Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:53:04.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animals in war: At the vanishing point of international humanitarian law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2022

Anne Peters  and
Jérôme de Hemptinne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Animals are the unknown victims of armed conflict. They are regularly looted, slaughtered, bombed or starved on a massive scale during such hostilities. Their preservation should become a matter of great concern. However, international humanitarian law (IHL) largely ignores this issue. It only indirectly, and often ambiguously, provides animals with the minimum protection afforded to civilian objects, the environment, and specially protected objects such as medical equipment, objects indispensable for the survival of civilian population or cultural property. This regime neither captures the essence of animals as sentient beings experiencing pain, suffering and distress, nor takes into account their particular needs during wartime. To address these challenges, two strategies are possible: the first strategy would be to apply existing IHL more effectively to animals, if necessary by creative interpretation in line with the animals’ needs. This strategy comprises two options: animals could be included into the categories of combatant/prisoners of war or of civilians. Animals would thus benefit from many guarantees given to human beings in armed conflict. Alternatively, and perhaps more realistically, animals could be equated with “objects” under IHL, while the relevant rules would be reinterpreted to cater for the fact that animals are living beings, experiencing pain, suffering and distress. The second strategy, which could be envisaged as a long-term objective, would be to adopt a new international instrument specifically aimed at granting rights to animals, notably in relation to prohibiting the use of animals as weapons of war.

Keywords

animalsendangered speciesmedical equipmenteco-centric protected zonesanimal soldiersprisoners of waranimal rights
Type
Selected articles
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 104 , Issue 919: Selected Articles , April 2022 , pp. 1285 - 1314
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the ICRC.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hanson, Thor, Mittermeier, Thomas M. Brooks, Gustavo A. B. Da Fonseca, Michael Hoffmann, John F. Lamoreux, Gary Machlis, Cristina G. Mittermeier, Russell A. and Pilgrim, John D., “Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2009, p. 578CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

2 James McDonald, “How War Affects Wildlife”, JSTOR Daily, 23 January 2018, available at: https://daily.jstor.org/how-war-affects-wildlife/ (all internet references were accessed in February 2022).

3 Peters, Anne, “Animals in International Law”, in Hague Academy of International Law, Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law: Recueil des Cours, Vol. 410, Brill, Leiden, 2020, p. 339Google Scholar.

4 See, generally, Cooper, Jilly, Animals in War, Corgi Books, London, 2000Google Scholar; Pöppinghege, Rainer (ed.), Tiere im Krieg: Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Brill, Leiden, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baratay, Eric, Bêtes de tranchées: Des vécus oubliés, CNRS éditions, Paris, 2013Google Scholar; Hediger, Ryan (ed.), Animals and War: Studies of Europe and North America, Brill, Leiden, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Michael Ray, “Fightin’ Fauna: 6 Animals of War”, Encyclopedia Britannica, no date, available at: https://www.britannica.com/list/fightin-fauna-6-animals-of-war. On the use of military dogs in the United States, see Cruse, Sarah D., “Military Working Dogs: Classification and Treatment in the U.S. Armed Forces”, Animal Law, Vol. 21, 2014–2015Google Scholar, available at: https://www.animallaw.info/sites/default/files/Military%20Working%20Dogs.pdf. See, generally, Imperial War Museums, “12 Ways Animals Have Helped the War Effort”, no date, available at: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/12-ways-animals-have-helped-the-war-effort.

6 Terrill, Ceiridwen, “Romancing the Bomb: Marine Animals in Naval Strategic Defense”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Kistler, John M., Animals in the Military: From Hannibal's Elephants to the Dolphins of the US Navy, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, 2011, pp. 311–26Google Scholar.

7 Hemptinne, Jérôme de, “The Protection of Animals during Warfare”, American Journal of International Law Unbound, Vol. 111, 18 September 2017, p. 272Google Scholar, available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/protection-of-animals-during-warfare/DA9EA3AF4F252F1DC0ECAFD8016B6406.

