헌법상 ‘동물 보호’ 규정의 필요성

Abstract

In traditional jurisprudence, animals were merely objects of ethics and rights. From this perspective, the idea that the state should restrict people's rights for the sake of “animal protection” was a difficult theory to embrace.
 However, as regulations for the protection of animals have emerged in various forms around the world, an increasing number of countries have directly stated “animal protection” in their constitutions in order to provide a constitutional basis for such regulations. Even if ‘animal protection’ is not directly stipulated in the constitution, ‘animal protection’ is often interpreted to be included in environmental regulations to provide a legal basis.
 There is a big difference between stipulating “animal protection” in the constitution and recognizing it as a matter of interpretation. While constitutional interpretation is done by constitutional judges, constitutional amendments must be initiated and approved by the president or the National Assembly, and put to a referendum to reflect the current values of the time.
 In addition, the interpretation of constitutional provisions can be changed at any time, putting the protection of legal interests in an unstable position. Yet, stipulating “animal protection” in constitutional provisions cannot be easily changed due to the nature of the unwritten constitution, thus ensuring legal stability.
 People's awareness of animal welfare is increasing day by day, and the number of regulations restricting people's rights to protect animals is increasing accordingly. In these changing times, ‘animal protection’ recognized only through the interpretation of the Constitution is bound to face certain limitations. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure legal stability for ‘animal protection’ by stipulating it in the Constitution and using it as a constitutional basis for limiting people's basic rights.