Show simple item record Donaldson, Sue Kymlicka, Will 2015-07-28T06:56:35Z 2015-07-28T06:56:35Z 2013
dc.description.abstract In their commentaries on Zoopolis, Alasdair Cochrane and Oscar Horta raise several challenges to our argument for a “political theory of animal rights”, and to the specific models of animal citizenship and animal sovereignty we offer. In this reply, we focus on three key issues: 1) the need for a groupdifferentiated theory of animal rights that takes seriously ideas of membership in bounded communities, as against more “cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- cosmopolitan” or “cosmo- ” or “cosmo- or “cosmozoopolis” alternatives that minimize the moral significance of boundaries and membership; 2) the challenge of defining the nature and scope of wild animal sovereignty; and 3) the problem of policing nature and humanitarian intervention to reduce suffering in the wild.
dc.format application/pdf
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Law, Ethics and Philosophy
dc.publisher Law, Ethics and Philosophy
dc.rights.uri The authors transfers a non exclusive rights of distribution, public communication and reproduction of his or her work for publication in Law, Ethics and Philosophy (LEAP) and inclusion in databases in which the journal is indexed.
dc.source.uri Law, Ethics and Philosophy; 2013: Núm.: 1; p. 143-160
dc.source.uri Law, Ethics and Philosophy; 2013: Núm.: 1; p. 143-160
dc.title A Defense of animal citizens and sovereigns
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article 2015-06-22T09:37:00Z

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

Advanced Search


My Account


Compliant to Partaking