Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11779/1575
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBaşoğlu, Başak-
dc.contributor.authorKapancı, Kadir Berk-
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-11T09:39:16Z
dc.date.available2021-10-11T09:39:16Z
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationBasoglu, B., & Kapanci, K.B. (8-9 October 2021). A Bridge “Maybe” Too Far: Granting Legal Personality to Animals?. International Conference on Animal Dignity and the Law, University of Antwerp. Antwerp - Belgium. (online)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11779/1575-
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.uantwerpen.be/en/chairs/animal-law-chair/international-confer/-
dc.description.abstractTurkish legal system, like all other legal systems is developed by persons and thus, the >main distinction is made between persons and objects (persona and res). According to thistraditional distinction, animals which are not humans but being “other” species in our World,have mostly been considered as objects and thus subject to personal property. In these personorientedlegal systems, including the Turkish one, even the rules relating to animals essentiallyaims to protect the owner of the animals, but not the animals themselves.However, today this paradigm is slowly challenged as “right to life” (to some extent) isgranted to animals under many legal systems (for instance under the Turkish Law on Protectionof Animals dated 24 June 2004). Nevertheless, the boundaries of this right are the interests ofthe people. Unfortunately, the concepts of animal dignity and right to life do not provide enoughprotection to animals. But what could be the solution to better protect the animals? Grantinglegal personality to the animals? Perhaps it is a bridge too far…Throughout the history, personality have been granted to different objects if it isbeneficial and feasible to do so. Accordingly, this paper firstly aims to evaluate whether it isbeneficial and feasible to grant legal personality -partially or as a whole- to the animals. Underthis first sub-title we will discuss as well whether granting to each and every animal a separatepersonality or a sole conceptual one to the entire nature including the animals. Secondly ourwork further targets to reconsider the traditional distinction of persons and things to provide amore specific legal status for animals. Perhaps such a reconsideration could enable us to solveanother controversial issue of our contemporary world: that is the legal status of “strong”artificial intelligence. Moreover, our discussions will comprise the analyse of the legal statusof the “ancient roman law’s slave”, considered as an object though a human being, benefitingfrom different types of legal protection at different levels, at different times. Across the saidcomparisons, at the end, we would like to reach a robust conclusion.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Antwerpen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAnimalen_US
dc.subjectAnimal & Lawen_US
dc.titleA bridge “Maybe” too far: Granting legal personality to animals?en_US
dc.typeConference Objecten_US
dc.authoridKadir Berk Kapancı / 0000-0002-6540-5872-
dc.description.PublishedMonthEkimen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryKonferans Öğesi - Uluslararası - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.departmentHukuk Fakültesi, Medeni Hukuk Anabilim Dalıen_US
dc.relation.journalInternational conference on Animal Dignity (8-9 October 2021)en_US
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeConference Object-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.dept05. Faculty of Law-
Appears in Collections:Hukuk Fakültesi Koleksiyonu
Show simple item record



CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

22
checked on Nov 18, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check





Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.