From the Archive: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction with Charlotte Blattner

Charlotte Blattner discusses how international law, specifically Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, might provide a useful and productive way in which to build legal protections for animals. 

Date recorded: 10 April 2020

Guest: Charlotte E. Blattner is a senior researcher and lecturer at the Institute for Public Law, University of Bern. She earned her PhD in international law and animal law from the University of Basel, Switzerland, as part of the doctoral program Law and Animals. From 2017-2018, she completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Department of Philosophy at Queen’s University, Canada, working on animal labour as part of Animals in Philosophy, Politics, Law, and Ethics (APPLE). From 2018-2020, Blattner was a  postdoctoral fellow at Harvard Law School’s Animal Law & Policy Program, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, to explore critical intersections of animal and environmental law. She is the author of Protecting Animals Within and Across Borders (2019, available open access here) and Animal Labour: A New Frontier of Interspecies Justice? (2020, coedited with Will Kymlicka and Kendra Coulter), both published by Oxford University Press. Blattner has argued several cases in court, including the “Primate Rights Case” currently pending at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Find out more about Charlotte here. 

Featured:  

• Protecting Animals Within and Across Borders: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Challenges of Globalization by Charlotte E. Blattner
• Critical Terms for Animal Studies edited by Lori Gruen featuring Kristen Stilt

A.P.P.L.E
Animals in Politics, Law, and Ethics researches how we live in interspecies societies and polities.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Opening And Big Question

Siobhan O'Sullivan 0:00

This is another iRaw podcast.

Charlotte Blattner 0:04

So it's fair to say that we don't have any international tool to effectively counter the negative effects of globalization experienced by animals.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 0:24

Welcome to episode five of the Animal Turn. In this episode, we're going to speak about extraterritorial jurisdiction with Charlotte Blattner. Charlotte is an exceptional researcher who I've had the pleasure to meet here at Queen's University when she was conducting her postdoctoral research. And she's part of the research and lecture at the public law at the University of Bowl. And in addition to a postdoctoral program here at Queen's University, another one at Harvard Law School and Animal Law and Policy Program. The one, which will be speaking about a lot of episode, protect the animals within and across borders. And the second, which we call it to the book and the culture, is called animal labor and the species of justice.

Housekeeping And Season One Threads

Claudia Hirtenfelder 1:17

Now before we dive straight into the conversation with Charles, I thought I would try something new in episode 5. I'm going to try from here on a bit of housekeeper at the beginning of each episode. This will help me in flagging potential auditable noise, which I know has been coming up in some of the previous episodes. And maybe to reflect a little bit on what I'm learning as we move on through these episodes. So so far in season one, we've touched on a number of important concepts and ideas, and we've unpacked them a little bit. Everything from looking at animal rights and looking at to realizing that actually animals have very few rights about themselves. Even the idea of legal subjects and that animals are not really subjects at all because they're the property of one or property property of legal subjects. And if you are property, and finally, and the last episode, we put some animals animals as subjects and put the one way and being another episode. But now it started to go a bit broader than just the animals and the state. And that there are a variety of laws and policies in place that manage their movements. But of course, again, they've been managed as property and as good. And Charlotte has done an in-depth detailed account of what she thinks is a potential way forward at a global scale in terms of thinking about animals and how it can improve animals' lives. So without further ado, let's start it.

Charlotte’s Path Into Animal Law

Claudia Hirtenfelder 3:33

I was reading a bit about you this morning, and of course, I've met you in Kingston where you did your postdoc. And I'm extremely happy to have you here today because I remember that lecture of yours here in Kingston. And I remember going up to you, I was just starting my PhD, and I was like, you're doing everything. Everything you're saying is amazing. Um so I you've got a very distinct place in my memory, which is wonderful. Um but perhaps we can find out a little bit about you. How did you get interested in animal studies?

Charlotte Blattner 4:08

Oh God, what a question. Um I don't know. It it kind of starts with the question of how did you get interested in animals, right? Um, because one is kind of intimately tied to the other. Of course, it's uh conceptually a hugely interesting field from multiple perspectives and disciplines, but I think a lot of people are drawn to the field also for ethical reasons, and so the question of what brought you to animal studies is also often what brings you to animals or what brought you to animals, and so um in my case, it was always like personal work with animals, be it rescue work or work in shelters, etc. And then kind of the dichotomy that emerged between that work and my professional work as a lawyer, and um, I can be very frank here, like I chose to study law simply because I thought that would give me most of the options in life. I can do many different things, I could do litigation, I could work in legislation, I could do consulting, etc. And then in all types of areas, right? So um once I began to realize that the two can actually be combined, it was almost like a dream job that could emerge.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 5:33

And who who inspired that connection? Was there something you read where you thought, wow, there is a connection between law and animals?

Charlotte Blattner 5:41

Oh god. Um, well, during my studies, I just the maximum of expectations, and the expectations were very low, was that I could somehow just do pro bono work on the side. Once I passed the bar exam and I'd be a practicing lawyer, I could just simply, you know, get on some cases of animals being mistreated and then kind of have the experience of working with animals that way. But um yeah, there was actually a trigger moment in my life. So there was a doctoral program that was created at my home university, the University of Basel, which was uh plain in animal law. And then lots of people approached me, they were like, you should apply for this. And when I thought about it, or when people approached me, I didn't even know what a PhD really was. Lots of people in Switzerland do it just for yeah, maybe, I mean, in a sense, a bit out of vein, probably, maybe just to have the title and stuff. So I wasn't initially drawn to the idea of it. And once I began to realize how influential academia is in this area, because I mean, Will talked about this in the first episode of your series, right? If once you realize that animal law is mostly non-existent, you begin to actually realize that the role of academia in this area is huge and hugely important.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 7:18

So do you still practice within the the legal system or are you primarily now within an academic realm?

