Abstract
In their commentaries on Zoopolis, Nurse, Ryland, and Svärd raise several challenges to our argument for a "political theory of animal rights." They not only object to the specific models of animal citizenship and animal sovereignty we offer, but also express doubt that the categories of political theory can truly shed light on the animal question. In reply, we first clarify the gap in existing animal rights theory that political theory helps to fill. We then address specific concerns regarding (1) the terms of co-citizenship for domesticated animals, (2) the role of the nation-state, and (3) intervention among sovereign animals.
The text of this article is only available as a PDF.
Copyright 2013 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
2013
You do not currently have access to this content.
