The international law of armed conflict or more specifically the international humanitarian law has until now ignored animals. The main concern and purpose of international humanitarian law is to alleviate the suffering experienced by people in armed conflicts. The protection of animals under lex lata is not adequate. The Geneva and Hague conventions were not intended to protect animals, they were intended to protect humans. Therefore, in armed conflicts, animals are protected only by the rules on property and objects, and consequently by the fundamental principles of the law of armed conflict, such as the principles of distinction and proportionality. This is a reflection of peacetime animal welfare laws and its perception of animals as things. In legal theory, however, there are ideas that animals should be granted animal legal personhood, which is usually understood as a prerequisite for granting them rights, thus making them full members of the human-animal community. Animals could thus be given the status of combatant and civilian and the corresponding rights. The question that arises is whether this would bring animals more protection or just more burden. For this reason, I also address the idea that at least some animals should be granted the right not to participate in armed conflicts, as the first animal right at the international level. The entire dissertation rests on the idea that the road to an era in which animals will gain rights is long and will most likely happen when we humans will stop using animals for out benefit (for food, in armed conflicts etc…)
|