Charlotte Blattner 7:24

Um, it's a bit of both. So once I started with the doctorate, and it it was like it was like a hole that soaked me up because I loved every bit and part of it. And only now, gradually, and I am I turning again to practice. And that, I mean, for the simple reason that because animal law is so limited in the way that it exists right now, the options for you to litigate are very limited too. So you could deal with uh, you know, cats and dogs and other companion animals. But um the options for you to litigate cases when it comes to animals who are used for agricultural purposes are much more limited. So, what I tend to

Basel’s Primate Rights Initiative

Charlotte Blattner 8:10

focus on is so maybe one case I could mention quickly is the uh primate case, which was often referenced internationally. So the canton of Basel, which you mentioned before, you've also visited, um, an organization launched a citizens' initiative for primate rights. So basic rights for primates, uh, rights to life, liberty, and personal integrity that ought to be enshrined in the cantonal constitution. And maybe just on a side note for people who are not well versed with the Swiss system, so Switzerland has 26 cantons. This is the equivalent of states in the US, for example. So we had this initiative that was launched, and we've actually managed to gather the necessary signatures for that in a pretty short period of time. Um, but the initiative was stopped at the parliamentary level. The parliament or the legal services to the parliament claimed that the initiative would be valid because it would encroach upon the federal competencies. So only the federal government would have the competence to actually decide on whether animals should get basic rights or not. And this is because the federal government enacted the Animal Welfare Act, right? So we've been dealing with a legal case for the last two years now, and it's pending at the Supreme Court in Switzerland right now as to whether we can go ahead and let the people of Basel decide on whether primates should have basic rights or not. And if we succeed, and most people say we have pretty good chances, but I I mean touch wood. Um crazy times right now, and I don't know how it will play out. But if we succeed with it, it will be the absolute first time in history that people get to vote, uh human people get to vote on whether animals should have basic rights, or at least some of the animals.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 10:17

That's incredible. So there's, I mean, there's a lot going on there and a lot of uh a lot of questions to ask about. Uh so you know, one of the first ones that comes to mind for me is it's come up in the previous episodes, is in uh actually in the the previous one I did with Manisha, it even came up, is is this strategy of getting uh rights for one distinct group of animals like primates, is that revolutionary enough? Uh, in that would it not be, you know, the whole idea of concentric circles? So now primates are included, then it's the next step of including another set of animals. Um at what point does that just take too long until we reach chickens and cows and maybe other agricultural animals? Uh what are your thoughts on that?

Charlotte Blattner 11:04

Well, that

Rights For Some Animals First

Charlotte Blattner 11:05

is a very valid point and one I'm you know hugely scared about. I think we do not, I mean, the the concern is valid, but we do not yet have hard evidence as to whether that's true or not. So I believe when it comes to the reformism versus valforism debate, we need to distinguish two cases. For example, if if I as an NGO had the choice to advocate for bigger cages of one species of animals, be it, I don't know, birds, I wouldn't do that because it would still mean that they would be encaged, right? And you could still see that as a welfareist reformist take on it. Whereas when I advocate for the rights of certain animals, um, I'm not thereby at least not um obviously also undermining the rights of other animals or the possibilities for that to happen. I believe that change, of course, can come quickly, and ideally we would have a legal reform that would establish rights for all animals, no question at all. But also here we need to draw the line at some point. Are bees the animals that we will protect or not? I would say yes, but certainly most people wouldn't be ready to go that far. So um we need more evidence on the idea about whether, you know, we need more evidence on whether that's actually true, and we need to get people acquainted to the idea of animals having rights. And that's not something that's happened so far. And so I believe once this happens, there's more opportunity to actually do empirical research on what the effects of that is, and that's at least worth a try, in my opinion.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 12:58

That's that's really interesting. And I mean, you you drew up a comparison between bees and primates there, which is I think a lot of people appreciate uh you know how important bees are as pollinators, uh, and then would possibly look at considering the idea of rights for primates because, well, to some extent, because of human exceptionalism, primates seem closer to us, they're more impersonal, we they're charismatic species often uh within within primates. But you said we're in crazy times right now. Uh

Covid-19 And Lab Animals

Claudia Hirtenfelder 13:30

COVID-19 is happening and there's a rapid race for a vaccine. And in the back of my mind, I know that who are in the labs are not bees, but primates. So are you not con or are you concerned that the current state of affairs would, you know, because people always consider them as test subjects, as subjects that have to be tested on for vaccines or for other medicinal purposes. So even though we privilege them as as primates as being beautiful and majestic and would maybe appreciate the idea of them as having rights, maybe humans might not think through or be resistant to the fact that they wouldn't be able to test their medicine on them, for example.

Charlotte Blattner 14:17

Well, that's a valid concern. Maybe I can look at it in two ways. Well, the first aspect I uh that comes to my mind as you mentioned COVID-19 in the context of animals used for experimentation really is that a lot of animals are now euthanized because laboratories are shut down. And so that just undermines how important rights would be in that context. So usually when you have a state of emergency in a state, you still need to be able, as a state, to guarantee constitutional rights. So, say primates had constitutional rights, you wouldn't be able to just euthanize them or forget about them in the laboratories while a state of emergency is being proclaimed. That I think is an important point to remember and would be like would really change the reality of lots of primates right now. And I can see it on social media in the past, especially two, three days, there's increased attention by scholars on this point. And then the second one is whether we'd be able to experiment on them. I mean, that always depends on the underlying legal regime and also on how you define rights, right? Um so rights means something for some people and another thing for many other people. And so when you think about um certain forms of experimentation, be it for certain types of purposes or because they're uh, or when you look at the severity, there are already certain prohibitions in place, especially EU law has gone a far away in that respect. So some of the most severe experiments are not permitted on primates, and there's also purposes for which primates simply cannot be used for experimental in an experimental environment. But this doesn't usually mean that they have rights because prohibitions are very specific. They prohibit certain acts, but it doesn't guarantee them a right, which is often uh a more open-ended protection and applies in my different circumstances and um social conditions. So um there's definitely a distinction that needs to be drawn between prohibitions and rights.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 16:42

Fair point. And it's it's great

Outsourcing Threat And Race To Bottom

Claudia Hirtenfelder 16:45

to hear some of the changes that are being made for primates. Uh perhaps we can move now a bit with you know, COVID-19 is a global pandemic. It's cutting across the world. And one of our focuses today is on your idea of extraterritorial jurisdiction. I hope I said it correctly. It's a horrible word. It does not roll off the tongue. Um but so far in all the episodes, we've focused a fair bit on uh you know on states and state law and what a state could do. But you are expanding this idea. You're stretching beyond state boundaries in in your thought. Is that correct?

