The LONDON SCHOOL of ECONOMICS and POLITICAL SCIENCE

Department of Law

MSc Law, Anthropology and Society

DISSERTATION COVER SHEET
(Please attach to both copies of your essay)

Candidate
number

Academic
year

Course code and title

2013

to

2014

LL4E9 Dissertation: MSc Law, Anthropology

and Society

Essay title

Ambiguity as Legal Technique: A Discussion of

Chimpanzee Personhood

Course Convener

Professor Alain Pottage

MSc Law, Anthropology, and Society

Programme

Word count
(maximum 10,000
words)

Penalties for exceeding the word limit

10,000 word essay: (starting from 1) for every 100 words above the limit one mark will be deducted to a maximum of
nine marks.

This assessed essay is submitted by the above Candidate Number to the Law Department, London School of Economics and Political Science, in
the above year in part fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc Law, Anthropology and Society(or other) degree.

First Examiner:

Signed:
Second Examiner:

Signed:
Agreed Internal Mark:

Signed:
External Examiner:

Signed:
10,000 word essay: for every 100 words above the limit one mark will be deducted to a maximum of nine marks.

Five marks out of 100 will be deducted for coursework submitted within 24 hours of the deadline and a further five
marks will be deducted for each subsequent 24-hour period (working days only) until the coursework is submitted.
After five working days, coursework will only be accepted with the permission of the Chair of the Sub-Board of
Examiners.

Instruction to Examiners: Return essays to Rebecca Newman, NAB 6.14 with comments in the appropriate boxes.
Comments may also be written on the reverse of this form. Do not write comments on or otherwise mark student
work. Thank you.

!
!
Ambiguity!as!Legal!Technique:!A!Discussion!of!Chimpanzee!Personhood!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
MSc!in!Law,!Anthropology!and!Society!(2013G2014)!
!
Word!Count:!9,951!
!
Candidate!Number:!19217!

Candidate(No.(19217
(

1(

!
Abstract....................................................................................................................................................2(
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................3(
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 4(
Note!on!definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 5(
1.!The!Legal!Hearings ..........................................................................................................................7(
1.1!Kiko!and!Tommy...................................................................................................................................... 7(
1.2!Hiasl.............................................................................................................................................................. 8(
1.3!Expanding!personhood.......................................................................................................................... 9(
2.!The!Petitioners:!The!science!of!personhood!claims.......................................................... 12(
2.1:!From!attribution!to!substance .........................................................................................................12(
2.2!Anticipating!the!Courts!Response ...................................................................................................14(
3.!The!Court:!Means!and!Ends ....................................................................................................... 17(
3.1:!Procedural!Response!v!Qualitative!Consideration ...................................................................17(
3.2:!Personhood!and!the!management!of!uncertainty .....................................................................20(
4.!!Legal!technique!and!chimp!personhood. ............................................................................. 24(
4.1!Agency!Through!Legal!Objectification............................................................................................24(
4.2!Ambiguity!as!Speed!Bump ..................................................................................................................27(
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 28(
Bibliography........................................................................................................................................ 29(
Appendix............................................................................................................................................... 32(

