More-than-Humanitarian Law

This article was originally published by the UK Centre for Animal Law (A-LAW). Read the original article here.

During my doctoral research conducted in Jordan and Pakistan into the role of animals in forced migration and zoonoses – diseases transmissible between humans and animals – the devastation as a result of the loss of animals killed as a result of conflict, during disasters and displacement, and because of road accidents and theft, was evident. Within displaced households, animals became central to determining displacement route, modality and destination location. Meanwhile, formal humanitarian responses rarely facilitated animals, and in response, people went to great lengths to retain access to their nonhuman household members, splitting up communities and households.[1] This risk-taking to retain access to animals during crises is increasingly recognized as a major challenge during complex emergencies.[2]

Globally, countries and communities most affected by disasters and conflict are largely dependent on agriculture and animal-keeping livelihoods, however international humanitarian law (IHL) does not include protection for nonhuman animal species, considering animals as ‘objects’, lacking legal status.[3] While providing important protection, nutrition and rescue to affected populations, animals are thus not considered under international humanitarian law in their own right.[4] This is increasingly at odds with the status progressively appointed to animals in some jurisdictions as living beings capable of feeling pain and suffering, implying the opportunity for a legal humanitarian approach to the ‘animal turn’, an expression in academia reflecting a shift in the way animals are being thought about and researched, including an increased interest in animals, human-animal relations and animals’ role in society. A recent example is the pathbreaking ruling by the Islamabad High Court in Pakistan on Kaavan, the elephant held captive in substandard conditions in Islamabad zoo, and since ‘released’ to a sanctuary.[5]

Humanitarian law, conceptualized in the global North, has remained anthropocentric, reflecting a hierarchy of human dominion over animals. These values have been exported to the global South through the animal-industrial complex, an important element of international development activities in animal-keeping communities, with far-reaching detrimental impacts to animal, ecosystem and human health and welfare. An example of these practices harming the rights of local communities, are nomadic pastoralist groups across the Sahel region. Shown to be one of the most environmentally sustainable land-use systems for the region, pastoralists continue to be forcefully (re-)settled, negatively impacting both human and nonhuman animal health and wellbeing.[6]

The exclusion of animals from IHL builds on a tradition of exploitation and other harmful practices.[7] Existing animal welfare law in itself has been interpreted as a kind of ‘warfare’ law, regulating violent activities as part of a ‘war on animals’.[8] While minimal, animal welfare standards nevertheless acknowledge animals’ interests in their own rights, explicitly seeking to minimize animal suffering, which could be reflected in IHL as well. Current geopolitical developments are shifting the global legal order[9], and might present an opportunity to address some of these systemic gaps, and to build strong foundations for an improved and more inclusive protection mechanism addressing structural interspecies’ inequities. 

​Scholars and animal welfare organisations have laid out practical steps for the inclusion of animals in disaster policies and responses, envisioning a more inclusive and equitable humanitarian legal framework through an improved framework rooted in interspecies’ care and solidarity.[10] Other emerging fields of international law such as international disaster relief law (IDRL), a legal framework to regulate and facilitate the humanitarian response to disasters[11], could benefit  from the animal turn as well, as climate change is increasing the frequency and impact of disasters and humanitarian emergencies. Examples of potential inclusion mechanisms are described in detail by international animal welfare organisations[12], with some countries, for instance New Zealand, now actively including animals in disaster preparedness and evacuation plans.[13]

As IHL continues to be (re)interpreted by a variety of actors[14], there are opportunities for improvement by including non-traditional stakeholders such as civil society and the private sector, including animal-keeping households. This may involve building on Indigenous Knowledge and local practices better suited to the context and different values towards nonhuman species[15], aligned with ongoing decolonialisation and localisation trends across the IHL sector.