Charlotte Blattner 17:27

In a sense, yeah. But in a sense, I'm also hugely expanding the idea of what still states' responsibilities and roles are in you know animal exploitation being a global phenomenon.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 17:43

So, what what is this idea then? What is extraterritorial jurisdiction?

Charlotte Blattner 17:48

Um well, maybe I'll start with how I actually came to think about this. So um prior to starting my doctorate, I attended quite um some, you know, uh conferences in the area of animal studies, be it animal law, animal ethics, etc. And I watched parliamentary debates on you know new propositions that were being made, be it, for example, that certain experiments on primates be prohibited or that um better protections be put in place for pigs, or that, for example, as in Germany, male chicks should not be shredded anymore for egg and poultry production. And so whenever I um observed these debates, I could see that there is one argument that brought all of the arguments to a halt. And that was well, that would be nice to have, or indeed that would be what the constitutional law of our state would mandate, but we can simply not do that because production would move abroad. So I can look left and right, and it's especially true of commercially used animals, less of you know, animals that we uh keep as so-called pets or wild animals, but it's especially true of commercially used animals. So in regulatory theory, we call this the threat of outsourcing, and that's an extremely potent threat. Um, it has to do with you know territorial supremacy of states, with power of corporations versus the state, with the power of capital. And it's also of a democratic concern, but we can go into detail with all of this um in our interview today.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 19:40

So that's so in a nutshell, what you're saying there is that people or states didn't create these policies or laws because they thought, well, we've there's it's pointless for us to do it because that'll just be outsourced and done elsewhere. Is that correct? Yes, so in layman's terms.

Charlotte Blattner 19:59

Yeah, sorry. Um maybe to expand on this. So when we look at the numbers, we see uh a huge explosion in production and consumption of eggs, meat, and dairy. So while the world population has doubled since the nine since the 1980s, um the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs has increased threefold, sometimes fourfold. And we now have a hugely global web of cage systems, feed, breeding, veterinary practices, technology, slaughter, packaging, distributions, etc. And so what happens in these systems is that it's mainly corporations who actually own those animals. Um, and they often move the production abroad as they're threatened by stricter laws. So they say, we're not gonna stay here, we'll move elsewhere because production is simply cheaper, because slaughter is cheaper, because we don't want to be burdened by regulatory requirements, etc. And these entwined economic activities that have happened actually have nudged states to compete with each other in order to attract and retain manufacturers and investors. And the way that I mean that's called regulatory competition, but the really sad part about it is that states compete with each other not by actually increasing their levels of animal product uh protection, but they do so by decreasing that level. So they're like, we we don't want you, corporation eggs to move away because you're a you know really valuable taxpayer. So we'd rather keep you. And sometimes like pharmaceutical corporations, agricultural industries, etc., are so powerful within small communities, but even you know, states that they can really force states to actually not adopt certain laws, to not enforce certain laws. Or simply even brush over the democratic will of people to make sure that they'll stay. And in regulatory theory, we actually call this a race to the bottom. So one state lowers and then the other states lowers because they're in competition with one another for capital. And so the state with the lowest standards will actually end up winning this race. And when we look at it in global perspective, what happens is that we have an anchor toward the lowest common denominator. And in this context, it's really difficult to put in place laws for commercially used animals.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 22:44

So the animals problem. Yeah. So the animals would lose and they continue to lose. So even if you've got welfareist or welfare or ideas of animal welfare protection in place, as long as companies are competing with one another to stay in particular places to earn capital or to have a stake in market shares, then the care of animals is always going to play second fiddle. Is is always going to come up.

Charlotte Blattner 23:11

That's true. But I mean the losers are not just the animals, the losers are also the people in that game. Because I mean, think back of like the the demand that male chick shredding be banned in Germany was hugely supported by the people. And um the parliament just said we won't do this because production would be moved abroad. And there's been uh case after case over several years right now, it went to the Constitutional Court, and this court said exactly the same. So economic arguments dominate this area. And what's really sad about this is that it has serious consequences for states within their territory. It's not just about protecting animals across the border, right? It is a race where what happens as an effect is that it undermines states' efforts to enact or uphold laws that protect animals. So whatever you propose, however valid your argument is,

What Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Means

Charlotte Blattner 24:10

you'll always lose because of this economic threat. So maybe if I all of this might sound a bit abstract, but maybe if I can just give one prominent example. So in the US in 2006, the federal government started to prohibit governmental funding for federal inspectors of horse meat. Without those inspections, the institutions that actually slaughter horses would not be able to legally run their business anymore. So the funding ban effectively rendered horse slaughter illegal. And then in reaction to that ban from 2006 to 2007, the horse exports to Mexico increased by 312%. So, in a sense, the entire horse slaughter industry from the US was effectively outsourced to Mexico. And because of this, more and more people in the US asked for the ban to be reversed, even if that meant that those horses wouldn't be protected from slaughter anymore. And that was even advocated for by those who wanted the horses to be protected. So their main claim was that US laws intended to protect animals have not helped, but actually failed them precisely because of globalization. So it's an environment in which states find it unnecessary or even counterproductive to enact stricter laws for commercially used animals if the borders remain open. And so to reiterate, what happens in global perspective is that really the lowest level of animal law anywhere in the world ends up defining and anchoring all global efforts to protect animals.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 25:55

Would this also be considered what is what somewhat happens with cows in in India, where there is a state law in some of the states of India where you cannot kill cows, but yet they are constantly exported across borders for both leather, beef, and um dairy production. So is that is that another example? Oh, definitely.

