Skip to main content
  • Our New Client in Our First California Lawsuit 
  • LA Times: “For too long, we’ve salved our consciences with tepid animal welfare laws”
  • “The most important animal-rights case of the 21st century”
  • NhRP Seminar Series
  • NhRP Interview Series
<
>
Blog

Back to nonhumanrights.org

  • Donate
  • Shop   ↗

Back to nonhumanrights.org

  • About NhRP
    • Meet the Team
    • Our Story
    • FAQ
    • Unlocking the Cage
    • Media Center
    • Contact Us
  • Our Work
    • Litigation
    • Legislation + Advocacy
    • Education
    • The Fight to #FreeTheFresnoElephants
    • Free Happy Now
  • Progress
  • Blog

Issues and Analysis

The Difference between Common Law and Civil Law

By Steven Wise on November 27, 2014
Share this story:

sandra,orangutan

It was recently reported that an Argentinian organization called The Organization of Professional Attorneys for the Rights of Animals was rebuffed by a judge in its attempt to free an orangutan named Sandra, who is imprisoned in a Buenos Aires zoo. As the Nonhuman Rights Project has publicly stated it is working with legal organizations in several countries, including Argentina, to attain legal personhood for such nonhuman animals as Sandra, we have received numerous inquiries as to whether we are working with this group.

We are not. We applaud the humane motivation that obviously lies beyond such suits. But we are not working with Argentinian lawyers to achieve legal personhood for any nonhuman animal held captive in Argentina through litigation. That might seem odd, as the NhRP is so vigorously litigating multiple habeas corpus lawsuits in the United States.

The reason is that there are important differences between our litigation in the United States and the Argentinian litigation on behalf of Sandra. The first difference is that the habeas corpus lawsuits the NhRP has filed in the State of New York were preceded by more than 25 years of laying the necessary groundwork. Law review articles were written. Books were published. Dozens of law school classes on nonhuman animal personhood were taught at some of the best law school in the United States. The NhRP’s habeas corpus lawsuits are merely the tip of a very large legal iceberg.

It is the job of common law courts, in appropriate circumstances, to make both law and public policy, just as the legislature does.Second, the NhRP is filing its lawsuits in state common law jurisdictions. Argentina is a civil law jurisdiction. The difference is critical.

A common law court – at least a good one – considers itself equal to the legislature in those matters in which the legislature has not definitively spoken, which are many, and generally include the writ of habeas corpus. It is the job of common law courts, in appropriate circumstances, to make both law and public policy, just as the legislature does.

Some states, such as New York, where the NhRP has brought its first three cases demanding that a court issue a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a chimpanzee, even characterize the writ of habeas corpus as a common law writ that is not even subject to interference by the legislature.

In contrast, in a civil law jurisdiction such as Argentina, the legislature is paramount in law-making and policy-making. The job of a civil law judge is generally not to make law or public policy, but to enforce the law and public policy that the legislature enacts.

A writ of habeas corpus is generally available only to a “person” in both common law and those civil law jurisdictions that recognize the writ. In a common law jurisdiction, such as New York, the courts are free to interpret “person” to include those entities that the court believes justice and good public policy require to be recognized as “persons.” They may choose not to do so; but it is their choice. In contrast, a civil law court is virtually required to adhere to the definition of “person” the legislature has mandated. And the legislature will almost certainly not have intended the word “person” to have included a nonhuman animal.

This is why the NhRP is working with lawyers in such civil law jurisdictions as Argentina, Switzerland, Spain, and Portugal to achieve legal personhood for at least some nonhuman animals not through litigation, but through legislation, or in at least one country, referendums.

Steven Wise is the founder and president of the NhRP, representing nonhuman animals in the courtroom and serving as lead spokesperson for the organization’s work.

Must Reads

  • Why Happy needs and deserves sanctuary in Court Cases, Grassroots Advocacy
  • Amicus support for the fight to #FreeHappy in Court Cases
  • Where is Tommy the Chimp? in News
  • Why We Fight for Nonhuman Rights: Sk’aliCh’elh-tenaut’s Story Part 1 in Stories
  • “The key is ending injustice, period” in Interviews

Get Involved

Subscribe to our email list to receive updates and learn about events and volunteer opportunities in your area.

Nonhuman Rights Project

We are the only civil rights organization in the United States dedicated solely to securing rights for nonhuman animals.

5195 NW 112th Terrace
Coral Springs, FL 33076
Tax ID #: 04-3289466

Sign up to receive updates

© 2023 Nonhuman Rights Project, all rights reserved.

  • Privacy

Follow us to get updates