8 A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 344–9 on the protection of domestic animals as livestock and of wild animals against pillage and plunder.

9 See the section “Changing attitudes” below.

10 Global Animal Law, Database, available at: https://www.globalanimallaw.org/database/national/index.html, status as of 1 January 2022. Importantly, there has been a steep increase of legislation since 2020. On 1 January 2020, the database listed only 101 States. In the past two years, twenty-three States adopted animal protection legislation.

11 Saskia Stucki, “Animal Warfare Law and the Need for an Animal Law of Peace: A Comparative Reconstruction”, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 71, 2023 (forthcoming).

12 Jérôme de Hemptinne, Anne Peters and Robert Kolb, “Towards Effective Legal Protection of Animals in Wartime: Key Findings and Concluding Recommendations”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, forthcoming.

13 Heike Krieger and José Martinez Soria, “The Protection of Animals in Wartime: Rationale and Challenges”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), ibid.

14 J. de Hemptinne, A. Peters and R. Kolb, above note 12.

15 A group led by David Favre suggested an umbrella treaty (“International Convention for the Protection of Animals”) with four protocols (a Companion Animal Protocol, a Protocol for the Care of Exhibited Wildlife, a Protocol for the Taking of Wild Animals, and a Protocol for the International Transportation of Animals). See David Favre, “An International Treaty for Animal Welfare”, Animal Law Review, Vol. 18, 2012. The text of the convention is available at: https://www.animallaw.info/treaty/international-convention-protection-animals. Sabine Brels and others proposed a “UN Convention on Animal Health and Protection”. See Brels, Sabine, “Globally Protecting Animals at the UN: Why and How?”, L'Observateur des Nations Unies, Vol. 45, 2018, p. 193Google Scholar. The text of the convention is available at: https://www.globalanimallaw.org/downloads/Folder-UNCAHP.pdf.

16 Jérôme de Hemptinne, “Challenges Regarding the Protection of Animals During Warfare”, in Anne Peters (ed.), Studies in Global Animal Law, Springer, Heidelberg, 2020, pp. 174–5.

17 For reasons of space, the protection of animals in occupied territory will not be addressed in this contribution. For an analysis of this question, see Marco Longobardo, “Animals in Occupied Territory”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict above note 12.

18 The law itself, however, does not exclude this qualification. Notably “livestock” is mentioned in Article 54(2) of the Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I). The provision is situated in Chapter III of AP I, entitled “Civilian Objects”, and Article 54 carries the official heading: “Protection of objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population”. So livestock is here listed under “objects”.

19 Marco Roscini, “Animals and the Law of Armed Conflict”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 47, 2017, p. 46.

20 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC IV).

21 Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC III).

22 AP I, Arts 57 and 58.

23 It could be argued that animals which are armed – for instance, strapped with explosives and then sent to attack the enemy – could be qualified as “weapons” or “means and methods or warfare” under IHL. The employment of animals as weapons is not per se illegal. Chris Jenks argues that this should, however, be subject to legal reviews to determine whether weaponized animals are able to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects (or persons) and whether their use could cause superfluous injury. It remains unclear to what extent the injury to animals themselves when employed as war weapons should be factored into such an assessment. See Chris Jenks, “Animals as War Weapons”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict, above note 12.

24 AP I, Art. 52(2). This rule applies both in international and non-international armed conflicts. See Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), Rules 7–10.

25 AP I, Arts 51(5)(b) and 57. This rule applies in both international and non-international armed conflicts. See ICRC Customary Law Study, ibid., Rule 14.

26 J. de Hemptinne, above note 16, p. 179. For an extensive analysis of the concept of proportionality in the context of the protection of the environment, see generally Schmitt, Michael N., “Green War: An Assessment of the Environmental Law of Armed Conflict”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 22, 1997, pp. 55–61Google Scholar.