!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

2(

Abstract!
!
This( paper( will( examine( three( cases( from( Austria( and( New( York( where( legal( personhood( was(
requested( for( chimpanzees.( Although( in( each( case( the( respective( chimpanzee( was( denied(
personhood,( here( this( is( not( of( primary( concern,( as( the( intention( of( the( parties( was( further(
reaching:(to(stress(the(ambiguity(of(the(legal(category(of(the(person.(It(has(previously(been(argued(
(Bevilaqua(2013)(that(when(confronted(with(this(ambiguity,(the(courts(decide(not(to(decide((that(is(
N( they( recourse( to( procedural( technicalities( rather( than( considering( the( arguments( on( their( own(
merits.( I( would( like( to( take( this( further( by( employing( the( studies( of( Bruno( Latour( (1999)( and(
Annelise(Riles((2011)(to(argue(that(the(ambiguity(of(judicial(personhood(is(a(legal(technology.(
Through( a( close( reading( of( the( transcripts( and( associated( documents( of( the( court( proceedings,( I(
examine( both( the( argument( presented( by( the( applicants,( as( well( as( the( courts( response.( The(
ambiguity( of( the( distinction( between( person( and( thing( allows( for( the( deployment( of( novel(
arguments( on( both( sides,( incorporating( legal( precedent( as( well( as( fields( outside( the( law( such( as(
biology( and( anthropology.( In( the( absence( of( formal( definitions( of( person( and( thing,( both( present(
understandings(of(their(own(to(construct(the(chimpanzee(as(person(or(thing.(I(focus(on(the(way(the(
courts( and( the( applicants( develop( their( arguments( to( understand( how( legal( subjectivity( is(
constructed(in(the(absence(of(formal(definitions(through(communicative(acts.(
From(there(I(draw(on(Charis(Cussins(notion(of(ontological)choreography((1996)(to(argue(that(it(is(
precisely(the(ambiguity(of(the(chimps(legal(status((its(ability(to(move(between(the(poles(of(
juridical(thing(and(juridical(person(N(that(constitutes(the(chimps(agentive(potential.(Perceiving(the(
ambiguity(of(the(distinction(between(person(and(thing(as(a(legal(technique(allows(us(to(understand(
how(legal(agency(can(exist(in(the(absence(of(legal(subjectivity.(
(
(

!
(
(
(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

3(

Introduction!
(
The( focus( of( this( paper( is( not( animal( rights.( While( the( subjects( and( concerns( discussed( belong( to(
this(domain,(here(they(are(a(point(of(entry(into(a(discussion(of(the(legal(distinction(between(person(
and(thing.(The(growing(number(of(cases(involving(a(request(for(legal(personhood(for(chimpanzees(
is(significant,(not(just( in(its(implications(for(animal(rights,(but(also(in(its(ability(to(foreground(the(
ambiguous( nature( of( the( legal( categories( of( juridical( person( and( thing.( That( ambiguity( need( not(
necessarily(obfuscate(our(understanding(of(legal(personhood(and(thinghood.(Rather,(it(can(reveal(
the(manner(in(which(those(categories(operate.(
(
Not( only( does( the( ambiguity( of( the( categories( make( their( invocation( more( effective( (when( one(
might( think( ambiguity( is( a( hindrance( to( their( operation),( but( also,( as( a( result( of( the( relational,(
operationally( closed( manner( in( which( they( proceed,( ambiguity( is( all( that( the( categories( have.(
Personhood( and( thingNhood( are( not( original,( freestanding( notions,( but( are( reproduced( only( in(
relation(to(each(other(each(time(they(are(brought(to(bear(on(a(case.(Therefore,(while(ambiguity(may(
be(considered(a(matter(of(secondary(concern((the(definition(of(the(categories(selfNevident),(when(it(
comes(down(to(their(technical(application(in(a(legal(context,(we(see(the(roles(reversed.(To(define(the(
categories( in( an( absolute( sense,( to( give( them( original( meaning,( would( render( them( useless.( In( a(
technical( sense,( it( is( their( ambiguity( that( makes( them( useful( mechanisms,( at( once( a( flexible( and(
dynamic( tool( with( which( to( realize( possibilities( (it( is( in( the( interest( of( international( finance( to(
realize( a( corporation( as( a( person),( and( a( normative( guideline( with( which( inclusion( and( exclusion(
can(be(managed.(
(
In( this( narrow( sense,( persons,( things,( and( their( distinction( come( to( figure( as( a( legal( technique,(
rather(than(a(legal(category,(not(so(much(terms(as(they(are(operations.(Recognizing(them(as(such(
requires(attention(to(the(ambiguity(by(which(they(are(thought(to(be(defined,(traditionally(a(matter(
of( secondary( concern.( The( argument( for( why( the( chimpanzee( should( be( a( legal( person( has( been(
developed( at( great( length( by( animal( rights( activists( (Singer( &( Cavalieri( 1993).( I( ask( how( the(
applicants(present(their(chimpanzees(as(juridical(persons.(This(paper(therefore(takes(the(position(
that(the(definition(of(person(and(of(thing(is(not(static(and(absolute,(but(processual;(reproduced(and(
redefined( in( each( instance( of( implementation.( An( initial( ambiguity( is( required( for( this( perpetual(
reproduction(to(justifiably(occur.((
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