Charlotte Blattner 26:19

Very, very good example. And I use it in the book too. It's a huge problem because all of the cows are moved being moved to Bangladesh. And you have the army who is uh tasked to protect those cows, but it they can only do so until the border, right? And um there's ways in which you can counteract that you know threat of outsourcing, that watering down of animal protection laws. And that's basically what the book is about. And I I use the umbrella of extraterritorial jurisdiction to actually bring all of these ideas together.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 26:55

So perhaps you could walk us through it then. So how does, because I know in in your explanation of the book in the beginning, you speak a lot about these global, what you call global entanglements, which I think shows how messy the globalization slash capital use of animals is. Uh, not just you know, animals as whole beings, but even parts of them get sent to different parts of the world and are used in a variety of ways. But then you you bring up this concept, and it's in the title of your book, uh, which was released last year, right? In 2019. Yes, exactly. Um so just to give listeners the title, you said it's protecting animals within and across borders, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the challenges of globalization, which is really fascinating because most people, I think, speak about globalization as a positive. Globalization is a net good. We've got uh communication channels that are smaller, shorter, we were able to travel, you know, more frequently, that it's somehow an equal, it's an equalizer, that those that were once excluded in markets are included, but that's not the full picture. Globalization hasn't enabled everybody equally. So, how do you view extraterritorial jurisdiction as a concept or as a because you it's already a legal concept, right? It's already something that is used in practice. Is that correct?

Charlotte Blattner 28:24

Yeah, well, maybe just to explain, and I haven't defined the term thus far. So uh maybe just to give it like a normal definition, extraterritorial jurisdiction just simply means states using laws across the border. We can we can it as at such, and we could go into detail later as to what different forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction there are, and um you know the legalities different for each of those tools. But yes, um, I mean, as you mentioned, and I don't think we know we need to go into that today, but definitely there are big losers of globalization, and there's an ongoing dispute in international law as to whether globalization has, even for people, been net good or bad. But definitely when it comes to animals, I think it's fair to say that globalization has been net negative and extremely so. I mean, just looking at the numbers of animals, you know, used, exploited, and killed for factory foreign purposes is just astounding. And um, it's one it's one argument to say, and I think it's a valid one, to say that we don't need the animals for our consumption because it's gustatory pleasures mostly, and it's quite another if you see that many of these animals are killed for no reason at all. So there's lots of practices of dumping milk and dumping flesh just to keep up uh prices for these animals. So, yeah, commodification is a huge issue. But when we look at it in global terms, so one instrument to actually counteract the negative effects of globalization on people were or have been, and they preceded globalization, human rights, right? So international rights that protect the most fundamental interests of humans. And we don't have any such equivalent for animals, and that makes any work to protect animals more capaciously in global perspective hugely difficult. And in addition to that, we don't have any international treaty actually protecting animals. So for example, when we um the the treaties that are usually mentioned in that context are like the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, CITES is another convention, or the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species, Convention on Biological Diversity, etc. But if you look at it from a more critical perspective, of course, these treaties are mostly focused on conserving or preserving a certain species. We don't have any such equivalent for humans. Like imagine we had a treaty that just protected us as a species. Um that would be essentially no protection at all because we're eight billion and counting people, right? There's no there's no fear at all that our species would ever die out, except from a few people. But you know, it's essentially no protection for most of the animals. And in that scheme, most of the animals are not seen or perceived as having inherent individual worth. Individual beings are fungible. So if I'm an endangered lime, for example, and I give birth to two cubs, um, I can be killed because there's two more right now. It's the species that matters as a whole, not me as an individual. And my well-being and my interests do not usually matter under these schemes. And in addition to that,

Why Global Animal Treaties Fail

Charlotte Blattner 32:10

the numerically most exploited animals, which are farmed and research animals, are not even covered by these conventions. So it's fair to say that we don't have any international tool to effectively counter the negative effects of globalization experienced by animals.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 32:30

So so far, uh you know, in the episodes that have come up, people have spoken about the property status of animals and that the fact that animals are seen as property is a baseline reason for why they have no rights or why actually these protections are nil, because really it's about protecting humans' use of animals. So as long as animals remain under property status, the idea of them as subjects is challenged. And we've spoken a little bit also about the idea of personhood and that maybe if they are considered as persons, they could have access to some of these uh these rights or these protections, um, or not even have ac maybe start to have access to them. How would how would the idea of cutting across territory? So international law, is it that let's say Switzerland decides to give personhood to the primates that you were speaking about earlier? Um would the idea of extraterritorial jurisdiction now mean that because it wouldn't mean that because Switzerland has given it that it follows primates that are in Switzerland, you're speaking more that you need a global international institution that is creating these concepts or these changes.

