Upload File

ambiguity as legal technique: a discussion of chimpanzee personhood

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Ambiguity as Legal Technique: A Discussion of Chimpanzee Personhood
prev
next
out of 36
Download Ambiguity as Legal Technique: A Discussion of Chimpanzee Personhood

Upload: alexdamianos

Post on 09-Jan-2016

6 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

  • The LONDON SCHOOL of ECONOMICS and POLITICAL SCIENCE Department of Law

    MSc Law, Anthropology and Society DISSERTATION COVER SHEET

    (Please attach to both copies of your essay)

    Candidate number

    1 9 2 1 7

    Academic year

    2013 to 2014

    Course code and title

    LL4E9 - Dissertation: MSc Law, Anthropology and Society

    Essay title

    Ambiguity as Legal Technique: A Discussion of Chimpanzee Personhood

    Course Convener

    Professor Alain Pottage

    Programme MSc Law, Anthropology, and Society

    Word count

    (maximum 10,000 words)

    0 9 9 5 1

    Penalties for exceeding the word limit 10,000 word essay: (starting from 1) for every 100 words above the limit one mark will be deducted to a maximum of nine marks. This assessed essay is submitted by the above Candidate Number to the Law Department, London School of Economics and Political Science, in the above year in part fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc Law, Anthropology and Society(or other) degree.

  • First Examiner: Signed: Second Examiner: Signed: Agreed Internal Mark: Signed: External Examiner: Signed: 10,000 word essay: for every 100 words above the limit one mark will be deducted to a maximum of nine marks.

    Five marks out of 100 will be deducted for coursework submitted within 24 hours of the deadline and a further five marks will be deducted for each subsequent 24-hour period (working days only) until the coursework is submitted. After five working days, coursework will only be accepted with the permission of the Chair of the Sub-Board of Examiners.

    Instruction to Examiners: Return essays to Rebecca Newman, NAB 6.14 with comments in the appropriate boxes. Comments may also be written on the reverse of this form. Do not write comments on or otherwise mark student work. Thank you.

  • !!Ambiguity!as!Legal!Technique:!A!Discussion!of!Chimpanzee!Personhood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MSc!in!Law,!Anthropology!and!Society!(2013G2014)!!Word!Count:!9,951!!Candidate!Number:!19217!

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 1(!

    Abstract....................................................................................................................................................2(Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................3(

    Methodology..................................................................................................................................................... 4(Note!on!definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 5(

    1.!The!Legal!Hearings ..........................................................................................................................7(1.1!Kiko!and!Tommy...................................................................................................................................... 7(1.2!Hiasl.............................................................................................................................................................. 8(1.3!Expanding!personhood.......................................................................................................................... 9(

    2.!The!Petitioners:!The!science!of!personhood!claims.......................................................... 12(2.1:!From!attribution!to!substance .........................................................................................................12(2.2!Anticipating!the!Courts!Response ...................................................................................................14(

    3.!The!Court:!Means!and!Ends ....................................................................................................... 17(3.1:!Procedural!Response!v!Qualitative!Consideration ...................................................................17(3.2:!Personhood!and!the!management!of!uncertainty.....................................................................20(

    4.!!Legal!technique!and!chimp!personhood. ............................................................................. 24(4.1!Agency!Through!Legal!Objectification............................................................................................24(4.2!Ambiguity!as!Speed!Bump ..................................................................................................................27(

    Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 28(Bibliography........................................................................................................................................ 29(Appendix............................................................................................................................................... 32(!

    !(((((((((((((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 2(Abstract!!This( paper( will( examine( three( cases( from( Austria( and( New( York( where( legal( personhood( was(requested( for( chimpanzees.( Although( in( each( case( the( respective( chimpanzee( was( denied(personhood,( here( this( is( not( of( primary( concern,( as( the( intention( of( the( parties( was( further(reaching:(to(stress(the(ambiguity(of(the(legal(category(of(the(person.(It(has(previously(been(argued((Bevilaqua(2013)(that(when(confronted(with(this(ambiguity,(the(courts(decide(not(to(decide((that(is(N( they( recourse( to( procedural( technicalities( rather( than( considering( the( arguments( on( their( own(merits.( I( would( like( to( take( this( further( by( employing( the( studies( of( Bruno( Latour( (1999)( and(Annelise(Riles((2011)(to(argue(that(the(ambiguity(of(judicial(personhood(is(a(legal(technology.(Through( a( close( reading( of( the( transcripts( and( associated( documents( of( the( court( proceedings,( I(examine( both( the( argument( presented( by( the( applicants,( as( well( as( the( courts( response.( The(ambiguity( of( the( distinction( between( person( and( thing( allows( for( the( deployment( of( novel(arguments( on( both( sides,( incorporating( legal( precedent( as(well( as( fields( outside( the( law( such( as(biology( and(anthropology.( In( the( absence(of( formal(definitions(of(person(and( thing,( both(present(understandings(of(their(own(to(construct(the(chimpanzee(as(person(or(thing.(I(focus(on(the(way(the(courts( and( the( applicants( develop( their( arguments( to( understand( how( legal( subjectivity( is(constructed(in(the(absence(of(formal(definitions(through(communicative(acts.(From(there(I(draw(on(Charis(Cussins(notion(of(ontological)choreography((1996)(to(argue(that(it(is(precisely(the(ambiguity(of(the(chimps(legal(status((its(ability(to(move(between(the(poles(of(juridical(thing(and(juridical(person(N(that(constitutes(the(chimps(agentive(potential.(Perceiving(the(ambiguity(of(the(distinction(between(person(and(thing(as(a(legal(technique(allows(us(to(understand(how(legal(agency(can(exist(in(the(absence(of(legal(subjectivity.(((!(((((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 3(Introduction!(The( focus(of( this(paper( is(not(animal( rights.(While( the(subjects(and(concerns(discussed(belong( to(this(domain,(here(they(are(a(point(of(entry(into(a(discussion(of(the(legal(distinction(between(person(and(thing.(The(growing(number(of(cases(involving(a(request(for(legal(personhood(for(chimpanzees(is(significant,(not( just( in( its( implications( for(animal(rights,(but(also( in( its(ability( to( foreground(the(ambiguous( nature( of( the( legal( categories( of( juridical( person( and( thing.( That( ambiguity( need( not(necessarily(obfuscate(our(understanding(of(legal(personhood(and(thinghood.(Rather,(it(can(reveal(the(manner(in(which(those(categories(operate.((Not( only( does( the( ambiguity( of( the( categories( make( their( invocation( more( effective( (when( one(might( think( ambiguity( is( a( hindrance( to( their( operation),( but( also,( as( a( result( of( the( relational,(operationally( closed( manner( in( which( they( proceed,( ambiguity( is( all( that( the( categories( have.(Personhood( and( thingNhood( are( not( original,( freestanding( notions,( but( are( reproduced( only( in(relation(to(each(other(each(time(they(are(brought(to(bear(on(a(case.(Therefore,(while(ambiguity(may(be(considered(a(matter(of(secondary(concern((the(definition(of(the(categories(selfNevident),(when(it(comes(down(to(their(technical(application(in(a(legal(context,(we(see(the(roles(reversed.(To(define(the(categories( in( an(absolute( sense,( to( give( them( original(meaning,(would( render( them(useless.( In( a(technical( sense,( it( is( their( ambiguity( that(makes( them( useful(mechanisms,( at( once( a( flexible( and(dynamic( tool( with( which( to( realize( possibilities( (it( is( in( the( interest( of( international( finance( to(realize(a(corporation(as(a(person),(and(a(normative(guideline(with(which( inclusion(and(exclusion(can(be(managed.((In( this( narrow( sense,( persons,( things,( and( their( distinction( come( to( figure( as( a( legal( technique,(rather(than(a( legal(category,(not(so(much(terms(as(they(are(operations.(Recognizing(them(as(such(requires(attention(to(the(ambiguity(by(which(they(are(thought(to(be(defined,(traditionally(a(matter(of( secondary( concern.( The( argument( for(why( the( chimpanzee( should( be( a( legal( person( has( been(developed( at( great( length( by( animal( rights( activists( (Singer( &( Cavalieri( 1993).( I( ask( how( the(applicants(present(their(chimpanzees(as( juridical(persons.(This(paper(therefore(takes(the(position(that(the(definition(of(person(and(of(thing(is(not(static(and(absolute,(but(processual;(reproduced(and(redefined( in( each( instance( of( implementation.( An( initial( ambiguity( is( required( for( this( perpetual(reproduction(to(justifiably(occur.(((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 4(Methodology((In(order(to(demonstrate(my(argument,( I(draw(on(the(legal(careers(of(three(chimpanzees:(Tommy,(Kiko,( and( Hiasl.( Tommy( and( Kiko( both( live( in( New( York,( and( have( had( a( writ( of( habeas) corpus(petitioned( on( their( behalf( by( Steve( Wise( and( Elizabeth( Stein( of( The) Nonhuman) Rights) Project((NhRP).(This(resulted(in(two(court(hearings,(The(Nonhuman)Rights)Project)v.)Presti((NhPR)v.)Presti)N(Kiko),(and(The)Nonhuman)Rights)Project)v.)Lavery((NhPR)v.)Lavery(N(Tommy).)Hiasl(lives(in(Austria,(and( has( had( a( request( for( legal( guardianship( filed( on( his( behalf( by(Martin( Balluch( of( the( animal(rights(association(VGT((Verein(gegen(Tierfabriken((Association(Against(Animal(Factories).(There(are(other(cases(involving(requests(for(personhood(on(behalf(of(chimpanzees1.(These(three(cases(are(unique(in(that(they(were(not(immediately(thrown(out(of(court,(and(have(consequently(developed(a(sufficient( amount( of( documentary( material,( such( as( transcripts( from( legal( hearings,( newspaper(articles,( and(affidavits.(More( importantly,( they(are( cases( in(which( the(petitioners(place(particular(emphasis(on(the(ambiguity(of(the(legal(distinction(between(person(and(thing.((My(thesis(is(divided(into(four(chapters.(In(the(first,(I(outline(the(respective(careers(of(Tommy,(Kiko,(and(Hiasl,(before(briefly(comparing(the(similarities(and(differences(of(their(hearings.(In(the(second,(I(provide(an(overview(of(the(petitioners(arguments(for(the(personhood(of(their(respective(chimps.(I(pay(particular(attention( to( the(use(of( scientific(evidence( in(presenting( the(chimpanzee(as(already(possessing(the(attributes(of( legal(persons.(These(attributes(vary(from(one(jurisdiction(to(the(next,(such(that(in(New(York(the(primary(attribute((at(least(according(to(Wise(and(Stein((is(autonomy((Wise( 2006a),( whereas( in( Austria( mindfulness( and( selfNawareness( are( posited( as( the( primary(qualifying(attributes((Balluch(&(Theuer(2007).(I(consider(how(this(evidence(is(used(to(construct(a(definition( of( the( juridical( person( appropriate( to( the( chimpanzee.( I( do( so( in( part( by( reference( to(Bruno( Latours( notion( of(articulation,( and( of( the)actant:( a( nonhuman( to(which( the( apparatus( of(science(has(given(a(voice((Teubner(2006:(12).(((In( the( third( chapter,( I( turn( to( the( courts( response( to( the( petitioners( argument.( Central( to( this(chapter( is( the(way( the( petitioners( draw( a( distinction( between( procedure( and( substance( in( their(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((1(See(Bevilaqua((2013)(for(a(discussion(of(a(case(in(Brazil(involving(two(chimps(named(Lili(and(Megh.(There(is(also( the( case( of( Hercules( and( Leo,( two( chimpanzees( in( New( York( on( whose( behalf( NhRP( is( requesting(personhood.(However,(their(case(was(promptly(dismissed(on(the(grounds(that(one(may(not(appeal(from(the(ex(parte((unopposed)(denial(of(an(order(to(show(cause(under(New(York(law((Wise(2014).(Language(barriers(were(another(significant(factor(in(my(choice(of(cases.( ((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 5(arguments,( and( consequently,( in( the( courts( response.( I( consider( how( something( that( the(petitioners( acknowledge( as( procedural( is( in( fact( understood( to( be( substantive( by( the( court.( I(develop(an(explanation(of(legal(ambiguity(as(a(technique(by(figuring(juridical(personhood(as(a(legal(fiction.( Finally,( I( consider( the( juridical( person( as( a(method( of( dealing(with( uncertainty( (Teubner(2006),(and(suggest(whether(ambiguity(might(also(be(a(way(of(managing(uncertainty.((In(chapter(four(I(synthesize(the(preceding(sections(by(way(of(Charis(Cussins(notion(of(ontological(choreography((1996).(I(develop(this(notion(with(reference(to(the(court(proceedings,(to(consider(the(role( of( legal( ambiguity( in( the( chimpanzees( emergence( as( a( legal( actor.( I( critically( analyze(Bevilaquas(assertion(that(movement(between(the(poles(of(person(and(thing(is(an(exclusive(right(of(persons,( condemning( all( nonhumans( to( perpetual( immobility( (2013),( and( ask( whether( the(ambiguity( of( the(distinction(between(person( and( thing( generates( legal( subjectivities( beyond(preNexisting(category(identities.(((Note(on(definitions((Neither(of(the(jurisdictions(within(which(these(cases(take(place,(Austria(and(New(York,(has(clearly(defined(categories(of(legal(person(and(thing.(Rather,(what(is(certain(is(that(person(and(thing(stand(in(opposition(to(each(other(in(a(manner(so(absolute(as(to(constitute(a(fundamental(characteristic(of(each(countrys(civil(law(code.(More(appropriate(for(the(purposes(of(this(paper(is(a(definition(of(legal)technique.( Technical(is(a(good(adjective,(explains(Latour;( technique(is(a(lousy(noun((1999:(190).(He(divides(the(definition(of(the(technical(into(five(parts.(Firstly,(the(term(applies(to(a(subprogram,(that(is,(a(momentary(deviation(from(the(main(task(that(is(assumed(to(be(the(sole(worthwhile(object(of( attention.( Secondly,( the( technical( is( a( way( of( designating( that( which( is( subordinate,( highly(circumscribed,(and(invisible(yet(absolutely(essential.(Thirdly,(and(at(the(same(time(as(it(is(a(detour(in(the(first(sense,(it(is(also(a(technical(problem,(a(potential)obstacle)that(may(threaten(the(original(goal( entirely( (1999:( 191).( Fourthly,( it( is( an( obligatory) passage) point,( that( is,( in( the( sense( of( a(technical(skill(held(by(a(privileged(yet(subordinate(associate.(Fifth,(by(technical(is(meant(an(act(of(delegation( by( which( a( chain( of( gestures( and( knowNhow( may( be( anticipated( to( bring( about( a(particular(result((1999:(192).((To(give(a(sense(of(the(terms(application(in(a(legal(context,(one(may(look(to(the(writings(of(Annelise(Riles((2011),(who(has(developed(a(notion(of(legal(technique(in(relation(to(the(regulatory(practices(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 6(of( Japanese( financial(markets.( For( Riles,( the( technical( plays( a( key( role( in( the( legal( framework( of(markets,( as( illustrated(by( the(management(of(collateral,( that( is,( security(on(a( loan.(Riles( cites( the(International( Swaps( and( Derivatives( Association( (ISDA)( Master( Agreement,( a( document( used( to(resolve(the(discontinuity(between(Japanese(state(law,(which(understands(the(exchange(of(capital(as(a( local,( oneNoff( event( between( two(parties,(with( the( reality( of( the( swaps( and(derivatives(market,(which(consists(of( continuous(exchange(of( capital(across(borders,( the(collateral( received( from(one(transaction(often(deposited(as(the(collateral(for(another.(If(a(disagreement(arises,(which(jurisdiction(would(the(parties(abide(by?(The(ISDA(master(form(resolves(this(complexity(by(requesting(traders(to(circle( one( of( two( options( listed( on( the( form:( Japanese( jurisdiction,( or( American( jurisdiction( (the(country( with( whom(most( trades( occur).( Moreover,( the( form( allows( for( communication( between(traders(across(the(world.(People(who(may(not(necessarily(speak(the(same(language(can(understand(and(use(the(same(form.(For(Riles,(the(ISDA(Master(Agreement(is(therefore(a(technical(artifact,(in(the(sense( that( it( is( an(object(delegated(with( the( task(of( resolving( largeNscale( complexity.( It( is( also(an(obligatory(passage(point( for(any(trader;(an( indispensable(subprogram(to(the(main(task(of( trading(that(informs(an(entire(set(of(practices.(((Yet( for( Riles,( collateral( suspends( belief( in( order( for( legal( proceedings( to( occur.( The( ISDA(Master(Agreement(frames(collateral(as(a(placeholder.(It(allows(both(parties(to(proceed(as)if(the(loan(will(be(securely( paid( back( before( repayments( have( even( begun.( It( allows( both( parties( to( act( in( the(meantime((2011:(163).( It( is(this(notion(of( legal(technique(in(particular(that(I(would(like(to(use(in(this(paper,(and(which(I(will(develop(in(chapter(two(in(relation(to(the(hearings(for(requests(of(legal(personhood(in(one(form(or(another(for(Kiko,(Tommy,(and(Hiasl,(respectively.((!