4(

Methodology(

(
In(order(to(demonstrate(my(argument,(I(draw(on(the(legal(careers(of(three(chimpanzees:(Tommy,(
Kiko,( and( Hiasl.( Tommy( and( Kiko( both( live( in( New( York,( and( have( had( a( writ( of( habeas) corpus(
petitioned( on( their( behalf( by( Steve( Wise( and( Elizabeth( Stein( of( The) Nonhuman) Rights) Project(
(NhRP).(This(resulted(in(two(court(hearings,(The(Nonhuman)Rights)Project)v.)Presti((NhPR)v.)Presti)N(
Kiko),(and(The)Nonhuman)Rights)Project)v.)Lavery((NhPR)v.)Lavery(N(Tommy).)Hiasl(lives(in(Austria,(
and( has( had( a( request( for( legal( guardianship( filed( on( his( behalf( by( Martin( Balluch( of( the( animal(
rights( association( VGT( (Verein( gegen( Tierfabriken( ( Association( Against( Animal( Factories).( There(
are(other(cases(involving(requests(for(personhood(on(behalf(of(chimpanzees1.(These(three(cases(are(
unique(in(that(they(were(not(immediately(thrown(out(of(court,(and(have(consequently(developed(a(
sufficient( amount( of( documentary( material,( such( as( transcripts( from( legal( hearings,( newspaper(
articles,( and( affidavits.( More( importantly,( they( are( cases( in( which( the( petitioners( place( particular(
emphasis(on(the(ambiguity(of(the(legal(distinction(between(person(and(thing.(
(
My(thesis(is(divided(into(four(chapters.(In(the(first,(I(outline(the(respective(careers(of(Tommy,(Kiko,(
and(Hiasl,(before(briefly(comparing(the(similarities(and(differences(of(their(hearings.(In(the(second,(
I(provide(an(overview(of(the(petitioners(arguments(for(the(personhood(of(their(respective(chimps.(I(
pay( particular( attention( to( the( use( of( scientific( evidence( in( presenting( the( chimpanzee( as( already(
possessing(the(attributes(of(legal(persons.(These(attributes(vary(from(one(jurisdiction(to(the(next,(
such(that(in(New(York(the(primary(attribute((at(least(according(to(Wise(and(Stein((is(autonomy(
(Wise( 2006a),( whereas( in( Austria( mindfulness( and( selfNawareness( are( posited( as( the( primary(
qualifying(attributes((Balluch(&(Theuer(2007).(I(consider(how(this(evidence(is(used(to(construct(a(
definition( of( the( juridical( person( appropriate( to( the( chimpanzee.( I( do( so( in( part( by( reference( to(
Bruno( Latours( notion( of( articulation,( and( of( the) actant:( a( nonhuman( to( which( the( apparatus( of(
science(has(given(a(voice((Teubner(2006:(12).((
(
In( the( third( chapter,( I( turn( to( the( courts( response( to( the( petitioners( argument.( Central( to( this(
chapter( is( the( way( the( petitioners( draw( a( distinction( between( procedure( and( substance( in( their(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
1(See(Bevilaqua((2013)(for(a(discussion(of(a(case(in(Brazil(involving(two(chimps(named(Lili(and(Megh.(There(is(

also( the( case( of( Hercules( and( Leo,( two( chimpanzees( in( New( York( on( whose( behalf( NhRP( is( requesting(
personhood.(However,(their(case(was(promptly(dismissed(on(the(grounds(that(one(may(not(appeal(from(the(
ex(parte((unopposed)(denial(of(an(order(to(show(cause(under(New(York(law((Wise(2014).(Language(barriers(
were(another(significant(factor(in(my(choice(of(cases.(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