Contrary to dominant Eurocentric perspectives, Indigenous cultures generally consider humans as part of nature. Historical connection with the land they live on results in a more holistic relationship with local ecosystems, and a more harmonious use of resources, leading to better protection and conservation of nonhuman species, who may hold spiritual rather than merely ‘productive’ meaning.[16] An example are the Nharira in Zimbabwe, where nature’s role in the community’s customs and rituals supports the protection of wildlife.[17] While local communities are the primary humanitarian responders, Indigenous Knowledge is rarely included in humanitarian responses.[18] The IHL sector may learn from trends in international research, development and environmental management in the uptake of Indigenous Knowledge. Based on holistic Indigenous Knowledge and values towards nonhuman species, IHL could overcome conceptual barriers related to the legal personality of animals, and grant protection rights to animals and the more-than-human in nature.

[1] Braam, D.H. (2022). Zoonotic disease dynamics in displacement: A multisite case study in Sindh, Pakistan and Mafraq, Jordan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.96083
[2] Dalla Villa, P. et al. (2020) Integrating animal welfare into disaster management using an ‘all-hazards’ approach. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics). 39 (2) :599-613. DOI: 10.20506/rst.39.2.3110. PMID: 33046916.
[3] Peters, A. and Hemptinne, J. de (2022) Animals in war: At the vanishing point of international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross. doi:10.1017/S181638312200011X
[4] Vultaggio, G. (2024) The unknown victims of armed conflicts. International Institute of Humanitarian Law (IIHL). Available at: https://iihl.org/the-unknown-victims-of-armed-conflicts/
[5] Saeed, A Case for Animal Sentience in Pakistan: “Kaavan” The Elephant’s Incredible Story: Islamabad Wildlife Management Board v. Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad
[6] Braam, D.H., Bolajoko, M.B., Hammer, C.C. (2024) A One Health approach to pastoral (im) mobility, health, and disease: A qualitative participatory study in Plateau State, Nigeria. PLOS Global Public Health 4 (10), e0003637
[7] Twine, R. (2024) The Climate Crisis and Other Animals. Sydney University Press, Sydney, Australia. ISB (paperback) 9781743328996
[8] Stucki, S. (2023) Animal Warfare Law and the Need for an Animal Law of Peace: A Comparative Reconstruction, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages 189–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad018
[9] International Crisis Group (2024) Ten Challenges for the UN in 2024-2025. Available at: https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/sb12-ten-challenges-un-2024-2025
[10] Celermajer, D. and Sturman, A. (2024). Recasting Interspecies Care and Solidarity as Emergent Anti-Capitalist Politics. Chapter in: More Than Human Rights: An Ecology of Law, Thought, and Narrative for Earthly Flourishing, César Rodríguez-Garavito, ed. New York: NYU Law
[11] IFRC (2024) International disaster response law. Available at: https://disasterlaw.ifrc.org/IDRL
[12] IFAW (2022) Beyond rescue: animals in disasters – Europe. Available at: 
https://www.ifaw.org/international/resources/animals-in-disasters-europe
[13] New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries/ Manatū Ahu Matua, Animal Welfare Emergency Management. Available at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/animals/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-emergency-management/
[14] Alexander, A. (2015) A Short History of International Humanitarian Law. European Journal of International Law, Volume 26, Issue 1, February 2015, Pages 109–138, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv002
[15] World Animal Protection (WAP) Animals in Disasters. Available at: https://animalsindisasters.org/for-policy-makers/for-policy-makers-1
[16] Arévalo, C. (2023) Protecting The World’s Wild Animals Through Indigenous Knowledge. Faunalytics January 18, 2023
[17] Mavhura, E., Mushure, S. (2019) Forest and wildlife resource-conservation efforts based on indigenous knowledge: The case of Nharira community in Chikomba district, Zimbabwe. Forest Policy and Economics 105 p83-90
[18] Adhikari, R. (2024) Why does the humanitarian system continue to ignore the indigenous knowledge of women-led organisations? Humanitarian Practice Network 85 (9). Available at: https://odihpn.org/publication/why-does-the-humanitarian-system-continue-to-ignore-the-indigenous-knowledge-of-women-led-organisations/