27 de Hemptinne, above note 16, p. 179.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 354–9.

31 ICRC, Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict: Rules and Recommendations Relating to the Protection of the Natural Environment under International Humanitarian Law, with Commentary, ICRC, Geneva, 2020, Preliminary Considerations, para. 16 (p. 18 emphasis added), available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/guidelines-protection-natural-environment-armed-conflict-rules-and-recommendations-relating.

32 Jérôme de Hemptinne, “Animals as Part of the Environment”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict, above note 12.

33 AP I, Arts 48, 51(2) and 52(2); Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP II), Art. 13(2).

34 AP I, Arts 51(5)(b) and 57.

35 AP I, Arts 57 and 58.

36 See ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, para. 18; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 43. See also International Law Commission (ILC), Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflict (2019), reproduced in United Nations (UN) General Assembly, Report of the International Law Commission: Seventy-first session (29 April–7 June and 8 July–9 August 2019), UN Doc. A/74/10, UN, New York, 2019, Chapter VI. Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts, Principles 13 and 14, pp. 250–6, in particular pp. 252–3.

37 Cordula Droege and Marie-Louise Tougas, “The Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict – Existing Rules and Need for Further Legal Protection”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 82, 2013, p. 28.

38 Ibid., p. 29.

39 See ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, paras 114–22.

40 J. de Hemptinne, above note 32.

41 ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, para. 117.

42 ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts – Recommitting to Protection in Armed Conflicts on the 70th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, ICRC, Geneva, 2019, p. 68. See also ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, para. 18.

43 AP I, Art. 56.

44 AP I, Art. 54.

45 GC IV, Art. 33(2).

46 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 171 (entered into force 2 December 1983).

47 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 10 December 1976, 1108 UNTS 151 (entered into force 5 October 1978).

48 See A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 344–9.

49 See below, section “Animals as objects indispensable”.

50 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 45; ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, para. 49.

51 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 45.

52 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC, Geneva, 1987 (APs Commentary), para. 1452.

53 C. Droege and M.-L. Tougas, above note 37, p. 32. See also J. de Hemptinne, above note 32.

54 Djamchid Montaz, “Les règles relatives à la protection de l'environnement au cours des conflits armés à l’épreuve du conflit entre l'Irak et le Koweït”, Annuaire français de droit international, Vol. XXXVII, 1991, pp. 209–10; Bothe, Michael, Bruch, Carl, Diamond, Jordan and Jensen, David, “International Law Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: Gaps and Opportunities”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, 2010, p. 576CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also J. de Hemptinne, above note 32.

55 Michael Bothe, “The Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict”, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 34, 1991, p. 57.

56 ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, para. 58. See also Jong, Daniella Dam-de, International Law and Governance of Natural Resources in Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015, p. 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 45.

58 ILC, Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties. Titles and Texts of the Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties Adopted by the Drafting Committee on Second Reading, 11 May 2011, A/CN.4/L.777, Arts 3, 6 and 7. For a discussion of the substantive, personal and territorial scope of application of the international conventions on the environment, see J. de Hemptinne, above note 32. See also the work of the ILC on the matter: ILC, Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties. Titles and Texts of the Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties Adopted by the Drafting Committee on Second Reading, 11 May 2011, A/CN.4/L.777, Arts 3, 6 and 7.

59 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 3 March 1973, 993 UNTS 243 (entered into force 1 July 1975).

60 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 23 June 1979, 1651 UNTS 333 (entered into force 1 November 1983).

61 Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, 19 June 2001, 2258 UNTS 257 (entered into force 1 February 2004).

62 International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, 2 December 1946, 161 UNTS 72 (entered into force 10 November 1948).

63 Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, 1760 UNTS 79 (entered into force 29 December 1993).

64 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources signed on 15 September 1968 and revised on 11 July 2003.

65 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 2 February 1971, 996 UNTS 245 (entered into force 21 December 1975).

