Carving the meat at the joint: The role of defining how animals are viewed and treated in the governance of (re‐)emergent pandemic zoonoses in international law

• Published date: 01 July 2023
• Author: A. M. Viens,Victoria Cassar,Asma Atique
• Date: 01 July 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12215

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Carving the meat at the joint: The role of defining how

animals are viewed and treated in the governance of

(re-)emergent pandemic zoonoses in international law

A. M. Viens

1,2

|Victoria Cassar

1

|Asma Atique

1

1

School of Global Health, York University,

Toronto, Canada

2

Global Strategy Lab, York University,

Toronto, Canada

Correspondence

A. M. Viens, School of Global Health, Faculty

of Health, York University, Victor Dahdaleh

Building, Room 5022B, 88 The Pond Road,

Toronto, Ontario M3J 2S5, Canada.

Email: amviens@yorku.ca

Funding information

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Grant/

Award Number: VR5-172686; York Research

Chair in Population Health Ethics & Law

Abstract

Pandemic zoonoses, such as COVID-19, are one of the

greatest challenges of the 21st century. International gov-

ernance tasked with attempting to prevent the (re-)emer-

gence of zoonotic disease in the first place, or

preparation and actual response once (re-)emergence or

spread has occurred, has largely been fragmented among

different governance systems, such as health, food, envi-

ronment, and trade. The international legal instruments

that these governance systems use reflect different ways

of viewing and treating animals, which has led to a simi-

larly fragmented approach to the regulation of human–

animal interactions related to zoonoses. To illustrate this

state of affairs, we develop a descriptive conceptual tax-

onomy to elucidate and map out how the status and

evaluative stance taken toward animals can lead to shap-

ing human-animal relationships by structuring the nature

of their interactions and disposes us to adopt governance

approaches that seek to regulate human–animal relation-

ships in particular ways. This paper concludes by

highlighting some implications surrounding the fragmen-

ted conceptualization and practice around how animals

are viewed and treated for the future of international

legal governance of pandemic zoonoses.

1|INTRODUCTION

Next to climate change, pandemics are one of the most pressing and critical challenges of the

21st century (Varmus et al., 2003; World Health Organization [WHO], 2020a). Pandemics can

DOI: 10.1111/lapo.12215

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

©2023 The Authors. Law & Policy published by University of Denver and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

392 Law & Policy. 2023;45:392–413.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lapo

have different sources, but our greatest threat will be pandemics of zoonotic origin (Bernstein

et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2008, p. 990). Zoonotic diseases are bacterial, viral, parasitic, or fungal

pathogens occurring in humans that result from close contact with infected animals (Centre for

Disease Prevention and Control [CDC], 2021; WHO, 2020c). Zoonotic risks abound across all

categories of wild, captive, domestic, companion, and commercial animals. For instance, at the

individual level, the risk of zoonotic disease is potentially a concern for all those who come into

close contact with animals in the home or work settings. According to Keatts et al. (2021, p. 2),

“Infection of people with zoonotic pathogens occurs through contact with infected animals via

a variety of mechanisms including: direct contact with bodily fluids (e.g., saliva, blood, urine,

feces); indirect contact with surfaces contaminated with an animal’s infectious secretions;

vector-borne through biting arthropods; foodborne through consumption of contaminated raw

or undercooked food; and waterborne, via contaminated drinking water.”Of course, the scale

and severity of such risks vary a great deal—as do the factors that contribute to determining the

extent of exposure, transmission, mortality, and morbidity that can result from zoonoses. From

companion animal owners who are immunocompromised (Grant & Olsen, 1999) to farmers

and meatpackers who encounter a high volume of animals (Bartelink & van Kregten, 1995;

Wilson, 2004), there is a risk of negative impacts on individual human health from the transmis-

sion of zoonotic pathogens from animals to humans. Nevertheless, most of these infections are

self-limiting, with no larger human-to-human spread after the initial spillover event. For the

purposes of this paper, however, we shall be primarily concerned with the population level—in

particular, instances where widespread transmission among humans leads to the global dissemi-

nation of disease of zoonotic origin, of which the COVID-19 pandemic is a prime example.

The way in which we seek to prevent, prepare, and respond to zoonoses are governed inter-

nationally through collective governance systems. Zoonoses, especially zoonotic pathogens with

pandemic potential, have traditionally and primarily been thought of as a health issue—and

thus thought to be best addressed through health governance systems. This is especially evident

looking at governance that is focused on the response to zoonotic disease, with policies and

activities concentrated on mitigating the spread of disease nationally and internationally.This

is, however, only part of the governance landscape. There is also concern with trying to prevent

zoonotic pathogens in the first place, as well as preparing what to do if these pathogens ever do

spillover into the human population—which engage a number of other governance systems,

especially trade, food systems, and the environment. This collection of sector-based governance

systems has largely operated independently of each other, despite the relevance of pandemic

zoonoses within and across all these systems—although this is beginning to change. All of these

governance systems deal with animals in some way, and each of these systems have their own

way of regulating how animals are viewed and treated that is specific to their own contexts and

intertwined with the wider objectives the systems seek to achieve. The purpose of this paper is

to examine the various legal instruments related to animals relevant to zoonoses available to

these different governance systems and develop a taxonomy of the different ways in which these

instruments conceptualize how animals are viewed and treated. Doing so not only helps to iden-

tify and explicate how different governance systems employ different conceptions of animals

that structure human–animal interactions, but it also reveals the extent to which the legal

instruments available to different governance systems all working toward the same problem are

operating with similar or different conceptions. An analysis of these legal instruments reveals a

fragmentation in the underlying conceptualization of how animals are viewed and treated,

which results in a complex and disjointed picture lacking in overall coherence and consistency.

This conceptual fragmentation is problematic for effective collective action and coordinative

governance of pandemic zoonoses because the legal instruments that different actors and insti-

tutions will make use of view and treat animals in different, and sometimes conflicting, ways.

The failure of disconnected governance systems attempting to address the prevention, pre-

paredness, and response to pandemic zoonoses on their own has long been recognized, with

VIENS ET AL.393