by John Otrompke
On or about the first day of spring this year, the president of South Korea announced a proposed amendment to the country’s constitution. The lengthy proposal (a copy of the Korean text of which is on file with this author) addresses a variety of topics including presidential term limits, as well as animal protection.
If the amendment passes, Korea will join other countries such as Ecuador, Germany, India, and Switzerland whose constitutions specifically mention animal welfare. While the language in the South Korean proposal relating to animals is brief in relation to the entire text, it could have significant impact on efforts to improve the well-being of animals in Korea.
“The proposed amendment bill includes, for the first time in constitutional history, the nation’s responsibility for animal protection. Article 38 (3) stipulates that ‘the nation must implement a policy for the protection of animals,’” said Jooyeon Park, LLM, attorney and co-president of People for Nonhuman Rights.
But how useful will this proposed language be in addressing specific animal problems in Korea, such as the dog meat trade? Possibly very useful, experts say.
“It will make it possible to file a constitutional complaint against the government’s neglect to establish a policy and laws for fundamental and better animal welfare- for example, the insufficient law articles for wildlife protection. It is expected to be a stepping stone for securing the special status and rights of animals, as it recognizes ‘animal protection’ as a constitutional value,” explained Park, who is currently litigating an animal rights case involving dog slaughter in South Korea (see below).
A Growing Chorus of Opposition Among Enlightened Constitutions
“Animal welfare is an important part of our constitution in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. The constitutional provisions don’t provide a private citizen with the means of bringing a case, but at least he could cooperate with law enforcement bodies,” said Antoine Goetschel, JD, founder and president of the Global Animal Law Association in Zurich.
In Germany, the effect of such a constitutional provision is simple, explained Goetschel, who has drafted a UN convention on animal health and protection. “It just foresees since 2002 that the animals in the short term ought to be protected by the state. It sounds boring, but in those countries when animals are protected by the Constitution, for example, artists are not allowed to abuse animals to produce their artwork. It gives a balance to the animal, and the judge has to balance that out.”
By incorporating the concept of dignity into its constitution, however, Switzerland is quite unique. “The idea is to acknowledge an inherent or intrinsic value of animals, who are not to be reduced just to a machine, or instrumentalized,” added Goetschel, formerly the prosecutor and chief animal welfare attorney for the canton of Zurich.
“Based on the Constitution, we have animal welfare legislation in Switzerland, and based on the legislation, we have an animal welfare ordinance which is quite large.” As an example, he said, the boiling of lobster is illegal in Switzerland.
“Constitutional provisions in Ecuador, Germany and Switzerland recognize animals as sentient beings and gives them a legal status that is more than mere property, but not fully human; a third legal status. This new constitutional amendment doesn’t state specific animal rights, but it is a big step,” added Minhee Janet Yoo, policy team manager for Coexistence of Animal Rights on Earth (CARE) in Seoul.
Growing Concern for Animals in South Korea
Under South Korean law, within 60 days of the proposal to amend the constitution, the National Assembly must vote on it, according to Park. If two-thirds of the National Assembly approve the bill, a referendum must be held within 30 days. But even if the constitution is amended, a separate law enactment is necessary for the distribution of dog meat to be prohibited, she said.
“The dog meat trade is not banned by the proposed new constitutional amendment, but it could make it possible to regulate inhumane industries in South Korea such as the dog meat trade,” noted Yoo of CARE.
Concern about dog meat, for example, has been growing among humanitarians around the world. (It is sometimes said that In the dog meat trade, dogs are sometimes slaughtered by hanging them by the neck until dead, because of a superstitious belief that the meat tastes better).
“Fortunately, there are less people who think that dog meat is Korean culture these days,” said the attorney, Park. “Recently, as the Korean population with companion animals highly increased up to over 10 million, it is seen that the awareness and movement for animal rights is on its rise; more than half a million people signed a petition put forward by the Humane Society and Korea Animal Rights Advocates (KARA) this year.
“Currently the dog meat trade is neither legal nor illegal under the law,” added Park. “The Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, which regulates animal slaughter and distribution for edible purposes, excludes ‘dogs’ from the livestock subject to slaughter, so slaughtering dogs for food is not covered by the Act.”
Progress in Korea as Measured by Other Laws
However, another law, the Animal Protection Act, was also amended in March.
“The keeping, transportation, and slaughtering of dogs is done in ways that cause much unnecessary physical (as well as mental) suffering. The amended Animal Protection Act enables us to press definitive and specific charges of ‘physical suffering’ on the dog meat farmers and traders,” explained Yoo of CARE.
“Seals, as one of the endangered species, are protected by the Wildlife Protection and Management Act as endangered; thus it is punishable to capture, collect, damage or kill any of them. If an animal is not one of the endangered species, it is likely to be prohibited to kill it for fur by Animal Protection Act. For example, it is illegal to kill in front of other dogs or to kill by a cruel method under the Animal Protection Act,” said attorney Park.
“Most of the dog slaughters use an electric stick to kill a dog, so it must be considered as a ‘cruel’ method. However, judgments in the courts (and sometimes prosecution itself) may be different in judging this ‘cruelty.’ Also, prosecutors or courts tend not to strictly enforce the APA. Hence, the same slaughtering of a dog may have different results depending on the court. For example, even though a court once ruled that killing a dog using electric rods violated the APA, the other court recently decided that the same action is not illegal as they consider the method is not cruel, because of the fact that electric slaughter is also used in pigs.”
The question of whether slaughtering a dog by means of an electric pole is prohibited as cruel by Korea’s Animal Protection Act is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Korea, in a prosecutor-initiated case (2017-do-16732). (The link connects to a Korean language website concerning the case in the Court of Appeal).
Park’s organization, People for Nonhuman Rights, has filed an attorney’s written opinion with the court in that case, she noted.
No comments:
Post a Comment