66 Viñuales, Jorge E., “Le concept de ‘régime special’ dans les rapports entre droit humanitaire et droit de l'environnement”, Research Paper 12, The Graduate Institute Center for International Environmental Studies, Geneva, 2012, p. 13Google Scholar. See also Mara Tignino, “Droit international de l'environnement”, in Raphael van Steenberghe (ed.), Droit international humanitaire: un régime spécial de droit international, Bruylant, Brussels, 2013, p. 293; J. de Hemptinne, above note 32.

67 J. E. Viñuales, ibid., p. 14.

68 See Ayşe-Martina Böhringer and Thilo Marauhn, “Animals as Endangered Species”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict, above note 12.

69 E. Baratay, above note 4, pp. 111–13. M. Tignino, above note 66, p. 253; See Jérôme de Hemptinne, “Animals as Means of Medical Transportation, Search and Rescue”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict, above note 12.

70 See Australian Government, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, “Animals in the Military during World War I”, no date, available at: https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/ww1/military-organisation/animals-in-military.

71 J. de Hemptinne, above note 69. See, generally, GC I, Arts 35–7; GC IV, Arts 21–3.

72 APs Commentary, above note 52, para. 384 (emphasis added). It could be contended that the term “transports” covers only inanimate vehicles. For example, the Commentary on GC I (2nd ed., ICRC, Geneva, 2016, Art. 35, para. 2372) (2016 ICRC Commentary on GC I) lists, among other things, automobiles, trucks, trains, motorcycles, small all-terrain vehicles and inland boats. At first sight, animals seem to be excluded from this regime. For a discussion of this question, see J. de Hemptinne, above note 69.

73 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC I).

74 GC I, Art. 33.

75 J. de Hemptinne, above note 69.

76 2016 ICRC Commentary on GC I, above note 72, para. 2384.

77 Transports of wounded and sick and transports of medical equipment are protected in the same way as mobile medical units. See GC I, Arts 33(1) and 35(1).

78 AP I, Art. 21. See also ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 29.

79 Breitegger, Alexander, “The Legal Framework Applicable to Insecurity and Violence Affecting the Delivery of Health Care in Armed Conflicts and other Emergencies”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 95, 2013, p. 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 GC I, Arts 21 and 22; AP I, Art. 13. See also ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rules 28 and 29.

81 GC I, Art. 22; AP I, Art 13. See Sassòli, Marco, International Humanitarian Law, Rules, Controversies, and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2019, para. 8.29Google Scholar.

82 Katja Schöberl, “Buildings, Material, and Transports”, in Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta and Marco Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 829. See also AP II, Arts 7 and 8.

83 Antoine Bouvier, “The Use of the Emblem”, in A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions, ibid., p. 863.

84 AP II, Art. 11(1).

85 J. de Hemptinne, above note 69.

86 AP I, Art. 54 (literal quote of the title of the provision); AP II, Art. 14; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 54. See also M. Sassòli, above note 81, para. 8.353.

87 AP I, Art. 54(2).

88 AP I, Art. 54(3) in the two variants lit. (a) and lit. (b).

89 M. Roscini, above note 19, p. 59; Sandra Krähenmann, “Animals as Specially Protected Objects”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict, above note 12.

90 AP I, Art. 54(2).

91 M. Roscini, above note 19, p. 59.

92 AP I, Art. 54(5).

93 M. Sassòli, above note 81, para. 8.354.

94 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 240 (entered into force 7 August 1956) (1954 Hague Convention).

95 (First) Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 358 (entered into force 7 August 1956); Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 26 March 1999, 2253 UNTS 172 (entered into force 9 March 2004).

96 AP I, Art. 54; AP II, Art. 16.

97 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rules 38–41.

98 See, e.g., 1954 Hague Convention, above note 94, Art. 1(a).

99 Ibid.

100 S. Krähenmann, above note 89.

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid.