Charlotte Blattner 33:44

Oh yeah, so um a lot of points come together in what you've just said, and I just want to disentangle those for a minute. So um the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction, so the question of whether and when a state can apply law across the border is essentially dealt with as a procedural question in law. Um the question of whether someone is a person, and you know, the question of status, relationships, and rights of entities under the law is often a question of substantive law. So uh the mere fact that the canton of Basel would give primates rights, for example, would not mean that um it would be possible to apply those rights extraterritorially. Um my book looks at it from an international perspective. So this is because most states always say we can't, you know, we can't uh apply law across the border or we can't put in place trade restrictions because it would violate international law, notably trade law. And my book says, no, that's not true. It's totally legal under these and these conditions per international law. So what would need to happen in that case would be for either Basel or Switzerland as a state to, in the introductory part of the animal welfare or rights act or constitution, define under which conditions the law can be applied across the border. That's just usually uh I mean this is a this is just a procedural step, but that's usually what's also needed in addition to that. And then um maybe the second point I want to mention is that I I'm I'm I'm a bit hesitant to say that I am calling for an international institution or a treaty in that respect. I have a quite pessimistic um view about that. Um most so, in light of all the challenges and problems that I just mentioned, most people actually think that the ideal situation would be to create an international treaty. So um a treaty that would express a uniform commitment of states to recognize animals as sentient beings who matter, um, to maybe prohibit cruelty against animals, to prevent their suffering, to demand humane treatment, or maybe even to lay down robust rights for animals, right? Um so but I as I you know looked at the conditions under which such treaties are formed, I found that first of all, this is very unlikely. And we can look at antitrust law to actually see that. So it's unlikely because when we look at global consumption and production patterns when it comes to animal corpses, it is that uh consumers and producers are unevenly distributed around the globe. So because they're unevenly this unevenly distributed, states will respond differently. So when you have mostly consumers of animal products, which are mostly Western states, they will tend to over-regulate because they want to protect the animals. But those states that are the main producers of animal corpses, they will tend to underregulate because they don't want their producers to be burdened by any regulatory requirements. So because they have such disparate interests, it's very, very unlikely for states to find a consensus. And I also believe that it might, even if we succeed to do that, it might be unhelpful because such agreements actually tend to converge to the lowest common denominator. So um we have, I mean, I don't know. Um I don't know if I should talk about this, but we have plenty of examples of people who have proposed international conventions. So um who actually that that actually reflect that. So there's uh an international convention for the protection of animals, there's the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare, two prominent examples. Um just to mention they're not enforced, these are proposed conventions or declarations. And if you look at them at first sight, they might seem to be quite progressive. So, for example, the International Convention for the Protection of Animals says in Article 1, the fundamental principles that humans and animals should coexist within an interdependent ecosystem. They also say that life has intrinsic value, that no animal should be killed unnecessarily or subjected to cruel acts or unnecessary suffering, etc. But you know, as Will Kemlika has um you know so beautifully articulated in the first of your series, um what's necessary or not is usually not, this is not a tool to actually protect animals. So it's an extremely watered-down version, and each state for itself will be able to define what's necessary or not. And then we also have uh articles in there that say the party shall take appropriate steps to prevent cruelty and reduce suffering. Well, what's appropriate or not? That's exactly that that that is mostly it's defined by humans for human purposes, and so animals are or even you know a representation of their interests, it's just nowhere to be found in such conventions.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 39:18

So, what is it that you would uh propose then, or what is it that you are proposing throughout throughout your book? So, because you had mentioned earlier on about human uh human rights, for example, and those are um you know they kind of follow with me. I have them wherever I I go, hopefully. Um, but obviously that shapes through practice uh and they are ideals in many in many regards. What perhaps now we can maybe get into a bit of your your actual concepts and what it is that you are proposing

Building A Cross-Border Legal Net

Claudia Hirtenfelder 39:50

the way forward would be. Yes.

Charlotte Blattner 39:52

So there are two tasks that actually lay at the heart of the book, and one is to ensure that we can gain legal certainties about the ways in which states can protect animals better and more effectively within their territory. And that the second one is um to find um out in which instances it is appropriate and necessary to actually protect animals across the border. Um, so in a sense, the main argument is that the entire factual entanglement that globalization has created calls for a response that is, you could see this as a form of legal entanglement. And so that's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Instead of trying to wait for an international regime to appear and to actually protect animals' interests, which I consider to be far, far ahead in the future, we should act right now and make sure that we can build like a jurisdictional net across the globe that helps and empowers us to better protect animals. That's that's basically the task of the book. And so I actually look at um different areas in which that can be done. So I look at trade law, for example, I look at the GATT Treaty that most of the people know, but there are other treaties under the WTO that are relevant. Then I look at investment principles, export credits, um, I look at financial institutions, uh, World Bank, for example, I look at OECD principles. But I think what what really is like the core of my work in that respect is that I look at the so-called jurisdictional principles of international law. And I mean this is this is very abstract, yeah. Let me can I make an example to to kind of yeah. So that would be great. As you know, I used to work at uh Queen's University too. And since I'm a Swiss national and I work and live in Canada, for example, it's not just that Canadian law will apply to me. And um, you know, it's not just Canada that will have a say um when it comes to the actions that I make. And so because I'm a Swiss national, also Switzerland has certain areas in which it can tell me what I should do or not. And that's usually um actions of mine that are really relevant. So it it would be killing someone else, it would be um torturing someone else, it would be paedophiliac acts, etc. And so in these instances, Switzerland says that it has a sufficient strong interest to actually make sure that the laws of Switzerland apply to my actions, regardless of whether Canada deems legal what I do or not. And this is just one principle, it's called the active personality or nationality principles. But there's a bunch of different principles that are used in that respect to actually make sure that there's effective protection globally. And so you can use the same, right? You can say, oh, um, Charlotte, Swiss national in Canada, you, whenever you deal with animals, have to ensure XYZ. That would also be an application of this active personality principle as a form of direct jurisdiction. And there's many ways in which that can be done. So if I have a continuous act that I uh do across the borders, say I ship animals from Canada to the US, then Canada per international law has the authority to actually regulate the whole journey of the animals traveling. Okay.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 43:50

Are you with me on that? I'm I'm I'm with you. So so I mean, you had mentioned at one point transboundary governance. So So this would be regulating in many ways human behavior as well. And I'm guessing you you unpacked a lot of different uh dimensions in your book. It's so comprehensive. I can't believe this is what came out of your PhD. I don't know. It's not necessarily positive thing. It's so comprehensive. Oh, it's it's it's uh hashtag PhD goals. Um I looked at that, I was like, wow. Um it's it's really an incredible uh book and piece of work. But the idea then is that it would follow, so it could regulate human behavior and human actions. So you as a Swiss national would be subject to some laws um from Switzerland, and for example, myself as a South African citizen living in Canada, I would, I'm still subject to, you know, tax laws in South Africa or whatever it is. There are a variety of legal things to use the legal term, legal, legal items that stretch beyond borders that restrict my behavior or enable my behavior in a variety of ways. And you are trying to look at this net or this entanglement as it pertains to animals.

