Political Theory 15(3): 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Milligan, Tony. 2015. The political turn in animal rights. Politics and Animals 1(1): 6–15.Google Scholar
  6. Regan, Tom. 1984. The case for animal rights. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal liberation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations