Animals and the Impact of Trade Law and Policy: A Global Animal Law Question

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>There is a critical research gap regarding the trade and animal welfare interface: we do not know, empirically, what the impact of trade on animal welfare is. This gap exists, in part, as a result of the paternalism of international trade law and the underdevelopment of global animal law. This article addresses, firstly, the collision of dichotomous trade and animal welfare priorities in legal and political systems. It then explores attempts at reconciliation by the World Trade Organization and the European Union. This involves an investigation of the impact of trade on animal welfare. This impact is categorized into four component parts: (i) open markets, (ii) low animal-welfare havens, (iii) a chilling effect, and (iv) lack of labelling. Case studies from the European Union are examined. Thirdly, the article critiques trade law and policy as ill-suited primary drivers of global governance for animals. Global animal law is identified as a promising alternative, although its early development has been unduly affected by international trade law.</jats:p>

Are regulations addressing farm animal welfare issues during live transportation fit for purpose? A multi-country jurisdictional check

“…If confirmed, the current trend towards a ban on live animal export by some jurisdictions may lead other countries to adopt similar legislation. Although this may not necessarily result in other countries adopting similar legislation [ 147 ], the increasing number of international bilateral trade agreements that include animal welfare considerations (e.g. the EU-Chile Free Trade Agreement, described by von Keyserlingk & Hötzel [ 21 ]) may push countries to seek greater alignment in their respective regulations in order to remain competitive.…”

The politics of animal welfare: A scoping review of farm animal welfare governance

“…For example, Bock and Buller (2013) use the concepts of politicization of science and scientificization of politics to explain how farm animal welfare is constructed in these changing realities. Within this approach, several uses the term discourse both about how animals are socially and culturally bound up in discourses and language but also how actors use and express animal welfare discourses through media, policy frames, and as part of political paradigms (Chaney, 2014; Chen, 2016; Offor, 2020; Schwartz, 2020). According to Chen's (2016) theoretical approach, the lack of a coherent political paradigm and a coherent public discourse on an issue will affect both policymaking and the possibility of political communication about the subject.…”

“…The part of the publications that focus specifically on the private actors lead us to the fourth partially overlapping category where animal welfare is set in a market context (More et al, 2021; Parker et al, 2017; Swinbank, 2006; Vogeler, 2019a). Here, the public is, to a greater extent, defined as consumers, and their attitudes and habits related to animal welfare are essential concerning how animal welfare can be valued and sold as a common good in a market (McLaren & Appleyard, 2021; Offor, 2020; Parker et al, 2017). In this context, states are also central actors because their power and control concerning the market are important.…”

“…Several studies in this review show that the global market is a non‐driver for global farm animal welfare governance. First, Offor (2020) describes the global political economy as ill‐suited for farm animal welfare governance because it is driven by economic principles. This market is assumed to be animal‐unfriendly and unsustainable because the financial mechanisms go for short‐term solutions poorly aligned with improving farm animal welfare (Offor, 2020; Swinbank, 2006; Visseren‐Hamakers, 2018).…”

“…First, Offor (2020) describes the global political economy as ill‐suited for farm animal welfare governance because it is driven by economic principles. This market is assumed to be animal‐unfriendly and unsustainable because the financial mechanisms go for short‐term solutions poorly aligned with improving farm animal welfare (Offor, 2020; Swinbank, 2006; Visseren‐Hamakers, 2018). Second, there is no existing global morality concerning animals (Offor, 2020).…”