Global Encyclopedia of Territorial Rights

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael Kocsis

Animal Sovereignty Theory

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68846-6_71-1
  • 101 Downloads

Synonyms

Definition

Animal sovereignty theory is an approach to territorial rights in which wild animals are conceived of as sovereign communities, entitled to be recognized as the sovereign controllers of their own spaces.

Introduction

Animals “are not brethren, they are not underlings, they are other Nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.” So writes Henry Beston in his 1928 book The Outermost House (2003, 25). The idea was one echoed in the defining works of twentieth-century animal ethics, which tended to defend the idea that, when it came to wild animals, we should simply “[let] them be” (Regan 2004, 357). In one sense, animal sovereignty theory – the claim that wild animals should be conceived of as sovereign communities, entitled to be recognized as the sovereign controllers of their own spaces – offers a theoretical grounding of this view. In another sense, however, it calls to step beyond...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beston H (2003) The outermost house: a year of life on the great beach of Cape Cod. Owl Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Cochrane A (2013) Cosmozoopolis: the case against group-differentiated animal rights. Law Ethics Philos 1:127–141Google Scholar
  3. Cochrane A (2018) Sentientist Politics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooke S (2017) Animal kingdoms: on habitat rights for nonhuman animals. Environ Values 26:53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cormier AA, Rossi M (2018) The problem of predation in Zoopolis. J Appl Philos. 35:718–736Google Scholar
  6. Donaldson S, Kymlicka W (2011) Zoopolis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Donaldson S, Kymlicka W (2013) A reply to Svärd, Nurse, and Ryland. J Animal Ethics 3:208–219Google Scholar
  8. Donaldson S, Kymlicka W (2015) Interspecies politics: reply to Hinchcliffe and Ladwig. J Political Philos 23:321–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodin RE, Pateman C, Pateman R (1997) Simian sovereignty. Political Theory 25:821–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horta O (2013) Zoopolis, intervention, and the state of nature. Law Ethics Philos 1:113–126Google Scholar
  11. Ladwig B (2015) Against wild animal sovereignty: an interest-based critique of Zoopolis. J Political Philos 23:282–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Milburn J (2015) Rabbits, stoats and the predator problem: why a strong animal rights position need not call for human intervention to protect prey from predators. Res Publica 21:273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milburn J (2016) Nonhuman animals and sovereignty: on Zoopolis, failed states and institutional relationships with free-living nonhuman animals. In: Woodhall A, Garmendia da Trindade G (eds) Intervention or protest. Vernon Press, Wilmington, pp 183–212Google Scholar
  14. Regan T (2004) The case for animal rights: updated with a new preface. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Singer P, Cavalieri P (eds) (1993) The great ape project: equality beyond humanity. Fourth Estate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Wadiwel D (2009) The war against animals. Domination, law and sovereignty. Griffith L Rev 18:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wadiwel D (2013) Zoopolis: challenging our conceptualisation of political sovereignty through animal sovereignties. Dialogue 52:749–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wadiwel D (2015) The war against animals. Brill, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Nick C. Sagos
    • 1
  1. 1.Humanities / Liberal ArtsSeneca CollegeTorontoCanada