    !(((((((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 7(1.!The!Legal!Hearings!(In(this(chapter,( I(provide(a(brief(overview(of(the(three( legal(cases.( I(describe(the( legal(hearings(of(Tommy(and(Kiko(together(because(their(petitions(were(filed(together.(The(chapter(concludes(with(a(discussion(of(the(similarities(and(differences(of(the(hearings.(((1.1(Kiko(and(Tommy((On(the(2nd(December(2013,(the(Nonhuman(Rights(Project(announced(that(it(had(filed(the(first(ever(lawsuits( on( behalf( of( captive( chimpanzees,( demanding( they( be( granted( rights( to( bodily( liberty((Mountain(2013b).(This(was(to(be(done(by(way(of(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus,(a(court(order(requiring(a(person(under(arrest( to(be(brought(before(a( judge.(The(purpose(of(habeas)corpus( is( to(ensure(that(persons(are(not(unlawfully(imprisoned.(The(detainer(must(present(a(charge(to(justify(the(detention,(which(the(court(may(subsequently(accept(or(refuse.(In(this(case,(the(detainees(in(question(were(four(chimpanzees,( located( in(New(York(State.(Tommy( is(a(26NyearNold(chimpanzee,(who(at( the( time(of(the(proceedings(was(caged(in(a(windowless(tin(shed(on(a(used(trailer(park(in(Gloversville,(NY.(Kiko,(also(aged(26,(and(formerly(used(in(the(entertainment(industry,(was(living(in(a(primate(sanctuary(in(Niagara(Falls,(NY.((The( petitions( for( the( writ( of( habeas( corpus( are( backed( by( a( number( of( affidavits( from(primatologists,( neurologists,( and( other( members( of( the( scientific( community.( These( affidavits(present( evidence( that,( according( to( the( Nonhuman( Rights( Project,( proves( chimpanzees( to( be(cognitively(complex,(selfNaware,(and(above(all,(autonomous(beings((NhRP)v.)Presti:(3).(As(a(result(of(these(characteristics,(NhRP(argues( that( these(chimpanzees(have( a( fundamental( interest( in(bodily(liberty((NhRP)v.)Lavery:(22;(NhRP)v.)Presti:(9)(that(should(be(recognized(by(the(court,(and(protected(by( a(writ( of( habeas( corpus.( In( other(words,( in( petitioning( for( a( writ( of( habeas( corpus( for( these(chimpanzees,( NhRP( is( requesting( the( court( recognize( them( as( legal( persons( with( fundamental(rights.( In(as(much(as( the(court(only(recognizes(such( interests(and(rights( in( legal(persons(and(not(legal( things,( NhRP( argues( that( although( existing( animal( cruelty( laws( may( still( apply( to( the(chimpanzees,( they( are( insufficient.2(This( is( an( important( point,( because( although( it( would( grant(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((2(In(NhRP)v.)Presti,(the(judge(asked(whether(the(New(York(State(Agricultural(&(Markets(Law,(which(states(that(an( animal( includes( every( living( creature( except( a( human( being( (( 350),( would( preclude( the( court( from(issuing(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus.(NhRP(attorney(Elizabeth(Stein(states( that( it(would(not,(since(the( fact( that(a(writ(of(habeas(corpus(is(issued(for(people,(renders((353(of(the(Agricultural(&(Markets(Law(not(applicable(to(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 8(chimpanzees( legal( personhood,( they( would( not( be( deemed( human( beings,( and( would( therefore(remain(subject(to(Agricultural(&(Markets(law,(as(are(all(nonhuman(animals((NhRP)v.)Presti:(13).((NhRP(argues(that(the(chimpanzees(already(exercise(rights(reserved(for(legal(persons(without(being(legal(persons(themselves.(Kiko(is(already(the(true(beneficiary(of(a(trust((as(opposed(to(the(honorary(beneficiary)(that(has(been(set(up(for(him(by(the(NhRP((NhRP)v.)Presti:(9).(In(as(much(as(Kiko(enjoys(all( the(rights(of(a(human(beneficiary,(attorney(Steven(Wise(of( the(NhRP(argues( that( he( implicitly(must(be(a( legal(person(because(a(legal(person(has(the(capacity(to(have(a(right((NhRP)v.)Presti:(9).(There(is(precedence(for(nonhuman(true(beneficiaries(of(trusts,(as(with(In)Re:)Roger)Fouts,(in(which(five( chimpanzees,( and( not( a( guardian( appointed( by( the( court,( were( deemed( the( principal(beneficiaries( of( a( trust( set( up( for( their( benefit.( As( such,( the( legal( status( of( chimpanzees( remains(contentious(and(ambiguous.((1.2(Hiasl((The(legal(status(of(chimpanzees(remains(equally(ambiguous(in(other(parts(of(the(world.(In(Austria,(until(recently,(any(entity(that(was(not(a(person(was(a(thing,(as(stipulated(in(section(285(of(its(civil(law(code.(Yet(in(the(beginning(of(1989,(a(new(section((285a)(was(added,(which(explicitly(stated(that(animals(are(not( legal( things( (Balluch(&(Theuer(2007:(336).( In(a( civil( law(code(where(an(entity( is(assigned(one(of( two(categories((either(person(or( thing((how(can(one(be(neither?(This(question(was( posed( to( the( High( Court( of( Austria( during( a( longstanding( dispute( between( a( Vienna( animal(shelter( and( Austrian( pharmaceutical( company( Immuno( over( two( chimpanzees( named( Hiasl( and(Rosi.(The(pair(had(been(flown(to(Vienna(from(Sierra(Leone,(after(being(purchased(by(Immuno(from(an(Austrian(wild(life(trader.(It(was(intended(for(them(to(be(used(in(medical(experiments(relating(to(AIDS( and(hepatitis( research( (Balluch(&(Theuer:( 335).( They( arrived( at( Vienna( airport( on( the( 29th(April( 1982;( one( day( after( Austria( signed( the( Convention( on( International( Trade( of( Endangered(Species((CITES),(an(international(treaty(that(aims(to(ensure(that(international(trade(in(specimens(of(wild(animals(and(plants(does(not(threaten(their(existence.3(Lacking(the(necessary(CITES(documents,(Hiasl(and(Rosi(were(detained,(and(deemed(unlawful(imports(in(breach(of(the(CITES(agreement(by(Vienna(magistrates.( They(were( then( handed( over( to( the( animal( shelter( (Balluch(&( Theuer( 2007:(336).(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((our(situation((NhRP)v.)Presti:(12).(While(those(laws(still(apply(to(Kiko,(the(petition(for(a(writ(of(habeas(corpus(requires(the(judge(to(consider(extending(the(definition(of(legal(personhood(to(include(chimpanzees.( 3(See(http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.php(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 9((Immuno(continued(to(appeal(the(decision(until(it(reached(the(High(Court,(which(voted(in(their(favor(and(ordered(that(Hiasl(and(Rosi(be(relocated(to(the(laboratory.(The(shelter(refused,(and(physically(blocked(Immuno(representatives(from(reclaiming(the(chimps.(The(shelter(argued(they(had(a(legal(obligation(to(protect(animals(from(suffering,(to(which(the(judge(responded(animals(are(things(and(as( such,( have( no( interests( for( themselves.( (Balluch( &( Theuer( 2007:( 336).( The( animal( shelters(persistent( refusal( to(hand(over( the(chimpanzees( landed( the(case(back( in(court( in(1989,(by(which(time(provision(285a(had(been(added( to( the(civil( law(code.(They(used( the(new(provision( to(argue(that(Hiasl(and(Rosi,(not(being(things,(have(a(value(in(themselves,(and(that(this(value(should(trump(the(property(value(of(the(chimps(as(experimental(tools(for(Immunos(research(lab((2007:(336).(The(judge( ruled( against( this( argument,( maintaining( that( in( spite( of( the( new( provision,( nonNhuman(animals(remain(things,(and(the(property(owner(has(a(right(to(take(possession(of(his/her(property(regardless( of( the( consequences( to( the( chimpanzee.( Once( again,( the( judge( ordered( that(Hiasl( and(Rosi(be(handed(back,(and(once(again(the(animal(shelter(refused.(((In( 1999,( Immuno( was( purchased( by( another( pharmaceutical( company,( which( stopped( all(experimental( use( of( chimpanzees,( and( officially( donated( Hiasl( and( Rosi( to( the( animal( shelter( in(2002( (2007:( 336).( However,( in( 2006( the( animal( shelter( ran( into( financial( difficulties.( Facing(bankruptcy,(the(shelter(was(preparing(to(sell(the(chimpanzees,(when(a(large(donation(was(made(to(Martin(Balluch,(president(of(VGT.(The(donation(was(made(on(the(condition(that(Hiasl(be(appointed(a(legal(guardian,(who(was(allowed(to(receive(this(money(at(the(same(time,(and(who(would(be(able(to(decide(what(the(two(together(would(want(to(spend(the(money(on((2007:(337).(This(agreement(served( to(verify(Balluchs( legal( standing( to( request( a( legal( guardian( for(Hiasl.(An(application(was(made( in( February( 2007( to( the(District( Court( in(Mdling,( Lower(Austria( for( Matthias( Hiasl( Pan((2007,( 337).( The( application( was( supported( by( four( expert( statements( from( professors( of(anthropology,(civil( rights,( law,(and(biology,(establishing(an(argument( for(Hiasl( to(be(considered(a(legal( person( in( accordance( with( Austrian( law.( This( application( was( also( rejected,( as( was( the(subsequent(appeal(to(the(European(Court(of(Human(Rights((ECHR).(((1.3(Expanding(personhood((In(attempting(to(expand(the(definition(of(legal(personhood(to(include(nonhuman(animals,(scientific(evidence(is(deployed(to(render(the(legal(distinction(between(person(and(thing(scientifically(obsolete(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 10((Bevilaqua( 2013).( In( the( absence( of( a( formal,( precise( legal( definition( of(person,( those( requesting(legal( personhood( for( the( chimps(often(provide( their( own(definitions.( In( the( case( of(Hiasl,(Martin(Balluch(asserts,( [t]he(definition(of( human( in(Article(16(ABGB(has( to(be( interpreted(biologically.((2007:(337).(We(share(99.4%(of(our(DNA(with(chimpanzees;(we(have(matching(chromosomes;(we(could(even(produce(offspring(with(them.4(Interpreted(biologically,(human(beings(are(those(animals(that(belong(to(the(homo(genus,(of(which(chimpanzees(are(also(members.(The(term(homo(after(all,(is(Latin(for(human((2007:(337).((Wise( also( provides( his( own( scientific( understanding( of( persons,( rooted( in( cognitive( science.( The(affidavits( that( accompany( his( applications( suggest( that( chimpanzees( have( a( level( of( cognitive(sophistication(equal(to(our(own,(or(at(least,(equal(enough(to(constitute(autonomy(and(selfNinterest:(the( defining( characteristics( of( the( person( according( to(New(York( state( law( (NhRP)v.)Lavery:( 21).(Balluch(also(deploys(findings(in(cognitive(science(to(argue(that(chimpanzees(have(a(theory(of(mind,(the( validating( feature( of( the( person( as( defined( within( the( philosophical( tradition( of( the(Enlightenment,(which(is(the(basis(for(the(Austrian(civil(law(code.((2007:(339).((Although(these(definitions(carry(the(epistemological(weight(of(scientific(certainty,(in(each(case(the(court( finds( little( reason( to(be(swayed(by( these(arguments.(During(Tommys(hearing( in(December(2013,(Judge(Joseph(Sise(expressed(appreciation(of(the(argument(presented(by(Wise(and(Stein,(but(did(not(sign(the(writ,(explaining(that(the(court(would(not(recognize(a(chimpanzee(as(an(entity(who(could(seek(a(writ(of(habeas(corpus(under(Article(70(of(New(York(state( law.( Good( luck(with(your(venture,(he(concluded,(Im(sorry(I(cant(sign(the(order,(but(I(hope(you(continue.(As(an(animal(lover,(I(appreciate(your(work((NhRP)v.)Lavery:(26).(((Hiasl(on(the(other(hand,(was(initially(denied(guardianship(due(to(the(problem(of(his(identity.(When(the(applicants(for(legal(guardianship(were(able(to(provide(witnesses(to(Hiasls(arrival(in(Austria,(the(problem(then(became(the(legitimacy(of(his(need(for(a(guardian,(not(because(was(a(legal(thing,(but(because(he(was(not(mentally(handicapped(and(faced(no(imminent(threat((Balluch(&(Theuer:(339).(The(decision(was(appealed,(as(the(applicants(argued(that(having(been(forcefully(taken(from(both(his(family( and(natural( environment,(Hiasl( had(been( seriously( traumatized( (Balluch(&(Theuer( 2007:(339),(and(was(for(that(reason(unable(to(care(for(himself(and(in(need(of(a(guardian(who(could(do(so.(Furthermore,(the(applicants(argued(that(this(threat(was(even(more(imminent,(due(to(the(impending(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4(As(attempted(by(Soviet(biologist(Ilya(Ivanovich(Ivanov((Bonnicksen(2009).(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 11(bankruptcy( of( the( shelter,( which( could( result( in( Hiasls( deportation( into( an( unknown( future((Balluch(&(Theuer(2007:(339).(The( judge(dismissed( the(appeal(on( the(grounds( that( the(applicant(had(no(legal(standing.5((((!

