La Protección jurídica de los seres sintientes una reconceptualización del sujeto de derecho en los sistemas jurídicos contemporáneos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29105/dj6.11-209Keywords:
Sentient beings, animal rights, constitutionalism, subject of law, international jurisprudence, comparative lawAbstract
The legal recognition of sentient beings represents one of the most significant debates in the contemporary evolution of law. Traditionally, legal systems have considered animals as property or things subject to appropriation, subordinating their protection to human interests. However, advances in science, animal ethics, and legal criteria have driven a conceptual transformation aimed at recognizing animals as beings capable of experiencing pain, pleasure, and emotions, which demands a reconsideration of their legal status.
This article analyzes the philosophical, constitutional, and legal foundations that support the possibility of recognizing enhanced legal protection for sentient beings through a theoretical and comparative approach, examining the main doctrinal currents on animal sentience, the evolution of international regulations, and various judicial precedents that have challenged the traditional status of animals under the law. furthermore, this study analyzes landmark legal cases in which attempts have been made to recognize certain animals as subjects of law or holders of legally protected interests. It proposes a constitutional reform for Mexico that expressly recognizes animals as sentient beings, establishing state obligations of protection and a legal framework consistent with contemporary principles of interspecies justice.
Keywords: , animal rights, constitutionalism, subject of law, international jurisprudence, comparative law
Downloads
References
Bentham, J. (2007). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford University Press.
Francione, G. (2010). Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. Columbia University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Harvard University Press.
Regan, T. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
Singer, P. (2015). Animal Liberation (Updated edition). HarperCollins Publishers.
Stone, C. (1972). Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45(2), 450–501.
Favre, D. (2010). Integrating animal interests into our legal system. Animal Law Review, 10(1), 87–98. DOI
Francione, G. (2008). Animal welfare and the moral value of nonhuman animals. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 6(1), 24–36. DOI
Sunstein, C. & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press.
Garner, R. (2013). A Theory of Justice for Animals: Animal Rights in a Nonideal World. Oxford University Press.
Tribunal de Buenos Aires. (2014). Asociación de Funcionarios y Abogados por los Derechos de los Animales (AFADA) s/ habeas corpus en favor de la orangutana Sandra. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Juzgado de Garantías de Mendoza. (2016). Habeas Corpus presentado a favor del chimpancé Cecilia. Mendoza, Argentina.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (2016). Sentencia C-041/17 sobre protección animal y bienestar animal. Bogotá, Colombia.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (2010). Sentencia C-666/10 sobre espectáculos con animales y deber de protección estatal. Bogotá, Colombia.
Supreme Court of India. (2014). Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja. Nueva Delhi, India.
Bundesverfassungsgericht. (2002). Reforma constitucional del artículo 20a de la Ley Fundamental sobre protección de animales. Alemania.
Swiss Federal Constitution. (1999). Artículo sobre protección de animales y dignidad animal. Confederación Suiza.
Nonhuman Rights Project. (2015). Nonhuman Rights Project vs. Lavery. Supreme Court of the State of New York, United States.
Bekoff, M. & Pierce, J. (2009). The moral lives of animals. New Scientist, 201(2697), 30–33. DOI
Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford University Press.
Rollin, B. (2006). Animal rights and human morality. Journal of Agricultural Ethics, 19(1), 7–15. DOI
Garner, R., & O’Sullivan, S. (2016). The political turn in animal ethics. Ethics and Politics, 18(3), 51–68. DOI
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Capabilities, entitlements, rights: Supplementation and critique. En C. Sunstein & M. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (pp. 89–110). Oxford University Press.
Wise, S. (2010). Animal rights, one step at a time. En C. Sunstein & M. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (pp. 19–50). Oxford University Press.
World Animal Protection. (2023). Global Animal Protection Index. [En línea]. Disponible en: https://www.worldanimalprotection.org
Fecha de consulta: 15 de marzo de 2026.
Cambridge University. (2012). The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. [En línea]. Disponible en: https://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
Fecha de consulta: 15 de marzo de 2026.
Animal Legal Defense Fund. (2024). Animal legal cases and jurisprudence database. [En línea]. Disponible en: https://aldf.org
Fecha de consulta: 15 de marzo de 2026.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Miguel Angel Lopez Trejo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions:
- Authors will retain their copyright and guarantee the journal the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. That allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication are indicated in this magazine.
- Authors may make other independent and additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (eg, include it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book) provided that they clearly indicate that the work it was first published in this magazine.
- Authors are allowed and recommended to publish their work on the Internet (for example on institutional or personal pages) after the review and publication process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and a greater and faster dissemination of the published work ( See The effect of open access).
published journal, edited by the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, through its Faculty of Law and Criminology. Publication address: Av. Universidad s/n, Cd. Universitaria, C.P. 66455, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, Mexico.