103 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 16 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151, Art. 2 (entered into force 17 December 1975).

104 For a thorough analysis of the protection of cultural property, see O'Keefe, Roger, The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 See ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rules 38 and 39.

106 Ibid., Rule 40.

107 Ibid.

108 Ibid., Rule 38.

109 S. Krähenmann, above note 89.

110 ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić and others (IT-95-16-T), judgment of 14 January 2000, para. 336 (footnote omitted).

111 ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić & Mario Čerkez (IT-95-14/2-T), judgment of 26 February 2001, para. 205. “Plunder” is penalized in Article 3(e) of the Statute of the ICTY.

112 International Criminal Court Statute, 17 July 1998, Art. 7(1)(h).

113 See Marina Lostal, “De-objectifying Animals: Could they Qualify as Victims before the International Criminal Court?”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2021.

114 GC I, Art. 23; GC IV, Arts 14 and 15; AP I, Arts 59 and 60. See Trevor Keck, “What You Need to Know About ‘Safe Zones’”, ICRC Blog, 27 February 2017, available at: https://intercrossblog.icrc.org/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-safe-zones.

115 T. Keck, ibid.

116 Matthew Gillett, “Animals in Protected Zones”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict, above note 12.

117 ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, para. 14.

118 Ibid., para. 61.

119 Niccolò Pons, “Animals”, in Dražan Djukić and Niccolò Pons (eds), The Companion to International Humanitarian Law, Brill, Leiden, 2018, pp. 171–2.

120 M. Gillett, above note 116.

121 Ibid.

122 Daskin, Joshua H. and Pringle, Robert M., “Warfare and Wildlife Declines in Africa's Protected Areas”, Nature, Vol. 553, No. 7688, 2018, p. 328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

123 Brels, Sabine, Le Droit du bien-être animal dans le monde: évolution et universalisation, L'Harmattan, Paris, 2017Google Scholar.

124 Global Animal Law, above note 10.

125 J. de Hemptinne, above note 7, p. 273.

126 Jérôme de Hemptinne, Tadesse Kebebew and Joshua Niyo, “Animals as Combatants and as Prisoners of War?”, in A. Peters, J. de Hemptinne and R. Kolb (eds), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict, above note 12.

127 M. Roscini, above note 19, p. 44.

128 See BBC News, “War-wounded Military Dog Awarded Charity Medal”, 5 April 2016, available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35957766.

129 Karsten Nowrot, “Animals at War: The Status of ‘Animal Soldiers’ under International Humanitarian Law”, Historical Social Research, Vol. 40, 2015, p. 140.

130 Janet M. Alger and Steven F. Alger, “Canine Soldiers, Mascots, and Stray Dogs in U.S. Wars: Ethical Considerations”, in Ryan Hediger (ed.), Animals and War: Studies of Europe and North America, Brill, Leiden, 2013.

131 See critically, DanaMarie Pannella, “Animals are Property: The Violation of Soldiers’ Rights to Strays in Iraq”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, 2010.

132 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Art. 13; Czech Act No. 89/2012 of 3 February 2012, § 494; French Code Civil, amendment by Art. 2 of Loi n° 2015-177 of 16 February 2015, Arts 515–4; Portuguese Código Civil, Decreto-Lei n° 47344, Diário do Governo n° 274/1966, Série I de 1966-11-25, consolidado, versão à data de 2018-11-05; Colombia, Art. 201.-B “Animais”: Código Civil, Amendment by Law no. 1774 of 6 January 2016, Art. 655(3); Spain, Art. 333bis, inserted into the Civil Code by Law 17/2021 of 15 December 2021 “BOE” núm. 300 of 16 December 2021, available at: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2021/12/15/17/con. See in detail, A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 400–3 with further references. The quality as “sentient being” should always form a barrier to the application of those legal rules on “things” that do not do justice to the sentience of animals.