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !

    !((((((!(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5(For(an(overview(of(the(legal(standing(of(humans(and(apes(see(Kolber((2001).(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 12(2.!The!Petitioners:!The!science!of!personhood!claims!(In( this(chapter,( I(examine( the(arguments(presented( to( the(courts(by( the(petitioners.(How(do( they(present(the(chimpanzee(as(a(legal(person?(Scientific(evidence,(typically(in(the(form(of(affidavits,(is(central(to(the(petitioners(construction(of(the(chimpanzee(as(a(legal(person.(In(this(chapter(I(look(at(how( the( chimpanzee( is( constructed( as( such,( focusing( on( the( facilitative( role( of( ambiguity( in( the(emergence(of(a(particular(kind(of(legal(subjectivity(appropriate(to(the(chimpanzee.((2.1:(From(attribution(to(substance((All( three( cases( are( anchored( in( scientific( evidence( that( posits( the( chimp( as( equal( to( human,( and(therefore(N(at( least(by(analogy(N(a( legal(person.(This( is(most(evident( in(the(NhRP)vs)Presti(hearing,(wherein(Wise(argues(that(although(humans(have(not(always(automatically(been(legal(persons,(there(are(humans( less(cognitively(sophisticated( than(Kiko(who(are(nonetheless(recognized(as(persons.6(The( reliance( on( scientific( evidence( in( their( legal( arguments( is( an( important( detail( of( these( court(cases( that(merits( closer(attention.(Balluch(himself(has( trained(as(a(physicist,( and(has(published(a(number( of( academic( papers( on( astronomy.( All( chimp( related(NhRP( cases( present( the( court(with(hundreds(of(pages(of(affidavits(from(primatologists,(neurologists,(geneticists,(and(other(members(of(the(scientific(community.(But(why(is(there(so(much(science(in(a(legal(case?(Is(science(an(adequate(foundation( for( legal( argumentation?( In( order( to( understand( what( science( does( for( the( law,( I(propose(we(first(invert(the(question(and(ask(what(the(law(does(for(science.(Doing(this(can(help(us(take(a(step(back(from(the(case,(to(focus(less(on(the(disputed(facts(and(more(on(the(process(of(legal(objectification.(What(constitutes(person(and(what(constitutes(thing?(Can(something(count(as(both,(and(why?(So,(does(Hiasl(or(Kikos( recognition(as(a( legal(person(have(any(benefits( for( the( science(involved(in(figuring(them(as(autonomous(beings(with(agentive(potential((Belivalqua(2013)?((((In(order( to(answer( these(questions,( I(draw(on(Bruno(Latours( (1999)(analysis(of( the( relationship(between( Louis( Pasteur( and( his( ferments,( which( bears( resemblance( to( Balluch,( Wise,( and( their(chimps.(Latour(opens(his(piece(on(Pasteur(with(a(question:(Did(ferments(exist(before(Pasteur(made(them(up?(to(which(he(responds,(No,(they(did(not(exist(before(he(came(along((1999,(145).(That(is(not( to( say,( however,( that( the( ferments( are(mere(mythology.( Rather,( each( laboratory( experiment,(and( every( literary( presentation( of( his( findings,( entailed( a( mutual( exchange( of( competencies(between(Pasteur(and(the(ferments,(such(that(they(were(able(to(make)each)other.(Pasteur(describes(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6(See(Jessica(Bergs((2007)(discussion(of(the(legal(status(anencephalic(infants.(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 13(noticeable(spots(of(gray(substance(with(greater(detail(and(specificity,(ascribes(them(with(properties(and( characteristics( that( are( confirmed( by( other( scientists( in( their( own( replications,( thereby(granting( Pasteur( greater( validity( as( a( truth( claimant.( Pasteur( is( designing( an( actor( as( Latour(explains,(or(more(accurately:(((Designing( trials( for( the( actor( to( show( its( mettle.( Why( is( an( actor( defined( through( trials?(Because(there(is(no(other(way(to(define(an(actor(but(through(its(action,(and(there(is(no(other(way(to(define(an(action(by(asking(what(other(actors(are(modified,(transformed,(perturbed,(or(created(by(the(character(that(is(the(focus(of(attention((1999:(122).(((Yet( if( Pasteur( is( successful,( his( involvement(will( go( unnoticed.( The( ferments(will( appear( to( have(done( all( the( work;( they) will) present) themselves,( rendering( Pasteur( a( highly( skilled( yet( humble(observer.( If( he( is( unsuccessful,( the( whole( suggestion( will( be( seen( as( a( fiction,( in( which( Pasteur(prompted(the(ferments(to(say(what(he(fancied.((((Are( the( chimpanzee( hearings( not( involved( in( a( similar( process( of( anchoring( attribution( to(substance?(In(both(the(Balluch(and(Wise(cases,(scientific(evidence(is(used(to(design(a(trial(for(the(actor( to( show( its( mettle( in( a( legal( context.( The( attributes( of( personhood( are( anchored( to( the(chimpanzee(via(the(wealth(of(evidence(that(affirms(their(humanness,(or(rather,(which(suggests(that(there( is(no(difference(between(human(and(chimpanzee:( [t]here( is(practically(no(quality(or(ability(traditionally(considered(typically(human(that(chimpanzees(do(not(also(possess((Balluch(&(Theuer(2007,(337).(An(automatic(connection(between(human(and(person(is(taken(for(granted.(In(seeking(to(clarify( the( definition( of( legal( personhood,( Balluch( and(Wise( recruit( scientific( knowledge( and( the(legal(subjectivity(of(the(human(to(assert(their(own(definition(of(the(person,(while(at(the(same(time(redefining( that( crucial( term( (human)( upon(which( the( legal( analogy( of( person( and( chimpanzee( is(made.(The(science(affirms(the(humanNchimpanzee(relation(by(cancelling(out(the(initial(distinction.((This( process( of( rendering( the( legal( boundaries( between( human( and( chimpanzee( artificial( and(scientifically( obsolete( (Bevilaqua( 2013,( 77)( suggests( personhood( status( for( the( chimpanzee( by)default.( The( human( is( the( bridge( between( person( and( chimpanzee,( presented( by( Balluch( and(Wises(affidavits,(such(that(Kiko(and(Hiasl(present)themselves)as(legal(persons.(Through(their(actions(in( dexterity( tests( and( cognitive( examinations,( Kiko( and( Hiasl( emerge( as( subjects( contending( for(legal(personhood,(and(from(their(characters(emerge(new(types(of(litigants,(legal(hearings,(areas(of(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 14(scientific( investigation,( and( entire( organizations,( such( as( NhRP.( From( a( scientific( perspective( at(least,( the( similarities( between( human( and( chimpanzee( are( such( that( the( chimpanzees( claim( to(personhood(appears( to(be(selfNevident,(while( the(scientific(understanding(of( human(has(become(considerably(more(complex.(Legally,(however,(the(person(is(enacted(as(a(solid(and(reliable(category,(its(inclusion(of(human(taken(for(granted(such(that(it(should(produce(the(same(legal(result(even(if(the( meaning( of( the( terms( to( which( the( operation( refers( are( different.( Humans( are( redefined(scientifically( on( the( condition( that( they( remain( the( same( legally.( The( human,( like( the( person,(remains(a(legal(operation.(((2.2(Anticipating(the(Courts(Response((The(problem(with(this(approach(is(that(the(legal(person((although(functional(as(a(legal(operation(as(much(as(it(is(referable(as(a(category((is(no(more(stable(than(EuroNAmerican(concepts(of(the(human.(As(Alain(Pottage(explains:(( Legal( forms( do( not( have( an( analogue( relation( to( nature,( nor( do( they( have( the( kind( of(stability( or( integrity( that( would( allow( them( to( function( as( armatures( of( subjective(existence(persons(and( things(have( their(existence( in( legal( formulae( that(are( formed(and(reformed(within(specific(cases(or(transactions.(Again,(the(semantic(or(epistemological(form(of( the( person( (or( thing)( is( eclipsed( by( the( technical( operations( within( which( it( is(actualized(we(should(think(of(cognitive(or(epistemological(forms(as(substantives(that(have(been(turned(into(procedures((2014:(160).((Legal(status(cannot(be( taken(as(an( indication(of( the( essence,(or(moral(disposition(of(a(person(or(thing.(Pottage( illustrates(this(point(by(way(of(an(example( from(Roman( law,(which( treated(acts(as(things( in( themselves( rather( than( an( expression( of( subjective( intention( (2014:( 153).( The( actor( is(captured(retroactively(by(their(act,(not(truly(the(agent(of(a(wrong,(so(much(as(the(subject(included(in( it((Thomas,(1977:(71).(A(similar( formulation(of(the(relationship(between(action(and(actor( is(at(play(in(the(petitioners(presentation(of(the(chimpanzee(as(a(person,(given(their(participation(in(acts(thought(to(be(reserved(for(human(persons.(Admittedly(this(is(a(shortcoming(of(Balluchs(argument,(because( it( leaves(his( case(open( to( accusations( that( he( is( trying( to( attain( full( human( rights( for( all(animals( based( on( genetic( similarity.( Even( if( this( is( his( agenda,( Wises( argument( is( here( more(fathomable(precisely(because(of(the(distinction(he(makes(between(human(and(person,(which(then(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 15(goes(on(to(frame(his(argument(for(nonhuman(personhood(for(chimpanzees,(a(claim(that(is(easier(to(digest.((In(this(chapter(we(have(reviewed(the(techniques(by(which(the(petitioners(present(the(chimpanzees(as( already( persons( by( possession( of( their( attributes.( This( presentation( assumes( a( particular(response( from( the( court.( It( assumes( that( an( entity( can( be( recognized( as( person( or( a( thing( in(accordance(with(a(preNexisting(status.(The(petitioners(attempt(to(undo(this(claim(by(demonstrating(that(the(limits(of(that(status(are(unclear,(and(as(such,(possession(of(characteristics(associated(with(that( status( N( such( as( autonomy( and( mindfulness( N( are(what( constitute( persons.( They( therefore(take( a( similar( position( to( Roman( lawyers,( binding( subjects( to( particular( actions,( rather( than(designating(actions(according( to( the(status(of( the(subject.(Within( the( temporal( frame(of( the(court(proceedings,(such(an(assertion(is(more(a(matter(of( technique(than(moral(belief,( substantives(that(have(been(turned(into(procedures((Pottage(2014:(160).(((To( assume( that( one( can( present( the( science,( and( the( rest(will( be( selfNevident,( is( to( overlook( the(extent( to( which( law( relies( on( its( own( actions( to( inform( its( decisions.( Pottage( continues,( the(specificity(of( legal( technique(becomes(visible(only( if( one( remains(within( the( space(between( form(and( frame,( retracing( the(recursive(analogies( that( loops( the( forms(of(person(and( thing( (back)( into(the( frame( of( a( legal( action( (2014:( 162).( The( frame( in( this( case( is( a( petition( for( a(writ( of(habeas)corpus,(and(it(is(the(applicants(failure(to(reference(that(frame(within(the(proceedings,(as(opposed(to(the(courts( failure( to(understand(or(even(accept( the(nature(of(what( is(being(said,( that( contributes(towards( the( rejection( of( their( argument.7(Yet( as( we( shall( see,( the( selfNreferential( nature( of( legal(procedures(continually(intervenes(in(the(distinction(between(form(and(frame.(((The( distinction( between( form( and( frame( is( similar( to( the( distinction( between( substantive( and(procedural( considerations( (Balluch( 2007,( Bevilaqua( 2013).( The( selfNreferential( nature( of( legal(procedures( renders( this( distinction( rather( problematic.( In( the( law,( a( decision( may( very( easily(become( a( procedure,( as( is( the( case( when( one( draws( on( precedent( to( make( an( argument.(Furthermore,( both( the( scientific( and( legal( depiction( of( the( chimpanzee( is( ultimately( a( reduction,(although(such(objectification(is(necessary(for(the(legal(proceedings(to(continue.(The(question,(then,(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((7(It( is( also( important( to( note( that( there( is( a( legitimate( concern( regarding( the( objectivity( of( expert(testimonies/statements( produced( specifically( for( the(purposes( of( a( court( case.( The( affidavits( submitted(by(Wise,(and(the(research(referenced(by(Balluch,(are(of(a(different(nature(to(an(article(published(in(a(wellNknown,(peerNreviewed,(academic(journal.(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 16(is(whether(two(distinct(depictions(can(be(reconciled,(and(at(what(cost(to(the(chimpanzee?(Or(rather,(might(the(realization(of(another(agency(for(the(chimpanzee(lie(precisely(in(this(irreconcilability?(In(order(to(resolve(this(problem,(we(must(first(address(the(way(that(the(court(received(and(responded(to(the(evidence(discussed(in(this(chapter.(We(have(reviewed(the(tactics(that(the(petitioners(use(to(align( chimp(and(person,( and(how( they(anticipate( responses( from( the( court.(What( can( the( courts(actual( response( tell( us( about( the(way( that( person,( thing,( and( their( distinction( operate( in( a( legal(capacity?(!(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((!