Charlotte Blattner 45:11

Exactly. So whenever there's a factual entanglement, there is a potential legal anchor point, we call this. So there's a potential way in which you can tie states' jurisdictions to those acts. And I mean, I've I've used a very simple example of me as a natural person going somewhere else. But what I'm really trying to get at with the book is actually corporate behavior, not just human behavior. Uh, I mean, of course, corporate behavior is to some extent also human behavior, but if you think about the fact that most of the animals, um commercially used animals, are owned by corporations, many of which are multinational corporations, you really want to get at what is the nationality of the corporation, and can I, per this nationality, regulate that corporation and tell that corporation what to do? So I look a lot, I had to look into corporate law uh to find out can I get at this um substitute, can I get at this branch, can I get at this daughter corporation or the parent corporation, etc. So um yeah, in a sense, I do regulate or look at a lot at how can we tackle and get at the ways in which we do wrong to animals.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 46:29

But and what did you what did you find when you when you said you went into corporate law to see is there is there a way? What did you what did you find?

Charlotte Blattner 46:37

I mean, it's uh and I don't know how that slipped my mind, but I I really need to mention this. This is hugely untapped potential. Um, extraterritorial jurisdiction is widely practiced and accepted internationally when it comes to uh competition law, banking law, criminal law, uh human rights law, etc. It's widely used and practiced. And in animal law, just no one has looked at this so far. And no state has had the thought that we should or could do that too. And so the what I found was really that the options are incredibly vast and that this could really be a forceful tool to counter uh race to the bottom globally. But that's amazing. Yeah, yeah, that is really amazing. So I hope that the book will not just be, you know, of academic value, but actually make it to the table of policymakers, for example.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 47:32

So, what are your your next steps with that in mind? Um is there is there a uh a way forward with the book where you're introducing it to maybe Swiss you know governance structures, or what's what are the next steps with the type of work you're doing?

Charlotte Blattner 47:46

Oh, I wish that would be the case. So it wouldn't be just Switzerland, right? Because it's the work is in international law and animal law. You could basically use this book anywhere in the world and actually, you know, really counteract the harmful tendencies on a domestic level. That there's no I mean, states like to do that in parliamentary debates too, or when they speak to their people, they're like, our our hands are tied, we can't do anything, it's international law, we would violate you know, principles of international law, we would violate international trade law. And you know, the book just says it's simply not true.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 48:25

It I mean, it's used as an excuse, clearly, but this is not, it it doesn't live up to the truth that it's just not so it's a powerful tool for both those who are practicing uh within the legal realm, but also for advocates that are advocating and come up against this as a barrier. This is a tool that they could use to try and work through some of those debates. Hopefully, yeah.

Charlotte Blattner 48:48

And I also hope that it, you know, advances stalled debates when it comes to international animal law, where everyone comes up with this miraculous idea of setting up an international treaty for animals and actually, you know, have a bit uh a more critical perspective on that. And of course, I mean, as you say, the book is really long and for a good reason because it's a really complex topic. Also, because and we haven't spoken about this. Um, maybe one aspect I will mention first, and then the second one. So the first one is really that, and it ties into what Will said, you know, a lot of the law in animal law is used not just to manifest

Avoiding Legal Imperialism

Charlotte Blattner 49:30

the use of animals and make sure that we have continuous access to their bodies, but animal law is also often used as a tool to tell other people how they should treat animals. And it's often a way to just impose certain ideals onto other people, and it's not it's not about animals being protected in essence, it's about ensuring the imperialism of one nation over another, of one culture over the other, etc. And so that's really a huge concern of mine when it comes to extraterritorial jurisdiction, that states are not just blindfolded and believe, and by the way, every state believes that they have the best animal protection regime in the world, and then simply export that. Yeah, it would be horrible, right? So I don't know if you had a chance, but there are different ranking systems that rank states' uh animal laws. So, what is the status of their laws? Do they have uh norms that recognize animals as sentient beings? Are there laws on the constitutional level? So the World Animal Protection Index is one example of that, and then the organization in Australia called Voiceless has another one of those. And in a way, it's good because you can cross-compare a lot, but if you look at it from a broader meta perspective, you're like, all of this isn't really that different, especially if you look at the numbers of animals killed. If you actually look at what the conditions are for these animals as they live their lives, it's not that different. And so, what I advocate for in the book is that you know, extraterritorial jurisdiction really is a chance for states to more critically look at their levels of animal law and have a really honest conversation about where they want to get to. So ideally, we would have a ranking system that included animals as persons, animals as members, animals as rights holders, etc., and then actually rank the state in that ranking system. And we would see that all of the states are just at the bottom, not even in the 0.1% that they should be, and that they should do much more to actually get there. So ideally, extraterritorial jurisdiction would create a kind of a race to the top where states would compete with each other to actually put in place stronger protections, rights for animals, stronger legal tools, actually do a better job.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 52:08

But now throughout this uh, you know, throughout this interview, you've spoken quite a bit about how animals are entangled within capitalist networks, how, you know, there is a drive to push down their protections because the less protection or care there is for animals, often the cheaper it is to produce whatever it is that's being produced, whether it's dairy, whether it's meat, whether it's leather, there is a drive for profit and for bigger means of profit. So in this idea of the race to the top, in a world that is defined by economics and defined by capital growth, what why would states why would states what what interest is it for them to do this for the race to the top? Why not just maintain the status quo?