133 Favre, David, “Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System”, Marquette Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 3, 2010Google Scholar.

134 Raspé, Carolin, Die tierliche Person, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

135 Angela Fernandez, “Not Quite Property, Not Quite Persons: A ‘Quasi’ Approach for Nonhuman Animals”, Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law, Vol. 5, 2019.

136 Deckha, Maneesha, Animals as Legal Beings: Contesting Anthropocentric Legal Orders, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2021Google Scholar.

137 Kempers, Eva Bernet, “Neither Persons nor Things: The Changing Status of Animals in Private Law”, European Journal of Private Law, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2021Google Scholar.

138 This analysis is mainly drawn from J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126.

139 For non-international armed conflicts, the preamble of AP II mentions the “human person” three times.

140 APs Commentary, above note 52, para. 1672. Article 43 of AP I does not mention the word “person”, though.

141 AP I, Art. 50(1). According to the provision, “[a] civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the [other] categories of persons […]” (emphasis added).

142 Coffee, John C., “‘No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick’: An Unscandalized Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 79, No. 3, 1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 Heike Krieger, “Protected Persons”, in Anne Peters and Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds), Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, para. 1.

144 A. Peters, above note 3, p. 385.

145 Gary L. Francione, Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation, Columbia University Press, New York, 2008.

146 Ziv Bohrer, “Divisions over Distinctions in Wartime International Law”, in Z. Bohrer, J. Dill and H. Duffy, Law Applicable to Armed Conflict, Max Planck Trialogues on the Law of Peace and War, Vol. 2 (Anne Peters and Christian Marxsen series eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019, p. 175 and pp. 182–6.

147 A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 383–5.

148 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 106. See also Laura Olson, “Status and Treatment of Those Who do not Fulfil the Conditions for Status as Prisoners of War”, in A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions, above note 82, p. 915.

149 J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126.

150 Ibid.

151 Sean Watts, “Who Is a Prisoner of War?”, in A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions, above note 82, pp. 891–7. See also J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126.

152 Be it as it may, status under IHL is determined by factual (objective) conditions: membership of the armed forces and a belonging to a party to an international armed conflict. In contrast, the individual mental state, that is, cognition and volition to be a member or participate in the armed conflict, is immaterial. Considerations on the mental state of actors should not exclude them – animals or humans – from protection under GC III and AP. See A. Peters, above note 3, p. 377. See also J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126.

153 J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126.

154 Ibid. See also A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 337 and 394.

155 J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126.

156 Ibid.

157 Ibid.

158 Marco Sassòli, “Release, Accommodation in Neutral Countries, and Repatriation of Prisoners of War”, in A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions, above note 82, p. 1040.

159 J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126. See also A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 377–8.

160 J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126. See also A. Peters, above note 3, p. 377.

161 Shashank Bengali and Hashmat Baktash, “Taliban Says Captured British Military Dog is Healthy”, Los Angeles Times, 7 February 2014, available at: https://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-taliban-captive-british-dog-20140207-story.html.

162 J. de Hemptinne, T. Kebebew and J. Niyo, above note 126. See also A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 394–5.

163 See wording of AP I, Art. 50(1); and ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 5.

164 However, see A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 380–3.

165 J. de Hemptinne, A. Peters and R. Kolb, above note 12. For a novel approach of “animal-adequate interpretation”, see Kunz, Peter V., “Tieradäquate Auslegung als methodische Erweiterung”, Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins, Vol. 157, No. 5, 2021Google Scholar.

166 See above note 132 and K. Nowrot, above note 129.

167 See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS, Art. 31(3)(a) and (b) on treaty interpretation.

168 VCLT, ibid., Art. 31(3) lit. (c).

169 J. de Hemptinne, A. Peters and R. Kolb, above note 12; A. Peters, above note 3, p. 390. The primary rationale of the species conservation treaties is the avoidance of extinction and concomitant loss of genetic material, and not the reduction of animal suffering. These two goals sometimes stand in tension but are in other respects aligned in that they seek to protect lives. See Guillaume Futhazar, “Biodiversity, Species Protection, and Animal Welfare Under International Law”, in A. Peters (ed.), Studies in Global Animal Law, above note 16.