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 17(3.!The!Court:!Means!and!Ends!(In( this( chapter( I( switch( focus( from( the( arguments( presented( by( the( petitioners( to( the( courts(response.(With(Balluchs(distinction(between(procedure(and(substance(in(mind,(I(take(a(closer(look(at(what((little)(is(said(in(the(hearings,(to(better(understand(the(courts(articulation(of(person,(thing,(and(their(distinction.(I(argue(that(Balluchs(distinction(between(procedure(and(substance(overlooks(the(selfNreferential(nature(of(law(in(which(means(become(ends,(as(with(the(case(of(legal(precedent.(I(then(go(on(to(consider(juridical(personhood(as(a(method(for(managing(uncertainty,(to(argue(that(the(ambiguity(of(the(distinction(between(person(and(thing(in(the(chimpanzee(hearings(plays(a(similar(role.( I( do( so( by(way( of( a( close( reading( of( the( response( issued( by( the( European( Court( of( Human(Rights(to(Balluchs(application(for(legal(guardianship(on(behalf(of(Hiasl.((3.1:(Procedural(Response(v(Qualitative(Consideration((Neither(of(the(jurisdictions(within(which(these(cases(take(place,(Austria(and(New(York,(has(clearly(defined(categories(of(legal(person(and(thing.(Rather,(what(is(certain(is(that(person(and(thing(stand(in(opposition(to(each(other(in(a(manner(so(absolute(as(to(constitute(a(fundamental(characteristic(of(each(countrys(civil(law(code.(In(as(much(as(legal(person(and(thing(are(terms(defined(in(opposition(to(one(another,(it(is(unclear(what(each(term(means(independently.(What(makes(chimp(personhood(cases(so(interesting(is(that(they(require(a(definition(of( legal(personhood(without)reference( to(legal(thing.(Defining(the(legal(person(is(the(only(way(to(manage(the(problems(raised(by(the(request(for(chimpanzee(personhood:( to(simply(state( that( the(chimpanzee( is(not(a( legal(person(because( it( is(a(legal(thing(is(both(to(restate(the(obvious(and(to(answer(a(different(question.(((Wises(request(for(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus,(and(Balluchs(request(for(legal(guardianship(ask(that(the(chimpanzee( be( seen( as( both) person) and) thing.( The(Wise( case( in( particular( does( not( dispute( the(chimps(legal(status(as(thing,(it(simply(asks(why(it(cannot(also(be(a(person,(given(its(accordance(with(a(number(of(characteristics(often(attributed(to(the(legal(person((autonomy,(selfNinterest).(In(doing(so,(it(unhinges(those(characteristics(that(through(their(attribution(to(legal(persons(are(often(thought(to( define( them.( Legal( personhood( does( not( have( a( formal( definition,( only( formal( attributions.(Autonomy( is( one( such( attribution.( In( NonChuman) Rights) Project) v.) Presti) (NhRP) v.) Presti),( the(autonomy(of( Tommy( is( qualified(by( the( nine( affidavits( from( some(of( the( greatest( primatologists(that(are(working(in(the(world((2)(included(in(the(initial(petition(for(the(writ(of(habeas(corpus.(If(the(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 18(court(accepts(the(affidavits(as(sufficient(evidence(of(Kikos(cognitive(sophistication(and(autonomy(then,( Wise( and( Stein( argue,( he( must( be( eligible( for( the( right( to( bodily( liberty,( and( therefore(personhood.(This(conceptual( jump( from(scientifically(validated(cognitive(sophistication,( to(a( legal(qualification( of( equality( and( liberty( (from( a( cognition( that( science( qualifies( as( sophisticated( to(being(a(person(in(legal(terms),(is(for(Wise(and(Balluch,(a(substantive)issue)that(they(are(encouraging(the(court( to(consider( (Wise(2006a,(Theuer(2014;(Appendix(A).(Yet( the(use(of( science(as(a(way(of(qualifying(Kikos(personhood(remains(a(technical(analogy,(drawn(between(chimpanzee(and(person(via(the(human.(Evidence(as(to(genetic(similarity,(shared(chromosomes,(and(cognitive(sophistication(meets( those( attributes( of( the( legal( person( that( are( also( properties( of( human( beings.( As( such,( it(would( suggest( that( chimpanzees( are( legal( persons( by( default:( if) human,) then) not) thing.( This(strategy( engages( the( person/thing( distinction( as( an( operation( while( presenting( itself( as( a(satisfaction( of( the( person/thing( distinction( as( if( they( were( normative( categories.( This( paradox(becomes(apparent(when(Wise(explains(in(NhRP)v.)Presti(that([t]he(court(has(to(assume(that([Kiko](is(a(person(for(the(purpose(of(deciding(whether(he(is(a(person((7).((Seen(as(such,(the(distinction(between(procedural(response(and(qualitative(consideration(becomes(as( contentious( as( that( between( thing( and( person.( Bruno( Latour( (2010)( has( argued( that( the( law(decides(not(to(decide,( to( judge(at(the(Council(is(never(merely(to(judge(a(case(but(always(also(to)judge) the) law( itself( (2010,( 103).( Bevilaqua( (2013)( has( applied( this( notion( to( her( study( of( the(Balluch( case,( arguing( that( the( court( recourses( to( procedural( matters( when( confronted( with( the(possibility(of(qualitative(consideration(of(an(argument.(Yet,(as(previously(discussed,(the(invocation(of( particular( notions( such( as( autonomy( and( biological( resemblance( figure( as( a( procedural(mechanism(with(which( to( advance( a( case.( Furthermore,(Wises( constant( reference( to( qualitative(terms(such(as( autonomy(and( selfNinterest(are(deployed(as(cues(by(which(to( initiate(a(particular(procedural( response,( such(as( the( courts( rejection(of( the( argument,(which( invites( the( appeal( to( a(higher(court.(NhRP(has(been(explicit(about(the(automatic(right(to(appeal(being(a(primary(reason(for(their(choice(of(New(York(as(the(ideal(state(to(petition(the(writ(of(habeas)corpus((Mountain(2013c).(A(rejection(of(the(writ(of(habeas)corpus(may(therefore(be(more(of(a(qualitative(engagement(with(the(argument( than(simply( recourse( to( legal(procedure.(Such(appears( to(be( the(case( in(The(New(York(Supreme( Court( hearing( for( Tommys( writ( of( habeas( corpus,( in( which( Justice( Sise( rejected( the(argument( ( claiming( I( do( not( agree( with( the( argument( only( insofar( as( Article( 70( applies( to(chimpanzees( (NhRP)v.)Lavery:(26)((but( then(reveals(himself(as(an(animal( lover(who(appreciates(NhRPs( work,( offering( his( assistance( in( future( cases.( For( Wise,( such( procedural( formalities( add(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 19(substance( to(his(argument,( raising( the(case( to(higher(and(higher(courts(and(adding( to( the(official(legal(material(with(which(to(argue(Tommy(and(Kikos(case.(Positioning(one(response(as(procedural(and(the(other(as(qualitative(overlooks(the(chains(of(reference(produced(by(the(law(in(which(means(become(ends,(and(ends(become(means(from(other(angles.((In(short,( the(chimps(recognition(as(legal(person(is(both(the(end(and(the(means.(Wise(and(Balluch(are(not(arguing(that(chimpanzees(be(granted(full(human(rights,(only(that(they(be(recognized(as(legal(persons(who(bear(rights.(He(explains(that(humans(and(persons(are(very(different(entities,(and(that(the(two(should(not(be(confused.(Yet(in(order(to(argue(this(position,(Wise(must(present(the(scientific(evidence( amassed( as( if( humans( and( persons( are( synonymous( in( order( to( construct( Tommy( as(autonomous,(and(therefore(a(person,(within(the(parameters(of(the(case.(In(doing(so,(Wise(constructs(the(trial(by(which(Tommy(will(show(his(mettle.(There(is(a(further,(more(literal(sense(in(which(the(means( for( granting( chimpanzee( personhood( become( the( ends.( In( the( court( hearing( for(NhRP) v.)Presti,(Wise( references( in) re)Fouts,( a( case( in(which( five( chimpanzees(were( found( to( be( the( true((that( is,(not(honorary)(beneficiaries(of(a(pet( trust.(Following( this( line(of(argument,(Wise(explains(that(in(many(ways(Tommy(already(is(recognized(as(a(person,(to(the(extent(that(only(persons(may(be(recognized(as(the(true(beneficiaries(of(a(trust.((Wises(suggestion(of(a(flexible(identity(is(a(provocative(one(that(merits(closer(attention.(Bevilaquas(reading(of(the(Hiasl(case(concludes(human(agency(is(the(only(form(of(agency(acknowledged(within(the( framework( of( Western( legal( systems,( a( predicament( that( condemns( all( nonhumans( to(perpetual(immobility,(while(those(entities(recognized(as(possessing(agentive(potential,(invariably(human,(can(shift(between(the(categories(of(person(and(thing(in(certain(situations.((2013:(85).(Yet(Wises( remarks( suggest( a( different( scenario,( one( in( which( a( chimpanzee( can( move( between(categories( as( easily( as( a( person.( Therefore,( whereas( Bevilaqua( suggests( that( the( Hiasl( case(foregrounds( the( need( to( conceptually( fabricate( another( difference,( (2013:( 85),( it( may( be( more(effective( to( preserve( the( disregard( for( difference( that( emerges( from( the( underlying( ambiguity( of(person,(thing,(and(their(distinction.(If(we(are(to(believe(that(person(and(thing(are(not(static(in(their(definitions,(but(are(operations(of(the(legal(system(that(manage(inclusion(and(exclusion,(defined(in(and( for( each( instance,( then( it( follows( that( uncertainty( allows( for( a( greater( range( of( possibilities(concerning( what( can( and( cannot( be( a( legal( person.( Latours( aforementioned( suggestion( that( to(judge(a(case(is(to(judge(the(law(itself(emphasizes(the(centrality(of(ambiguity(in(the(law(at(large.((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 20(3.2:(Personhood(and(the(management(of(uncertainty((The(interchangeability(of(means(and(ends(points(to(the(centrality(of(legal(fictions(in(legal(operations.(Furthermore,(legal(fictions(create(more(legal(fictions.