Charlotte Blattner 52:51

Good question. I mean, this is a really good question and one I would love to know the answer to. Um yeah, no, I'm I'm being honest. I mean, there's only so much each of us can do in our work, and I would love to know the answer to that. But um, I well, I think one of the really strong arguments about uh, you know, the way in which I try to disentangle what the problem is with the current status quo is really that it's also problematic from a democratic point of view. You have, I mean, polls, and you can say a lot about polls, they're rigged polls or they're polls with, you know, a small number of people being made, etc. But if you look at it from a broader perspective, most of the polls that are being done on animal rights, welfare, any of the animal issues really show that most people want animals to be better protected. And if you look at the practice within uh parliaments or regulatory um agencies that actually apply the law, it's exactly the opposite practice that is happening. And that's really, really problematic. I think there would need to be much more done in terms of um, and I have this, I have like a hierarchy of presumptions that I set up. Um we would need to have a huge turn when it comes to transparency. Most people have absolutely no idea about how animals are treated. They have cognitive dissonance as to, you know, the steak on my plate, of course, hasn't been treated, you know, it doesn't come from a cow. And if it were to come from a cow, the cow would have been treated nicely, etc. We would have to have, you know, recognition of animal interests. Um, we would have to make sure that animals' interests are integrated in decision-making processes. We would have to have much more extensive and detailed laws. Um, also, and this is something I'm worried about all the time, we would have to have an adequate conceptual framework as to how we balance interests between humans and animals, because most of the time the two conflict, and we have a rigged balance of interest scheme that just you know is there for uh human interests, then we would have to have prohibitions and of course animal rights, but this is a long way to go there, and I agree that you know economic realities like capitalism um really you know make it difficult for us to keep up with the hope.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 55:17

Yeah. Well, it's huge, but I do think that you are you are entering what's a really exciting realm in that you know, even amongst humans, we are we have conflicting interests and our interests are not always equal to one another, and we are always meeting one another in differential power hierarchies, right? Uh depending on the context that we find ourselves in. But I think until animals are taken seriously by us, and that becomes the social norm. So I think it's a question of which comes first, the law or, and we spoke about this as well with Will, you know, the law or the social practice. And I think until you start to see the animal on your plate as a being, or until, you know, animals are viewed as more than products, even if not legally, but just as every day in our day-to-day lives, we start to take seriously what their lives mean. You know, I think that's the way in which the status quo can begin to be challenged, that maybe there's a, I don't know, a fertile space for us to start to consider some of this transboundary governance that you're speaking of. Uh, and I think, I mean, what you're you're proposing is quite revolutionary because in a nutshell, we're it's about actually disrupting the supremacy of economics in how we structure our lives.

Charlotte Blattner 56:38

True, definitely true. And I think we've neglected, you know, we've had so many valuable arguments and articles in animal ethics and politics, etc., that are so valid, valuable, and revolutionary. Yet when you look at the law side, people are like, oh, this is utopian. We can't do this. Like, we're not even considering it. And this dichotomy has really drawn me, it has pulled me down for many years. So, um I mean, in a nutshell, it's it's a it's it's really frustrating to work in animal law in a sense, because you feel so alienated from the discipline itself that is so complicit, even constitutive, in you know, producing all the suffering of animals. So that's that's so that's that's what led me to actually also think about economics. Um but I wanted to mention something else about what you've said before, about whether either the practice or legal reform, whether one precedes the other. And I think it I mean, we always tend to speak as if, you know, most of us live in Western countries, and we always tend to speak as if the Western reality would be the only reality in the world. And so what I really want to do with the book and my work in you know, in broader perspective, is to actually make sure that people stop universalizing everything and start to appreciate that legal change often comes from within a community and a very powerful one. So, just to bring an example in that context, I don't know if you've

Animal Dignity And Social Change

Charlotte Blattner 58:20

heard that, but Switzerland has and it's been one of the first states to actually have constitutional protection of animals. And the norm is very uh unique in that it protects the so-called dignity of animals. And now you can say a lot about you know how this, of course, can be a misnomer because animals are still slaughtered in Switzerland, but it has had a real effect when it comes to case law. So it has led to prohibitions on experimenting on macaques, for example, or circummaca's, um, especially when the balancing tests did not uh succeed. But what I want to say about that is people have voted on this provision to be part of the constitution. And prior to um prior to this legal change, they had no concept or there was no social practice of animal dignity. But right now, if you ask the people in Switzerland, they know that animal's dignity is protected, and they say that's really hugely important. So this is a kind of a reverse case because the dignity provision was introduced in the context of biotechnology uh so uh GMO uh testing. So that's that's how it emerged in 1992 as a kind of tool to ensure that no GMO uh would be done when it comes uh, but also when it comes to uh animals, for example. So right now this has morphed into we as a nation protect the dignity of animals, which in this case the legal reform has totally changed social views about animals in Switzerland.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 59:59

And they start to um shape one another as well, because I I imagine that Swiss people are now taking pride in the fact that you are the first country to consider animal dignity and it starts to become part of your identity as Swiss people, maybe, hopefully. And the more when when I was speaking about practices, maybe, is I think the more that becomes a norm and part of human identity, that part of who we are is to respect the dignity of animals, then maybe those legal reforms become more robust and more important. And as they become more robust and more important, it starts to shape more and more of uh you know Swiss identity, um, hopefully.