170 The Martens clause is also enshrined in the termination clauses of the four Geneva Conventions (GC I, Art. 63; GC II, Art. 63; GC III, Art. 142; GC IV, Art. 158) (GC II: Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950)). In combination with common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, these clauses lead to the application of the Martens clause in non-international armed conflicts. See, on the relevance for animals, A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 385–8.

171 A. Peters, above note 3, p. 388.

172 ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, Rule 16; ILC, Draft Principles, above note 36, draft principle 8bis.

173 See ICRC Environmental Guidelines, above note 31, and main text of this contribution.

174 These principles are mainly drawn from J. de Hemptinne, A. Peters and R. Kolb, above note 12.

175 J. de Hemptinne, above note 32.

176 Vordermayer, Markus, “The Extraterritorial Application of Multilateral Environmental Agreements”, Harvard International Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 1, 2018, p. 110Google Scholar.

177 Ibid.

178 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 24, Rule 45.

179 J. de Hemptinne, above note 32.

180 Ibid.

181 Ibid.

182 S. Krähenmann, above note 89.

183 Ibid.

184 M. Gillett, above note 116.

185 Ibid.

186 For the legal obligation to “pay full regard” to animal welfare requirements, see Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Art. 13.

187 See AP I, Art. 1(2).

188 See VCLT, above note 167, Art. 31.

189 Peters, Anne, “The Direct Rights of Individuals in the International Law of Armed Conflict”, in Akande, Dapo, Rodin, David and Welsh, Jennifer (eds), The Individualisation of War, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2022Google Scholar.

190 Supreme Court of India, Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and others, Civil appeal no. 5387, 7 May 2014; Tercer Juzgado de Garantías Mendoza (Argentina), Chimpanzee “Cecilia” Case no. P-72.254/15, 3 November 2016; Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Chucho Case AHC4806-2017, Radicación n° 17001-22-13-000-2017-00468-02, 26 July 2017 (overturned by Constitutional Court of Columbia, Chucho Case T-6.480.577 – Sentencia SU-016/20, 23 January 2020); Islamabad High Court, Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (through its Chairman) v. Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (through its Mayor & 4 others), W.P. no. 1155/2019, 21 May 2020; Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Mona Estrellita, Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22, 27 January 2022.

191 A. Peters, above note 3, pp. 440–52.

192 Ibid., p. 445.

193 Anne Peters, “Toward International Animal Rights”, in A. Peters (ed.), Studies in Global Animal Law, above note 16, p. 111; Peters, Anne, “Animal Rights”, in Binder, Christina, Nowak, Manfred, Hofbauer, Jane A. and Janig, Philipp (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2022Google Scholar.

194 See in favour of an absolute ban on using animals in war, A. Peters, above note 3, p. 396.

195 Hersch Lauterpacht, “The Problem of the Revision of the Law of War”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 29, 1952, p. 382.

196 John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, § 1, quotes at pp. 83 and 11. See also Cassese, Antonio, Realizing Utopia, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

197 H. Lauterpacht, above note 195, p. 381.

198 Susan A. Bandes, Jody Lynee Madeira, Kathryn D. Temple and Emily Kidd White (eds), The Edward Elgar Research Handbook on Law and Emotion, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2021; Nele Verlinden, “To Feel or Not to Feel: Emotions and International Humanitarian Law”, in Mats Deland, Mark Klamberg and Pål Wrange (eds), International Humanitarian Law and Justice: Historical and Sociological Perspectives, Routledge, London, 2018.

199 de Waal, Frans B. M., Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Bekoff, Mark and Pierce, Jessica, Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar.