The current legal framework pertaining to animals does not sufficiently address the welfare of animals. The Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962 does not specifically regulate the welfare of animals contained in research laboratories. Animals utilized for experimental research purposes endure tremendous “unnecessary suffering” due to legislative inaptitude. Experimental animals suffer inherent abuses associated with experimental research because of the methods, procedures and processes relevant to the experiments. The most controversial method of experimental research is vivisection. The method of vivisection is not only invasive but also causes “unnecessary suffering” to animals. The non-inherent abuses animals suffer during confinement in a laboratory solely relates to uncontrolled and unregulated conduct of staff. Continuing the application of the current legislative framework may also be detrimental to the health and well-being of humans. Animals are specifically utilized as objects of science in research laboratories. The data obtained from research experiments conducted on animals are for the benefit of humankind rather than the animals. Scientific research concluded that not only are invasive methods of research conducted on live animals generally regarded as useless but extrapolating data from animals to humans can also be misleading, unnecessary and dangerous. False results and questionable methodologies are some of the other problems that seem to require urgent attention. Ethically, neither human nor animal should be utilized at the expense of the other and therefore it would be reasonable to recommend that legislative reform takes place. The human perception of animals in terms of the relationship we have with them is the reason why legislative inaptitude in terms of animal welfare exists. The current approach followed is the philosophy of Utilitarianism. Utilitarians believe that neither humans nor animals have rights but interests. Utilitarianism focuses on the permissibility of an act (the use of animals) by weighing the benefits of such an act to the costs suffered because of such act. If the benefits outweigh the costs suffered, the act is permissible. The application of Utilitarianism seems to be the crux of our legislative inaptitude. The human perception and view of animals must therefore be re-directed to develop a sufficient legal framework in terms of animal welfare. A solution offered is to apply an alternative interpretation to the concept of “dignity” (capabilities approach) and progressive realisation. In terms of this solution a species capabilities in terms of its value, capabilities and worth are considered. Inherent to its value, capabilities and worth, is its “dignity”. Once the alternative interpretation of “dignity” is acknowledged, the progressive realisation of its interests can be achieved. / Thesis (LLM)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

The current legal framework pertaining to animals does not sufficiently address the welfare of animals. The Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962 does not specifically regulate the welfare of animals contained in research laboratories. Animals utilized for experimental research purposes endure tremendous “unnecessary suffering” due to legislative inaptitude. Experimental animals suffer inherent abuses associated with experimental research because of the methods, procedures and processes relevant to the experiments. The most controversial method of experimental research is vivisection. The method of vivisection is not only invasive but also causes “unnecessary suffering” to animals. The non-inherent abuses animals suffer during confinement in a laboratory solely relates to uncontrolled and unregulated conduct of staff. Continuing the application of the current legislative framework may also be detrimental to the health and well-being of humans. Animals are specifically utilized as objects of science in research laboratories. The data obtained from research experiments conducted on animals are for the benefit of humankind rather than the animals. Scientific research concluded that not only are invasive methods of research conducted on live animals generally regarded as useless but extrapolating data from animals to humans can also be misleading, unnecessary and dangerous. False results and questionable methodologies are some of the other problems that seem to require urgent attention. Ethically, neither human nor animal should be utilized at the expense of the other and therefore it would be reasonable to recommend that legislative reform takes place. The human perception of animals in terms of the relationship we have with them is the reason why legislative inaptitude in terms of animal welfare exists. The current approach followed is the philosophy of Utilitarianism. Utilitarians believe that neither humans nor animals have rights but interests. Utilitarianism focuses on the permissibility of an act (the use of animals) by weighing the benefits of such an act to the costs suffered because of such act. If the benefits outweigh the costs suffered, the act is permissible. The application of Utilitarianism seems to be the crux of our legislative inaptitude. The human perception and view of animals must therefore be re-directed to develop a sufficient legal framework in terms of animal welfare. A solution offered is to apply an alternative interpretation to the concept of “dignity” (capabilities approach) and progressive realisation. In terms of this solution a species capabilities in terms of its value, capabilities and worth are considered. Inherent to its value, capabilities and worth, is its “dignity”. Once the alternative interpretation of “dignity” is acknowledged, the progressive realisation of its interests can be achieved. / Thesis (LLM)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

當人們談論動物保護時，可能提出的問題大約不脫「人類是否應該保護動物」、「人類為何保護動物」、「人類應該保護哪些動物」，以及「人類如何保護動物」之延伸範疇，針對這四個問題又可以依所採之研究基礎偏重倫理學或法學，而有各種不同的回應。 本文採取偏重法學角度之立場，從實定法出發，隨時序個別分析我國及德國動物保護法之歷史發展及現行法呈現之樣貌後，藉由與咸認先進的德國動物保護法制及其背後所可能隱含之人與動物關係的歷史變遷進行比較研究，試圖在同與異之間尋找我國動物保護法所隱含的人與動物關係之可能解釋，此乃嘗試從實定法追溯背後的倫理學意涵，並在此解釋基礎上，進一步探求動物保護法益之可能回答，由倫理學再回歸法學領域，均是試圖回應「人類是否應該保護動物」及「人類為何保護動物」二問。 最後嘗試藉由求得之動物保護法益「道德感情」來建構我國動物保護刑事規範，則是試圖給出「人類應該保護哪些動物」及「人類如何保護動物」二問在刑事法層面上之回答，對現行動物保護法刑事規範提出修正建議，包括將動物一般保護規定及刑事規範分勾，擴張動物一般保護之客體範疇而維持刑事規範涉及之行為客體範圍，以重構本文理想之動保刑事規範。 / When referring to animal protection, the most popular questions probably will be within the range of the following four. Should humans protect animals? Why should humans protect animals? What kind of animals should humans protect? And the final one, how do humans protect animals? The answers can be changed depending on the different views, like ethics view or legal point of view. This study basically focuses on the legal point of view, starting with Taiwan’s Animal Protection Act and German’s Animal Welfare Act (in German: Tierschutzgesetz), by comparing those two different animal protection systems, trying to figure out the development level of Taiwan’s Animal Protection Act in the tide of the world’s development of animal welfare, then using the conclusion to explore the legal interest of animal protection, attempting to answer the first two questions: Should humans protect animals? And why? Furthermore, using the legal interest “moral emotion” to construct ideal animal protection criminal legal norms, attempting to answer the rest of the questions: What kind of animals should humans protect? And how to protect? The final purpose is to reconstruct an ideal animal protection criminal law system in Taiwan.