collision detection: Whales can't sue

October 21, 2004

Whales can't sue

Last month I wrote about scientists who accuse offshore oil companies of accidentally killing giant squid with blasts of incredibly powerful, 200-decibel sonar. It turns out that Lanny Sinkin, a Hawaiian environmental lawyer, was equally worried about the US's military sonar hurting many other marine animals, such as whales or dolphins.

But Sinkin decided to do something rather remarkable: To let the whales take on the government themselves. So he initiated a lawsuit that pitted actual whales against Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush. Yesterday, ninth circuit judge William A. Fletcher decided that whales lack the standing necessary to sue:

We are asked to decide whether the world's cetaceans have standing to bring suit in their own name under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. We hold that cetaceans do not have standing under these statutes.

There's a PDF of the decision online here. Man, this reads like something from a David Foster Wallace novel.

(Thanks to Boing Boing for this one!)

Posted by Clive Thompson at October 21, 2004 12:57 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1012

Comments

Clive, have you read any of the Uplift books by David Brin?

Posted by: Mentat at October 21, 2004 3:26 PM

No, what are they?

Posted by: Clive at October 22, 2004 2:13 AM

SF wherein humans have genetically altered dolphins to be sentient (or "more sentient"). This takes place in a universe where no species has achieved sentience naturally, instead being "uplifted" by a patron race. The questions explored in the books are, who uplifted humanity and then vanished, and how did the whole thing get started? Fun stuff. I believe one of the books mentions a dolphin testifying in an inter-species murder trial.

Posted by: Mentat at October 24, 2004 1:08 AM

There's some excellent political philosophy by a fellow named Robert Goodin on the subject of law and the rights of non-humans. Christopher Stone wrote an article in 1972 called "Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects".

There certainly are some legal precedents for courts to grant various rights to whales and other non-human creatures. If courts are willing to grant 'personhood' to an abstraction such as a corporation, it's hard to see why they couldn't do the same or something similiar for whales, apes, mice, trees, or whatever.

Posted by: dalai at October 24, 2004 5:55 PM

These are great reading suggestions, all around!

Posted by: Clive at October 28, 2004 3:09 PM

1812 http://www.online-poker-web.net
online poker

Posted by: http://www.online-poker-web.net at January 26, 2005 8:50 PM

4224 want to play online poker mate?

Posted by: online poker at January 29, 2005 9:25 PM

1453 want to play online poker mate?

Posted by: http://www.online-poker-i.com at February 1, 2005 7:10 PM

Posted by: superbowl at February 1, 2005 10:48 PM

Posted by: super bowl at February 1, 2005 11:05 PM