(Or(rather,(legal(fictions(create(legal(facts.(The(hearing( takes(place(as) if( Kiko( is( a( person,( and(he(must( then(be( constructed( as( a(person(as) if,( for(example,( the(human(person(analogy(was(categorical.(Yet(Wise( is(adamant( that( the(human(person(has( not( always( been( automatic,( that( there( was( a( time(when( human( slaves( were( not( considered(persons.(He( asserts( this( in( reference( to( the( historic( case(Somerset)v.)Stewart( of( 1776,( in(which( a(slave(was(recognized(as(having(selfNinterest(and(autonomy,(and(was(therefore(a(legal(person((Wise(2006b).(Nowadays,(however,(the(human(person(relationship(is(automatic.(Furthermore,(there(are(a(number( of( clearly( nonhuman( entities,( such( as( corporations( and( states,( which( are( technically(recognized(as(legal(persons.(((Yet,( as( Guther( Teubner( (2006)( explains,( the( practice( of( applying( the( construct( of( the( juridical(person(to(nonhumans:(((Has( been( devalued( as( merely( an( analogy,( a( linguistic( abbreviation( of( a( complex( legal(relationship(between(individuals,(as(a(trap(of(corporatist(ideologies,(at(best(as(a(legal(fiction,((a( superfluous( myth,( that( should( be( replaced( by( the( nexus( model( which( conceives( the(organization(as(a(multitude(of(contracts(between(individuals.((2006:(2)((As(such,(the(petition(for(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus(or(legal(guardianship(is(made(on(the(premise(that(the( original( legal( fiction( of( nonhuman( personhood( is( a( legal( fact( that( can( be( adapted( and(reinterpreted(in(different(forms.(These(legal(fictions(are(necessary(for(the(case(to(come(to(court(at(all.(As(pointed(out(by(Wise,(Tommy(must(be( recognized(as(a(person( in(order( for( it( to(be(decided(whether(or(not(he(in(fact(is(one.(Kiko,(Tommy,(or(Hiasl(must(then(be(constructed(as(a(person(within(the(proceedings(in(a(manner(that(is(convincing(enough(to(satisfy(the(operational(procedure(of(the(court(system.(((Following(this(line(of(thought,(Teubner((2006)(explains(the(personification(of(nonhuman(entities(as(a(means(of( coping(with(uncertainty.(He(provides(old(and(more( recent( examples,( from( the( rats(of(Autun,( who( in( 1522( were( placed( on( trial( to( defend( themselves( against( charges( of( the( crime( of(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 21(having( eaten( and(wantonly( destroyed( barley( crops( in( the( jurisdiction( (2006:( 1)8(to(more( recent(contract( law( concerning( transactions(between(humans( and( software( agents.( In( the( first( case,( the(rats(are(held(accountable(for(their(actions(as)if(they(were(cognizant(and(selfNaware,(endowed(with(the(same(duties(and(responsibilities(possessed(by(persons.9(In(the(second(case,(the(software(agent(assumes(a(quasiNpersonhood,(either(by( the(construct(of( deNfacto(contracting10,(or(by(recourse( to(property(law:((( To( combine( the( quasiNactions( of( the( nonNhuman( contract( partner( with( the( actions( of( an(individual( person( or( an( organization( and( to( attribute( contractual( acts( to( this( socioNtechnical(ensemble,( safely(hidden(behind( the(screen(of( the(wellNacquainted( juridical(person((2006:(9).((Such(solutions(rarely(resolve(all(ambiguity;(nevertheless,(they(deal(with(uncertainty(by(making(it(a(communicable(entity.(It(becomes(a(way(of(incorporating(the(actions(of(an(external(system(into(ones(internal(operations.(The(decision(given(by(the(European(Court(of(Human(Rights((ECHR)(in(response(to(the(application(of(legal(guardianship(for(Hiasl(is(a(case(in(point.(In(their(decision,(the(ECHR(states:(( The( Court( holds( that( the( complainant( is( not( affected( personally( by( the( violation( of( the(Convention.( Therefore( the( complainant( is( not( justified( in( claiming( to( be( a( victim( of( the(violation(themselves.(In(accordance(with(Article(35(3)(the(complaint(is(therefore(inconsistent(with( the( personal( scope( [persnlichen) Geltungsbereich]( of( the( Convention.( (Stibble( 2014;(Appendix(B)((The( aforementioned( Article( 35(3)( of( the( European( convention( of( human( rights( states( that( any(application(to(the(ECHR(shall(be(considered(inadmissible(either( if( the(application(is( incompatible(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8(Teubner( identifies( rationalizing(science(as( the( influential( factor( in(minimizing( the(number(and(variety(of(legal( actors.( After( the( scientific( revolution,( after( philosophical( Enlightenment,( after( methodological(individualism(dominating(the(social(sciences,(after(psychological(and(sociological(analysis(of(purpose(action,(the(only(remaining(plausible(actor(is(the(human(individual((2006:(2).(Yet(in(the(hearings(of(Hiasl(and(Kiko,(we(see(a(rationalizing(science(fighting(to(expand(the(range(of(legal(actors.(Balluchs(initial(application(for(legal(guardianship,( as( I( have( already( mentioned,( included( reports( from( anthropologists,( political( scientists,(psychologists,(and(biologists.(9(The( practice( of( placing( animals( on( trial( was( common( in( Europe( from( 13th( ( 18th( century( (Evans( 1987).(Similar( instances(were(recorded(in(Ancient(Greece,(along(with(a(murder(trial( in(which(the(defendant(was(a(knife((Hyde(1917).(((10(Teubner(describes(deNfacto( contracting(as( a(way(of( reducing( the( elaborate( requirements( for( contracting(partners( such( as( intentionality,( to( a(minimum,( namely,( to( the( factual( entry( into( a( standardized( business(relation((2006:(8).(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 22(with( the( provisions( of( the( Convention( or( if( the( applicant( has( not( suffered( a( significant(disadvantage.(Indeed,(the(decision(omits(information(regarding(the(deliberation(of(the(committee(of( judges;( as( such,( it( is( not( clear( whether( the( application( is( inconsistent( as( a( result( of( the(complainants( incompatibility(as(a(nonhuman(animal,(or(due(to( the( insignificance(of(his(suffering.(Hiasl( is( not( addressed( as( person( or( thing;( rather,( his( addressability( is( made( possible( by( the(prevailing( ambiguity( of( his( legal( status.( Again,( Teubner( provides( an( interesting( point( of(consideration(by(way(of(Luhmann(and(Latour:(( On( the( background( of( given( regularities( of( the( natural( and( social(world( they( are( seen( as(irregularities,(as( anomalies.( In(such(a(situation,(when( the(new(Kuhnian(paradigm(to(deal(with(these(anomalies(is(not(in(sight,(a(different(way(out(of(the(dilemma(is(to(transform(these(objects( into( actants,( i.e.( to( presuppose( a( relation( of( double( contingency(with( them.( This(makes(an(experimental(interaction(possible(by(presupposing(alterantive(courses(of(action,(independent(of(the(vexing(indeterminancy/determinancy(question(It(is(sufficient(to(know(what(questions(to(ask(them(and(to(answer(their(questions(in(order(to(conclude(a(contract(independent(of(any(psychojuridical(capacities((2006:(12).((In(other(words,(the(designation(of(Hiasls(legal(status(is(shadowed(by(his(participation(in(a(hybrid(entity( comprised(of(Martin(Balluch,(VGT,(a(willing(guardian,(and(other(humans(and(nonNhumans.(For(the(court,(what(matters(is(the(communicability(of(this(hybrid(entity,(even(though(it( leaves(the(petitioners(arguments(unresolved.(Such(solutions(rarely(alleviate(all(ambiguity;(nevertheless,(they(deal(with(uncertainty(by(making( it(a(communicable(entity.( It(becomes(a(way(of( incorporating( the(actions(of(an(external(system(into(the(courts(internal(operations.(((Hiasl(is(addressable(without(being(explicitly(acknowledged(as(a(person(or(a(thing.(What(matters(is(that( he( is( incorporated( into( the( legal( system( as( (part( of)( a( communicable( entity( that( can( be(presupposed,( even( if( this( admission( does( not( deal(with( the( arguments( of( the( petitioners.( This( is(what(Balluch(means(when( explaining( the( courts( response( as( procedural( and( void( of( substantive(consideration.(Bevilaqua(is(therefore(correct(in(asserting(that(the(courts(decide(not(to(decide(with(regards( to( this( case( (2013:( 78).( A( positive( inflection( of( this( statement( would( be( that( the( courts(communicate( that( they( can( communicate.( ( Therefore,( although( Hiasl( may( be( denied( legal(guardianship,( it( is( not( clear( whether( this( rejection( is( a( consequence( of( his( legal( status.( As(Wise(argues,( Kiko( and( Tommy( have( already( demonstrated( their( ability( to( engage( in( acts( that( are(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 23(technically(reserved(for(legal(persons,(such(as(occupying(the(role(of(true(beneficiary(to(a(trust(and(being(subjects(of(a(petition(for(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus.(Similarly,(the(ECHR(does(not(deny(Hiasl(the(right( to( a( legal( guardian;( it( simply( states( that( his( suffering( is( not( significant( enough( to( fulfill( the(conditions( of( the( Convention.( The( Mdling( District( Court( only( raised( doubts( concerning( Hiasls(identity(and(the(extent(of(his(handicap.(((To( bring( Balluch( &( Theuers( substance/procedure( distinction( back( into( focus,( all( procedure( is(substance(in(that( it(constitutes(a(form(of(communication.(The(software(agent( is(not(person,(but( is(made( to( temporarily( possess( an( attribute( of( persons( N( intentionality( N( that( simplifies( and(presupposes(its(role(within(a(particular(relationship.(These(examples(are(indicative(of(occasions(in(which(ambiguity,( and(not(personification( (or( some(other( form(of( legal( objectification)(becomes(a(way(of(dealing(with(uncertainty.(((!(((!!!!

