Abstract
If we recognize that animals have rights, even minimal and rudimentary as the right to not to be killed without an acceptable reason or the right to live without constant or repetitive pain (§ 17 Animal Protection Law), then the consequence is that they would be covered by the right to selfdefense. Such rights would configure the attacked subjective right, which is exercised by humans instead of animals and they do so in their interest based on a legitimate third party’s defense. The legitimate defense in favor of animals is, however, less extensive than the one which is carried out in favor of a human being, according to the thesis I defend in this article.
Highlights
Si reconocemos que los animales tienen derechos –así sean mínimos y rudimentarios como es de derecho a no ser matado sin una razón aceptable así como el derecho a vivir sin dolor constante o repetitivo (§ 17 Ley de Protección Animal)- la consecuencia es que quedarían amparados por el derecho a la legítima defensa en la medida en que tales derechos configurarían el derecho subjetivo atacado, la cual la ejercen humanos en lugar de animales y lo hacen en su interés con base en una legítima defensa de tercero
If we recognize that animals have rights, even minimal and rudimentary as the right to not to be killed without an acceptable reason or the right to live without constant or repetitive pain (§ 17 Animal Protection Law), the consequence is that they would be covered by the right to self-defense
Solo se podría actuar en legítima defensa de los animales si estos fueran sujetos de derecho, así fuera en un sentido mínimo
Summary
3. La cuestión previa: ¿legítima defensa de animales? O lo que es lo mismo: ¿animales como sujetos de derechos subjetivos? 4. El problema real: ¿derecho a la defensa completo a favor de los animales?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
