Djurs rättsliga ställning – Om djurskyddsintressets historiska utveckling och roll i förvaltningsförfarandet

Sammanfattning: The Swedish animal welfare legislation states that animals have interests and needs that must be protected. However, throughout history, animals have been regarded as objects in legal terms, lacking the capacity to hold in- terests and rights. This essay explores the historical development of said or- der and its implications for how animal welfare interests are represented in Swedish administrative procedures. In the mid 19th century, when the need for animal welfare laws were first discussed, a conflict was identified between protecting animal interests and the fact that animals were considered to be objects not capable of holding interests. Animals couldn't take legal standing or represent themselves, lead- ing to the first animal protection law framing animal cruelty as an offense against the public. Witnesses of animal cruelty were deemed victims of the crime, rather than the affected animal. In the 19th century, animal welfare was by some primarily seen as a way to protect human morality and human property. In that regard the regulation was compatible with the perception of animals. The legal solution that was introduced with the animal cruelty law was based on perceiving the animal welfare interest as a public interest. This so- lution forms the basis of today’s animal welfare legislation as well, both criminal and administrative. However, the perception of animals has changed, and the essay argues that contemporary legislation recognizes ani- mals as sentient beings with interests worthy of protection that should be at- tributed to the animals themselves. The legislative preparatory works also indicate that lawmakers consider animals to have intrinsic value, independ- ent of their instrumental value to humans. Arguments about animal protec- tion as human property or moral protection seem to have become obsolete. Consequently, the legal status of animals as objects is now being discussed and reevaluated around the world, with some countries having taken the step of reclassifying animals into a third category: non-objects. Furthermore, the essay discusses how the animal welfare interest, as a pub- lic interest, is being represented in administrative procedures and whether the current system is satisfactory, given the changed view of animals and considering aspects related to the rule of law principle. In conclusion, the essay states that the identified legal contradiction, between animal’s legal status and the ambition to protect animal’s interests, must be addressed by reevaluating the legal status of animals. It also suggests the need for an in- dependent authority tasked with safeguarding animal welfare interests in rel- evant administrative procedures to enhance the procedural protection of these interests.