Abstract
The United States relies on a predominantly utilitarian, welfarist framework that regulates certain uses of animals while preserving their status as property. Switzerland embeds the concept of animal dignity in its constitutional and statutory law, formally recognizing animals as beings with intrinsic worth. This foundational divergence produces significant doctrinal and practical differences, including the breadth of species covered, the structure of legal obligations, and the normative goals of regulation.
This Note provides a comparative analysis of animal welfare laws in the United States and Switzerland, exploring their philosophical, legal, and practical dimensions. It examines the U.S.’s utilitarian approach, exemplified by the Animal Welfare Act, which prioritizes human benefit while offering limited protections to animals. In contrast, Switzerland’s legal framework incorporates the concept of animal dignity at the constitutional level, recognizing the intrinsic worth of animals beyond their utility to humans.
Central to the analysis are the philosophical concepts of speciesism and animal dignity. The Note critiques speciesism as a worldview that systematically devalues animal interests and highlights Switzerland’s antispeciesist approach, which challenges anthropocentric assumptions by embedding animal dignity into its legal system.
The Note evaluates the effectiveness of both frameworks, identifying significant gaps in U.S. laws, such as the exclusion of certain species and weak enforcement mechanisms, while acknowledging the strengths and limitations of Switzerland’s more comprehensive protections. Drawing on the Swiss model, the Note proposes reforms for U.S. animal welfare laws, including the recognition of animal dignity, broader species coverage, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms.
Finally, the Note highlights the importance of public education and societal shifts in creating meaningful legal reforms. It concludes by advocating for a more equitable and ethical approach to animal welfare, emphasizing the need to balance human interests with the inherent value of animals.
Recommended Citation
Michael Melch, Fur, Feathers, and Frameworks: The Federal Legal Landscape of Animal Welfare in the United States and Switzerland, 83 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 885 (2026).Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol83/iss2/8