    !((((((((((((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 24(4.!!Legal!technique!and!chimp!personhood.!(As(Wise( demonstrates(with( reference( to( in) re) Fouts( and(Roe) v.)Wade,( ambiguity( enables( flexible(identity((Strathern(1996)(for(legal(things(and(persons,(of(the(kind(that(Bevilaqua(claims(is(specific(to(the(latter.(To(that(extent,(the(ambiguity(of(the(distinction(between(person(and(thing(may(actually(work(in(favor(of(Wise(and(Balluchs(argument.(Similar(to(Cussins((1996)(description(of(the(agentive(potential( realized( as( a( result( of( the( patients( interaction( with(medical( technologies,( I( argue( that(engaging( the( chimpanzee(with( the( legal( ambiguity( of( person( and( thing( fosters( the( emergence( of(agency(through(legal(objectification.(As(the(beneficiary(of(a(fund,(as(the(subject(of(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus,( Kiko,( Tommy,( and( Hiasl( are( legal( persons,( but( not( in( other( instances.( This( is( significant(because( it( suggests( that( N( contrary( to( understandings( of( taxonomy( and( specificity( as( ways( of(bringing(things(into(existence(N(ambiguity(too(bears(a(similar(creative(potential.((4.1(Agency(Through(Legal(Objectification((Within(legal(proceedings,(ambiguity(carries(things(forward(as(often(as(certainty(does,(and(in(more(than(one(way.(There( is( that(which(Bevilaqua(describes,( that(the(tacit(assumptions(underlying(the(foundational( opposition( of(Western( legal( systems( can( only( function( properly( if( they( go( without(saying( (2013:(76).(Taken( for(granted(as( such,( these(assumptions( lack( formal(definitions,( and(are(therefore( host( to( a( plethora( of( referents,( which( can( be( assembled( in( infinite( varieties.( The(applicants(in(Austria(and(New(York(have(therefore(been(at(liberty(to(draw(on(topics(as(diverse(as(neuroscience( and( social( contract( theory( to( argue( their( cases.( Yet,( as( previously( explained,( this(ambiguity( can( also( help( the) court) to( act( in( interesting( and( unexpected(ways.( An( example( of( this(would(be(the(response(given(to(Wise(&(Stein(by(Judge(Joseph(Sise(during(NhRP)v.)Lavery.(The(court(issued(a( formal(rejection(of( the(petition(as(an( informal(demonstration(of(support.( In(rejecting(the(case,( they( assisted( Wise( &( Stein( in( bringing( their( case( to( a( higher( court,( hoping( to( grant( the(argument( greater( consideration,( or( preserving( the( issue( as( Wise( explains.( As( such,( the( court(enriches(the(process(of(what(Wise(has(called(legal(transubstantiation((2006b),(whereby(the(chimp(enters(the(legal(system(as(a(legal(thing(and(exits(the(same(chimp,(but(as(a(different(legal(entity.((It( is( this( process( of( legal( transubstantiation( that( I( believe( closely( resembles( the( process( of(transformation( endured( by(medical( patients( at( infertility( clinics,( as( described( by( Charis( Cussins((1996).( She( coins( the( term( ontological( choreography( to( describe( the( reciprocal( constitution( of(subjectivity( (as( experienced( by( the( medical( patient)( and( objectivity( (through( the( patients(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 25(interaction(with(medical(technology).(It(is(through(this(reciprocal(constitution((wherein(the(patient(becomes(aware(of(their(body(and(their(situation(in(a(new(way((that(a(new(notion(of(agency(is(made(possible,(not(opposed(by,(but(pursued(in(objectification((Cussins(1996,(575).(In(the(context(of(the(chimp( hearings,( a( similarly( new( kind( of( agency( is(made( possible,( whereby( the( ambiguity( of( the(distinction(between(person(and(thing(renders(new(possibilities(for(the(kind(of(agency(the(chimp(can(assume.( These( new( agencies( are( produced( and(developed(both(within( the( temporal( space( of( the(court(hearings((as(Wise(suggests(when(he(explains(that(the(chimp(must(be(a(person(for(the(sake(of(considering(whether(he/she(is(a(person((and(beyond,(as(suggested(by(his(explanation(of(the(term(legal( transubstantiation.( These( emergent( agencies( are( not( solely( in( the( domain( of( law,( but( are(rather( a( cumulative( product( of( scientific( documents( and( measurements,( petitioners( arguments,(legal( codes,( and( chimpanzee( actions.( The( courts( are( made( heterogeneous( with( scientific( and(ecological( practices( that( give( trial( to( the( sentient( chimp,( in( Latours( sense,( letting( it( show( its(mettle.((((Cussins( point( is( useful( for( highlighting( the( problem( of( distinguishing( between( substance( and(procedure:( both(make) the( chimpanzees( legal( status( in( equal( measure.( In( her( paper,( Bevilaqua(considers(whether(the(Austrian(hearings(actually(foreground(the(difference(or(the(affinity(between(humans(and(chimpanzees?(Does(the(use(of(genetic(evidence(reassert(the(real(human(person(as(the(exemplary(model(of(the(legal(subject((2013:(84)(or(does(it(highlight(the(ambiguity(of(human(beings(themselves( (2013:(81)?(Bevilaqua( concludes( that( to( take(either(position( is( to( remain(within( the(limits(of(a(conceptual(framework(in(which(difference(is(regarded(as(binary(and(exclusive((2013:(84).( Instead,( the( court( and( the( petitioners( are( both( actors( in( the( service( of( a( longNrange( self((Cussins( 1996:( 600).( Needless( to( say,( the( court( decision( could( go( either( way,( and( as( Wise(demonstrates(with(reference(to(previous(cases,(the(law(does(not(necessarily(need(to(be(consistent(in(order(to(preserve(its(integrity.(Ambiguity,(like(personification,(is(a(way(of(managing(complexity.(It( is( a( legal( technique( available( to( both( the( court( and( the( petitioners.( The( chimps( legal(objectification( is( unavoidable.( Kiko( will( either( be( formally( recognized( as( person( or( thing( (or( in(Austria,(a(nonNthing).(Regardless(of(the(courts(decision,(Kiko(will(continue(to(benefit(from(his(fund(and(engage(in(other(acts(reserved(for(persons,(and(to(fall(under(animal(welfare(law(as(a(thing.(His(genetic( makeup( and( capacity( for( language( will( continue( to( suggest( a( familial( link( to( humans(whereby(he(has(stepped(out(of(nature(and(into(culture.(Yet(the(irrefutability(of(our(genetic(affinity(with(Kiko(will(not(be(pressing(enough(to(merit(formal,(legal(recognition.((((((((((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 26(Haraway(situates( the(predicament:( the(question( turns(out(not( to(be(what(are(animal( rights,( as( if(they(existed(preformed(to(be(uncovered,(but(how(may(a(human(enter(into(a(rights(relationship(with(an( animal?( (2003:(53).( In( a( legal( context,( her( assertion( is( useful( in(highlighting( the(predicament(that(emerges(from(crossNpollination(between(person(and(thing.(Conceiving(of(ambiguity(as(a( legal(technique(indicates(a(further(possibility(beyond(the(introduction(of(more(differences,(as(Bevilaqua(suggests,( and( the( existing( person/thing( dyad.( However,( although( it( is( apparent( that( the( existing(dyad(is(insufficient(for(the(various(forms(of(legal(agency(that(are(emerging(at(an(increasing(rate11,(we( should(be( skeptical( of( the(notion( that(difference( is( accommodated(by( establishing(more( legal(categories.(The(problem(with(such(a(notion,(which(is( inherent(to(much(animal(rights(discourse,( is(that( it( remains(within(a( confined(and(paradoxical( sense(of(agency.(Wise(and(Balluchs(arguments(acknowledge(the(fact(that,(as(Teubner(explains,( individual(as(well(as(collective(actors(are(created(by(social(attribution((2006:(4).(Yet(it(is(important(to(consider(that(when(we(attribute(qualities(to(an(entity(that(is(unable(to(speak(for(itself(in(a(formal(capacity,(we(also(take(away(from(it.((((((((Haraways(experience(as(a(dog(trainer(bears(important(insights(into(the(way(entities(from(different(camps( relate( to( each( other.( In( the( previous( chapter( I( explained( how,( contrary( to( Bevilaquas(understanding,( legal( things( are( just( as( capable( of( crossing( between( the( poles( of( subjective(experience( as( are( legal( persons.( Both( can( traverse( the( boundary( for( particular( purposes.( For(Haraway,( the( traversability( is( an( opportunity( to( think( across( difference:( [a]( dog( and( handler(discover(happiness(together(in(the(labor(of(training.(That(is(an(example(of(emergent(naturecultures([sic]((2003:(52).(She(draws(on(dog(trainer(Vicki(Hearne,(who(believed:((( That( the( origin( of( rights( is( in( committed( relationship,( not( in( separate( and( preNexisting(category(identities...(In(relationship,(dogs(and(humans(construct(rights(in(each(other,(such(as(the(right(to(demand(respect,(attention,(and(response((2003:(53).((Marilyn(Strathern(has(commented( that( the( overdetermination( [sic](of( certain( idioms(means( that(when(it(comes(to(legislation(and(litigation,(a(relationship(is(not((and(cannot(be)(a( legal(subject( in(Western( (EuroNAmerican)( law((2005:(31).(Yet( that(does(not(mean( that( the(Western( law(does(not(have(ways( of( accounting( for( relational( entities(within( the( existing( idioms(of( juridical( person( and(thing.( Corporate( personhood( is( a( point( of( encouragement( for( Wise( and( Balluch,( not( so( much(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((11There( is( a( growing( sense( that( animals( and( the( environment( need( legal( protection( from( humans((Klinkenborg(2014)(