Charlotte Blattner 1:00:42

Um I think that's where your work is really that's why your your work is hugely important in that respect, right? So you look at the presence of um so-called so animals used for farming purposes in urban areas, and I I think that is hugely important because these positive encounters with animals are really often what changes our practices with them. So in the beginning of this podcast, you've asked me what brought me to animal studies, and I told you that the question should be what brought me to animals, and the way in which I started to really think beyond this kind of narrow social membership uh enclave in which I lived, if you know Will Kimlika were to term it that way, well, actually by in having an encounter with a so-called formed animal. So I used to have a dog, and with

Meeting A Cow As An Individual

Charlotte Blattner 1:01:40

him I'd go for walks in the woods two, three hours a day. And in Switzerland, uh cafos are of course a reality, but lots of animals are um on the meadows, so you could go and say hi to them as you please. And so we would there was a the herd of cow that was always hugely interested in him, and so the more we, you know, uh spent time with them, the more they would be okay with our presence. And so one day we entered the meadow and actually lay in the grass with them for half an hour or so, and it just it just struck me at that moment how can I? I would never even think about eating my dog. Um but and the other animal who I certainly suddenly realized was an individual. Some of the herd members were sassy, some were reluctant, some were really shy, others were really, I don't know. Um so there were all kinds of characters in the herd, and I started to realize that I could I could just never say yes, or being okay just with the idea of one of those, you know, members of the herd being killed. And so this encounter is really changed my life for good from then on. And so hopefully so, hopefully, that would be you know a source of inspiration for many other people.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 1:03:05

Well, thank you so much for sharing that. And I think there is a reckoning and uh something about meeting meeting animals as as beings uh with personality and with with life that's really profound. We we have been chatting for uh almost an hour now, actually, just over an hour. Uh so before we wrap up, it's incredible, and I think you've gone full circle by you know what you said, how you came to animals, and then drawing us back to that right at the end here. It's uh really quite beautiful. But before we wrap up, uh, do you have a paragraph or a quote you would like to read, perhaps from your own book or from someone who's inspired you?

Charlotte Blattner 1:03:46

Yes, I'd love that. So it's a quote that's in my book,

A Quote On Animal Self-Governance

Charlotte Blattner 1:03:50

but not from me, that I would love to read. And I I believe it's a really beautiful quote because it ties my work to some of what some of the issues that you know you've been discussing in the context of the blog of the podcast. So um I'm really concerned about the fact that that we shouldn't just consider animal interests, but that there should be a way in which they can be co-participants and co-deciders of what the future should look like. And so um, there's a really cool, cool short introduction to law by Kristen Stilt in the book uh in the edited collection Critical Terms for Animal Studies. And I'm just gonna quickly um um just reiterate what she says in that context when it comes to making law from humans and applying them onto animals and the problems that we create thereby, and maybe also opportunities for alternative visions. So she writes animals did not ask us as humans to make laws that apply to them, nor did we ask them if they wanted our laws. Under an alternative framework, we might relate to animals as differing, self-governing societies related to one another. Instead, we impose our jurisdiction and our laws on animals. We use law to put animals into categories of our own choosing and control them both conceptually and physically. We use law not to recognize, embrace, cultivate, and enable our innate characteristics and abilities, but rather to position them in a way that is convenient and conducive to our own wants and need. Animals do not have the ability to challenge us on our own terms because they're not formally part of any society's lawmaking process.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 1:05:42

That's incredible. And so so to the point. I love the idea of uh she doesn't use the words, but of animal governance, that animal societies do exist. They do govern themselves on their own quote in quotations, laws and their own rules. Uh And we don't recognize those necessarily.

Charlotte Blattner 1:06:02

Yeah. So that would be a beautiful like alternative vision of what law is and could be.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 1:06:09

Interspecies law, if you will. Yeah, like it, I mean, and it's it's a it's an interesting thing to think through because we've got a lot of, you know, animal ethology, you know, we've got a lot of research that's been done on understanding animal societies and understanding how animals structure their lives and their communities, but we tend to frame that almost exclusively through the idea of instinct. Uh, you know, we don't frame what we do as humans as as instinctual. Um, I mean, sometimes we we might, but as soon as you shift that idea of instincts and you rather say, okay, this is how they're governing their societies, the discourse shifts and changes completely. You have to take it more seriously.

Charlotte Blattner 1:06:51

Yeah, and I I really think that this is a battle, you know, across all lines. The same was the case when it comes to children's rights and their call to be, you know, included in decision-making processes. And we've had huge um, you know, positive leaps forward in that respect. And I just do hope, and you know, if you look at the literature, it's so promising and rich. And I really hope if you want to, I can share some of the links for your readers for anyone who's interested in animal

Where To Find The Work

Charlotte Blattner 1:07:20

normativity and languages and how to include them in decision-making processes and all of that if they're interested.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 1:07:27

So that would be great. And perhaps you can tell us now also where if someone is interested in the work you're doing, um, your book, as well as maybe wants to reach out to you about something you've mentioned, how can uh folks find out more about you?

Charlotte Blattner 1:07:41

Um well, the easiest way would just be to enter my name into or just to go into www.sharlotblattner.net and you'll find all of my research. It's linked, you'll find my email address, etc. And maybe just uh for anyone interested in following up on some of the issues that we talked about today, namely uh animals in a you know a global scheme. The book that I wrote is freely available, open access on Oxford University Press site. So you can credible. You can just I couldn't believe that I could just get the PDF. Yeah, yeah. It's a fascinating. So uh thanks to the Swiss National Science Foundation in that respect. Yeah.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 1:08:25

Yes, thank you. And um, I mean that that cover picture is also what a what a great what a great cover photo that's.

Charlotte Blattner 1:08:32

Oh gosh, yes. Shout out to Dana Allen if she ever hears that podcast. I'd love to. She's she's been absolutely incredible. I fell in love with this picture early on. It's called the Pecking Order, and I just I just felt like it has so much to tell when it comes to protecting animals and protecting animals globally. Yeah.

Claudia Hirtenfelder 1:08:52

It's incredible. And the pecking order, what a what a good way to put what we've been speaking about here today. Um, well, Charlotte, I I want to say thank you so much for for your time. And uh I know it's getting quite late there for you now. So I hope you have a wonderful Easter weekend, and uh thank you again for joining me today. Thank you so much, Claudia, for having me. I really enjoyed being here. A big thank you to Gordon Clark for doing the bed music, Jeremy John for the logo, and a huge thank you to Animals in Philosophy, Politics, Law and Ethics, Apple for sponsoring this podcast.

Siobhan O'Sullivan 1:09:33

This is The Animal Turn with me, Claudia Herzenfelder For more great iRull Podcasts, visit irallpod.com. That's I R O A R P O D.com.