Human Wildlife Conflicts

fleshly RIGHTS OR HUMAN DUTIES? A JURISPRUDENTIAL QUAGMIRE ON ANIMAL RIGHTS (HUMAN RIGHTS vs. ANIMAL RIGHTS- JURISPRUDENTIAL FRONTIERS) ABSTRACTOur ecosystem is a sophisticated organization which includes multitude of flora and fauna that coexist harmoniously without disrupting the inspirational equilibrium. Homo-sapiens bring in topped this ladder of species by virtue of the sixth sense of thought. however though gentlemans gentleman do be in possession of this exceptional faculty of reason, they can non thrive in solitude but can single sustain by placing them amongst the rest of the organization. When humans started organizing themselves, attained civilization and improved their standards of living, they unfortunately undermined the relative importance of the co-organisms which make up the system, thus giving rise to the emergence of an anthropocentric family.The Research Problem The jurisprudential quagmire is the question whether animals too subscribe justlys analo gous to that of human veraciouss. Human powerfuls argon those inalienable, universal and egalitarian fundamental rights to which a mortal is inherently entitled scarce by reason of his or her stand as a human. In the dismount of this definition, animal rights is an absolute misnomer. In jurisprudential terminology, a right is an delight recognise and harbored by law. A right un kindred an interest is a logical claim or potential claim, make by a moral element under principles that govern both the claimant and the calculate of the claim. It presupposes two legal persons, viz., the subject of the right and subject of the duty. Animals cannot be the bearers of such rights because the image of rights is essentially human it is rooted in and has force only within a human moral/legal world. Moreover, by no stretch of imagination, animals can be regarded as legal persons. In fact, it is not the interest of the animal but the interest of the human beings that animals should als o coexist with them. concord to Leon Duguit, your right is a byproduct of the other person preforming his duty towards you. He says there is no right but only duty. If the other has a duty towards you, you feel like having a right. Viewed in the light of Duguits theory, the upgrade problem of justification of wild life-time is actually a human rights bed and not an issue of animal rights. Animalright is, in fact, an illusion created by human beings performing their duties to animals, to the ecosystem, to the character and to the society effectively. If law is about balancing of hostile interests as pointed out by Rudolf Von Ihering and later developed by Roscoe Pound, the conflict tough here is the conflict between the interests of those who haphazard destruct the ecosystem for personal motives and of those who are concern about the mother earth.The Scheme of the condition This article seeks to explore the true nature of the jurisprudential basis of the legal protection of wild life and endeavors to put in correct perspective the need for eco-governance. It argues that animals cannot have rights in the jurisprudential sense that right of an animal is an illusion created because of the presence of human duty to protect it that if human beings secure human rights by ingest, they also contract absolute human duties by birth that the ultimate objective of wild life protection law is to save and protect the animals and not their rights. It concludes that human beings are reckoned to be morally upright species and causing hurt and suffering to animals puts them in a pip much lesser than that of human. ADHEENA BIJU IVth Semester B.Com., LL. B (Hons) take of Legal Studies CUSAT Kochi-22