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 27(because( it( is( a( formal( recognition( of( a( nonhuman( entity( as( a( legal( person,( but( because( it( is( an(instance(of(legal(objectification(across(difference.(It(is(therefore(suggestive(of(other(ways(in(which(processes( of( association( between(humans( and(nonhumans( (what( Latour(would( call( the)collective((1999:(304))(can(proliferate)through)objectification,(as(Cussins(suggests.(((4.2(Ambiguity(as(Speed(Bump((The(ambiguity(of(the(distinction(is(upheld(by(the(acts(of(both(the(courts(and(the(petitioners.(Both(present( a( chimpanzee( of( their( own(making,( be( it( person,( thing,( or( nonNthing.( No( presentation( is(validated;(each(manifestation(will(have(a(career(of( its(own.(The(ambiguous(distinction(helps( limit(what(can(and(cannot(count(as(a(person(within(particular(jurisdictions,(but(that(does(not(mean(it(can(prevent( the( proliferation( of( manifestations( beyond( the( law,( which( nevertheless( feed( off( of( legal(knowledge.((((Bruno(Latour(has(used(the(example(of(a(speed(bump((1999)(to(illustrate(the(associative(process(of(techniques.(The(people(who( install( speed(bumps(do( so( to( reduce( the(possibility( of( car( accidents.(Their(goal(is(safety.(The(drivers(of(a(vehicle(interact(with(a(speed(bump(by(slowing(down.(Their(goal(is( to( preserve( their( vehicles( suspension.( Neither( goal( is( immediately( visible( to( the( pedestrian(walking(by.(The(speed(bump(does(not(stand(out(to(them(as(a(moral(or(economically(inflected(object.(These(different( realities(are(embedded(within)the)interactions)of( technologies( (vehicles;( concrete)(and(users((engineers;(drivers;(pedestrians;(politicians)((Beard(2000:(106).(((((((((((((((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 28(Conclusion!(Ambiguity(is(a(speed(bump.(For(the(courts,(the(goal(of(ambiguity(is(to(preserve(integrity(in(spite(of(complexity.(In(the(absence(of(formal(definitions,(the(meanings(of(personhoods(defining(attributes(are( taken( to(be( selfNevident.(For( the(petitioners,( ambiguity( is(operated( to(opposite(ends:( to(grant(things(formal(recognition(as(persons.(Both(petitioners(and(the(court(rely(on(ambiguity(to(their(own(ends,(and(from(an(observers(point(of(view,(the(question(remains(with(the(chimp,(when(it(might(be(more(accurately(framed(as(a(question(of(legal(terms(and(operations.((When( the( Mdling( District( Court( of( Austria( states( that( the( law( surrounding( the( writ( of( habeas)corpus( is( unambiguous,( that( anyone(must)mean)human( (Bevilaqua( 2013:( 89),(what( emerges( is(precisely( the( lack( of( defined( boundaries.( What( is( being( performed( is( a( delegation( to( the(assumptions(of(what(is(a(juridical(person((some(nonhumans,(but(not(animals),(and(therefore,(what(is(a(juridical(thing((some(nonhumans,(including,(and(especially,(animals).(This(is,(again,(a(reason(for(the(emphasis(on(scientific(research(in(the(petitioners(arguments:(it(undoes(the(human(as(a(way(of((re)doing(the(person.((Ambiguity( is( therefore,( in( this( sense( that( is( greatly( indebted( to( Bruno( Latour( (1994;( 1999),( a(technique(of(the(law.(Seemingly(a(black(box,(once(unpacked,(it(is(a(complex(unit(composed(of(many(different(bits(and(pieces(that(can(be(used(to(articulate(different(potentialities.(This(is(not(a(question(of(relativism,(because(each(articulation(is(as(valid(as(the(next.(What(my(exegesis(has(attempted(to(show( is(how(new(configurations(of(person(and( thing(are(an(emergent(process.(Attribution(comes(from( more( than( one( place,( and( as( such( the( act( of( creation( to( which( Teubner( refers( is( surely(reworked(in(limitless(ways.(As(the(current(arrangements(of(persons(and(things(suggest,(status(and(rights(are(emergent)properties.(They(emerge(from(and(with(the(less(specified(aspects(of(legal(code.((((((((((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 29(Bibliography!(Legal(References((Convention(on(International(Trade(in(Endangered(Species(of(Wild(Fauna(and(Flora((CITES).(2014.(United(Nations(Environment(Programme.(http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.php(Accessed(12/08/2014.((In(Re(Roger(Fouts(Et(Al.,(176(Misc.(2d(521((N.Y.(Sur.(Cl.(July(10,(1998).((N.Y.(Agric.(&(Mkts.(Law((350((The(Nonhuman(Rights(Project,(Inc.(v.(Presti,(Presti(and(The(Primate(Sanctuary.(No.(151725((N.(Y.(App.(Div.(4d(Dept,(filed(on(Dec.(2,(2013).(http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/wpNcontent/uploads/2013/12/Transcript_of_Oral_ArgumentN_Niagara_County_12N9N13.pdf(Accessed(12/08/2014.((The(Nonhuman(Rights(Project,(Inc.(v.(Lavery,(Lavery(and(Circle(L(Trailer(Sales,(Inc.(No.(02051((N.(Y.(App.(Div.(3d(Dept,(filed(on(Dec.(2,(2013).(http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/wpNcontent/uploads/2013/12/FultonNCtyNhearingNre.NTommyN12N2N13.pdf(Accessed(12/08/2014.((Stibbe,(P.(2014.(Hiasl.([Email(attachment(sent(5th(July(2014].((Literature((Balluch,(M(&(Theuer,(E.(2007.(Trial(on(Personhood(for(Chimp(Hiasl.(Altex(24.(335N342.((Beard,(D.(2000.(Pandoras(Hope:(Essays(on(the(Reality(of(Science(Studies(by(Bruno(Latour((Book(Review).(Rhetoric)Society)Quarterly(30:(2,(104N107.((Berg,(J.(2007.(Of(Elephants(and(Embryos:(A(Proposed(Framework(for(Legal(Personhood.(Hastings)Law)Journal(59:(369,(369N406((Bevilaqua,(C.(B.(2013.(Chimpanzees(in(court:(What(difference(does(it(make?(In(Law(and(the(Question(of(the(Animal,(A(Critical(Jurisprudence((eds.)(Y.(Otomo(&(E.(Mussawir,(71N88.(New(York:(Routledge.((Bonnicksen,(A.(2009.(Chimeras,)Hybrids,)and)Interspecies)Research:)Politics)and)Policymaking.(Georgetown:(University(Press.((Cussins,(C.(1996.(Ontological(Choreography:(Agency(through(Objectification(in(Infertility(Clinics.(Social)Studies)of)Science(26:(3,(575N610.((Evans,(E.(P.(1987.(The)Criminal)Prosecution)and)Capital)Punishment)of)Animals:)The)Lost)History)of)Europes)Animal)Trials.(London:(Faber(and(Faber(Ltd.(((Haraway,(D.(2003.(The)Companion)Species)Manifesto:)Dogs,)People,)and)Significant)Otherness.(Chicago:(Prickly(Paradigm(Press.((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 30(.(2008.(When)Species)Meet.(Minneapolis:(University(of(Minnesota(Press.((Hearne,(V.(1991.(Whats(wrong(with(animal(rights:(Of(hounds,(horses,(and(Jeffersonian(happiness.(Harpers(Magazine.(September(1991((Hyde,(W.(W.(1917.(The(Prosecution(of(Lifeless(Things(and(Animals(in(Greek(Law:(Part(I.(The)American)Journal)of)Philology.(38:(2,(152N175.((Kolber,(A.(2001.(Standing(Upright:(The(Moral(and(Legal(Standing(of(Humans(and(Other(Apes.(Stanford)Law)Review(54:(1,(163N204.((Klinkenborg,(V.(2014.(Animal(Personhood:(Muddled(Alternative(to(Real(Protection.)E360.yale.edu.(http://e360.yale.edu/feature/animal_personhood_muddled_alternative_to_real_protection/2734/(Accessed(01/08/2014.((Latour,(B.(1999.(Pandoras)Hope:)Essays)on)the)Reality)of)Science)Studies.(Cambridge:(Harvard(University(Press.((.(2010.(The)Making)of)Law:)An)Ethnography)of)the)Conseil)DEtat((trans(M.(Brilman(&(A.(Pottage).(Cambridge:(Polity(Press.( (Luhmann,(N.(2013.(Introduction)to)Systems)Theory.(London:(Polity(Press.((Mountain,(M.(2013a.(Bios)on)the)Chimpanzees)in)New)York)Lawsuits.(http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/11/30/biosNonNtheNchimpanzeesNinNnewNyorkNlawsuits/(Accessed(10/07/2014.((Mountain,(M.(2013b.(Lawsuit)Filed)Today)on)Behalf)of)Chimpanzee)Seeking)Legal)Personhood.(http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/12/02/lawsuitNfiledNtodayNonNbehalfNofNchimpanzeeNseekingNlegalNpersonhood/(Accessed(10/07/2014.(((Mountain,(M.(2013c.(New)York)Cases))Judges)Decisions)and)Next)Steps.(http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/12/10/newNyorkNcasesNjudgesNdecisionsNandNnextNsteps/(Accessed(10/07/2014.((Pottage,(A.(2014.(Law(after(Anthropology:(Object(and(Technique(in(Roman(Law(Theory)Culture)Society(31:(2/3,(147N166.((Riles,(A.(2011.(Collateral)Knowledge:)Legal)Reasoning)in)the)Global)Financial)Markets.(Chicago:(University(of(Chicago(Press.((Singer,(P(&(Cavalieri,(P.(1993.(The)Great)Ape)Project:)Equality)Beyond)Humanity.(New(York:(St.(Martins(Griffin.((Strathern,( M.( 1996.( Enabling( Identity?( In:( Stuart( Hall( &( Paul( du( Gay( (eds)( Questions) of) Cultural)Identity.(London:(SAGE(Publications(Ltd.(((((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 31(.(2005.(Kinship,)Law,)and)the)Unexpected:)Relatives)are)Always)a)Surprise.(Cambridge:(Cambridge(University(Press.((Teubner,(G.(2006.(Rights(of(NonNhumans?(Electronic(Agents(and(Animals(as(New(Actors(in(Politics(and(Law.(Journal)of)Law)and)Society(33:(497N521.((Thomas,(Y.(1977.(Acte,(agent,(socit:(Sur(lhomme(coupable(dans(la(pense(juridique(romaine.(Archives)de)la)philosophie)du)droit(23:(93N114((Theuer,(E.(2014.(Hiasl)Case.([Email(sent(5th(July(2014].((Wise,(S.(2006a.(Entitling(Nonhuman(Animals(to(Fundamental(Legal(Rights(on(the(Basis(of(Practical(Autonomy.(In(Animals,)Ethics,)and)Trade((eds.)(J.(Turner(&(J.(DSilva,(87N101.(New(York:(Earthscan.((.(2006b.(Though)the)Heavens)May)Fall:)The)Landmark)Trial)That)Led)to)the)End)of)Human)Slavery.(Cambridge:(Da(Capo(Press.((.((2014.(Update)on)Appeals)for)Tommy,)Kiko,)Hercules,)and)Leo.(http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2014/06/03/updateNonNappealsNforNtommyNkikoNherculesNandNleo/(Accessed(10/07/2014.((((((((((((!

