Human Wildlife Conflicts

puppet RIGHTS OR HUMAN DUTIES? A JURISPRUDENTIAL QUAGMIRE ON beast RIGHTS (HUMAN RIGHTS vs. ANIMAL RIGHTS- JURISPRUDENTIAL FRONTIERS) ABSTRACTOur ecosystem is a sophisticated organization which includes legions of flora and fauna that coexist harmoniously with emerge disrupting the sacred equilibrium. Homo-sapiens have stand out this ladder of species by virtue of the sixth sense of thought. Even though pieces do possess this exceptional faculty of ground, they cannot thrive in solitude but can only sustain by placing them amongst the occupy of the organization. When humans started organizing themselves, attained civilization and improved their standards of living, they unfortunately undermined the relative immensity of the co-organisms which make up the system, thus giving rise to the emergence of an anthropocentric society.The Research Problem The jurisprudential quagmire is the question whether animal(prenominal)s too involve rights analogous to that of human rights. Huma n rights are those inalienable, universal and egalitarian primeval rights to which a person is in presentntly entitled merely by reason of his or her birth as a human. In the light of this definition, animal rights is an absolute misnomer. In jurisprudential terminology, a right is an cheer recognize and protected by law. A right unlike an interest is a valid claim or potential claim, made by a moral agent under principles that govern both the claimant and the target of the claim. It presupposes 2 legal persons, viz., the subject of the right and subject of the commerce. Animals cannot be the bearers of such rights because the ideal of rights is essentially human it is rooted in and has force only indoors a human moral/legal world. Moreover, by no load up of imagination, animals can be regarded as legal persons. In fact, it is not the interest of the animal but the interest of the human beings that animals should also coexist with them. fit in to Leon Duguit, your right is a byproduct of the other person preforming his duty towards you. He says on that point is no right but only duty. If the other has a duty towards you, you feel like having a right. Viewed in the light of Duguits theory, the mounting puzzle of protection of wild career is actually a human rights reduce and not an issue of animal rights. Animalright is, in fact, an illusion created by human beings performing their duties to animals, to the ecosystem, to the reputation and to the society effectively. If law is about balancing of conflicting interests as pointed out by Rudolf Von Ihering and later developed by Roscoe Pound, the conflict involved here is the conflict between the interests of those who indiscriminately destruct the ecosystem for personal motives and of those who are concerned about the mother earth.The Scheme of the Article This article seeks to explore the square(a) nature of the jurisprudential basis of the legal protection of wild life and endeavors to put in cor rect perspective the need for eco-governance. It argues that animals cannot have rights in the jurisprudential sense that right of an animal is an illusion created because of the presence of human duty to protect it that if human beings acquire human rights by birth, they also incur absolute human duties by birth that the ultimate heading of wild life protection law is to save and protect the animals and not their rights. It concludes that human beings are reckoned to be morally upright species and causing upset and suffering to animals puts them in a position much lesser than that of human. ADHEENA BIJU IVth Semester B.Com., LL. B (Hons) School of Legal Studies CUSAT Kochi-22