“Headwinds have been a constant presence in my work”

Saskia Stucki, congratulations on winning the Swiss Science Prize Latsis! What does this distinction mean to you?

Saskia Stucki: Thank you. The prize is of course a great honor. At the same time, I feel that this is an important validation of my research, which is at times seen as somewhat unorthodox. I also see the prize as an endorsement of the entire field of animal rights research, which still receives very little attention in Switzerland. I am therefore particularly pleased that the award coincides with the establishment of my new research center, the Center for Animal Rights and the Environment (CARE) at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW).

You’re currently working at several universities simultaneously – ZHAW, the University of Zurich (UZH) and the University of Basel. How did this come about?

Stucki: After spending nearly ten years abroad in Germany and the USA, I returned to Switzerland in the fall of 2024. My initial plan was to work as a postdoctoral researcher at UZH, then ZHAW offered me the chance to establish my own research center – a lifelong dream of mine. Today, I work at ZHAW as a lecturer, researcher and director of the CARE center. I also have a part-time position at UZH at the Chair of Public Law, Environmental Law and Energy Law, under Professor Johannes Reich. This is a significant asset for my research in environmental and climate law. In addition, I am affiliated with the University of Basel for my habilitation. I greatly appreciate the chance to be involved with all these institutions.

Why do we need animal rights? Is animal welfare legislation insufficient?

Stucki: Our legal system recognizes various forms of protection. Subjective rights specifically safeguard the interests of an individual and can be enforced in court. They are the strongest type of legal protection. In contrast, the objective animal protection laws we have today only safeguard the public interest in protecting animals. When trying to find a balance, animal welfare almost always takes a backseat to fundamental rights such as economic freedom or freedom of research. Animal rights would provide stronger and more enforceable protection.

How long have animal rights existed, and what’s the situation today?

Stucki: It depends on how you understand the term. Some lawyers are of the opinion that the obligations established in animal welfare laws mean that animals have implicit rights. From this perspective, basic animal rights already exist today. In contrast, if animal rights are understood as fundamental rights that protect basic interests, akin to human rights, then they hardly exist today, at least in Europe and North America. Interestingly, the first courts in the Global South have actually recognized animal rights, for example in India, Pakistan, Ecuador and Argentina. In 2020, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court stated that in principle, the introduction of fundamental animal rights is possible at the cantonal level.

If animals had their own rights, what would it mean for livestock farming, for example?

Stucki: Fundamental animal rights would ultimately be incompatible with the widespread instrumentalization of animals, as is the case in livestock farming. However, this doesn’t appear to be a socially feasible outcome at this point in time. Everyday life remains heavily centered around the use and killing of animals. The law often responds to societal changes and in some cases, it may even trigger such changes and thus acts as a driver of progress. Nevertheless, the law cannot advance too far ahead of social developments.

What questions are currently of particular importance to animal rights research?

Stucki: This field is still young and for a long time it primarily focused on establishing theoretical and conceptual foundations, such as defining the legal status of animals. Could animals be legal entities and have their own rights? Now that there is a solid theoretical foundation, research is beginning to diversify. Questions about the legal implementation of animal rights are now gaining prominence, for example, how can animals, their interests and rights be politically and legally asserted and represented?

I am currently particularly interested in the relationship between animal, human and environmental rights, as well as analyzing new court rulings. For the first time, these offer the opportunity to test animal rights theory in judicial practice and to advance in alignment with real developments.

You have addressed the connections between animal rights, environmental rights, and human rights.

Stucki: Yes, these interrelations are very important. Many of the major challenges of our time – climate change, extinction, zoonotic disease, antibiotic resistance – are directly related to the use of animals, particularly in agriculture. The use of animals in an agricultural setting is one of the main drivers of greenhouse gas emissions, rainforest destruction and biodiversity loss. Meanwhile, it also causes great suffering for the animals themselves. In the context of the agricultural and food systems, it’s basically no longer possible to consider human, animal and ecological concerns separately. From a normative perspective, I have attempted to conceive this mutual connection between human and animal rights through the lens of One Rights. This is similar to the One Health medical approach, which considers the health of humans and animals jointly.

Animal rights remain largely unestablished in Switzerland. Do you encounter resistance – for example, from the agricultural lobby?

Stucki: Headwinds have been a constant presence in my work. Science is not free from social conflicts. Constructive dissent is important and welcome, whereas personal attacks or the enforcement of individual interests against the common good are problematic. My aim is to engage in serious debate – and my research center intends to contribute to this.