    !

    !

    !(((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 32(Appendix!!Appendix(A:(Email(from(Eberhardt(Theuer.(Received(July(5th,(2014((personal(information(removed).((

  • Candidate(No.(19217 ( 33(Appendix(B:(The(unofficial(decision(from(the(European(Court(of(Human(Rights,(in(response(to(an(application(of(legal(guardianship(for(Hiasl.(Received(as(an(email(attachment(from(Hiasls(prospective(guardian,(Paula(Stibble,(on(5th(July,(2014.(((

    (((((


The Personhood Booklet

Race, Personhood and Corporate Power

Wild Chimpanzee Foundation

Personhood development (Meaning of Responding)

Corporate Personhood

Personhood Papers: Briefing Paper

Achebe - Personhood TFA

THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF PERSONHOOD: CHARLES TAYLOR … Phenomenology of Personhood COLLOQ… · THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF PERSONHOOD: CHARLES TAYLOR AND EDMUND HUSSERL DERMOT MORAN University

Third Chimpanzee CH 14

Personhood for the Unborn

Personhood Changed the Conversation

Revealing Personhood

Structure and Ambiguity Removing Ambiguity

Naturalizing Personhood

THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF PERSONHOOD: … Phenomenology of Personhood... · THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF PERSONHOOD: CHARLES TAYLOR AND EDMUND HUSSERL ... situated subjectivity found in Husserl

RETHINKING COPYRIGHT AND PERSONHOOD

2002 Development and Personhood

Chimpanzee Escape, 1991 Article

Human Is 99% Chimpanzee

Pygmy Chimpanzee

Sierra Leone National Chimpanzee CensusSierra Leone Chimpanzee Rehabilitation Programme Sierra Leone National Chimpanzee Census August 2010 Terry M. Brncic – Scientific Project Manager

Disneynature's CHIMPANZEE ~ Activity Sheets

Virtual Property and Personhood

Human-Chimpanzee Differences in a FZD8 Enhancer Alter …neuroscience.gsu.edu/files/2014/08/Human-Chimpanzee-Differences-in... · Report Human-Chimpanzee Differences in a FZD8 Enhancer

Chimpanzee Club

Personhood & Self: An Introduction

west african chimpanzee

5 B Chimpanzee

incomplete icons of personhood

Chimpanzee Culture

Developmental patterns of chimpanzee cerebral tissues ......Development of chimpanzee cerebral tissues T. Sakai et al. 1 Developmental patterns of chimpanzee cerebral tissues provide

Animacy Agency and Personhood

preembryo personhood

Sweetwaters chimpanzee sanctuary

Moving From Pathology To Personhood