5(

arguments,( and( consequently,( in( the( courts( response.( I( consider( how( something( that( the(
petitioners( acknowledge( as( procedural( is( in( fact( understood( to( be( substantive( by( the( court.( I(
develop(an(explanation(of(legal(ambiguity(as(a(technique(by(figuring(juridical(personhood(as(a(legal(
fiction.( Finally,( I( consider( the( juridical( person( as( a( method( of( dealing( with( uncertainty( (Teubner(
2006),(and(suggest(whether(ambiguity(might(also(be(a(way(of(managing(uncertainty.(
(
In(chapter(four(I(synthesize(the(preceding(sections(by(way(of(Charis(Cussins(notion(of(ontological(
choreography((1996).(I(develop(this(notion(with(reference(to(the(court(proceedings,(to(consider(the(
role( of( legal( ambiguity( in( the( chimpanzees( emergence( as( a( legal( actor.( I( critically( analyze(
Bevilaquas(assertion(that(movement(between(the(poles(of(person(and(thing(is(an(exclusive(right(of(
persons,( condemning( all( nonhumans( to( perpetual( immobility( (2013),( and( ask( whether( the(
ambiguity( of( the( distinction( between( person( and( thing( generates( legal( subjectivities( beyond( preN
existing(category(identities.(
((
Note(on(definitions(

(
Neither(of(the(jurisdictions(within(which(these(cases(take(place,(Austria(and(New(York,(has(clearly(
defined(categories(of(legal(person(and(thing.(Rather,(what(is(certain(is(that(person(and(thing(stand(
in(opposition(to(each(other(in(a(manner(so(absolute(as(to(constitute(a(fundamental(characteristic(of(
each(countrys(civil(law(code.(More(appropriate(for(the(purposes(of(this(paper(is(a(definition(of(legal)
technique.(Technical(is(a(good(adjective,(explains(Latour;(technique(is(a(lousy(noun((1999:(190).(
He(divides(the(definition(of(the(technical(into(five(parts.(Firstly,(the(term(applies(to(a(subprogram,(
that(is,(a(momentary(deviation(from(the(main(task(that(is(assumed(to(be(the(sole(worthwhile(object(
of( attention.( Secondly,( the( technical( is( a( way( of( designating( that( which( is( subordinate,( highly(
circumscribed,(and(invisible(yet(absolutely(essential.(Thirdly,(and(at(the(same(time(as(it(is(a(detour(
in(the(first(sense,(it(is(also(a(technical(problem,(a(potential)obstacle)that(may(threaten(the(original(
goal( entirely( (1999:( 191).( Fourthly,( it( is( an( obligatory) passage) point,( that( is,( in( the( sense( of( a(
technical(skill(held(by(a(privileged(yet(subordinate(associate.(Fifth,(by(technical(is(meant(an(act(of(
delegation( by( which( a( chain( of( gestures( and( knowNhow( may( be( anticipated( to( bring( about( a(
particular(result((1999:(192).(
(
To(give(a(sense(of(the(terms(application(in(a(legal(context,(one(may(look(to(the(writings(of(Annelise(
Riles((2011),(who(has(developed(a(notion(of(legal(technique(in(relation(to(the(regulatory(practices(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

6(

of( Japanese( financial( markets.( For( Riles,( the( technical( plays( a( key( role( in( the( legal( framework( of(
markets,( as( illustrated( by( the( management( of( collateral,( that( is,( security( on( a( loan.( Riles( cites( the(
International( Swaps( and( Derivatives( Association( (ISDA)( Master( Agreement,( a( document( used( to(
resolve(the(discontinuity(between(Japanese(state(law,(which(understands(the(exchange(of(capital(as(
a( local,( oneNoff( event( between( two( parties,( with( the( reality( of( the( swaps( and( derivatives( market,(
which( consists( of( continuous( exchange( of( capital( across( borders,( the( collateral( received( from( one(
transaction(often(deposited(as(the(collateral(for(another.(If(a(disagreement(arises,(which(jurisdiction(
would(the(parties(abide(by?(The(ISDA(master(form(resolves(this(complexity(by(requesting(traders(to(
circle( one( of( two( options( listed( on( the( form:( Japanese( jurisdiction,( or( American( jurisdiction( (the(
country( with( whom( most( trades( occur).( Moreover,( the( form( allows( for( communication( between(
traders(across(the(world.(People(who(may(not(necessarily(speak(the(same(language(can(understand(
and(use(the(same(form.(For(Riles,(the(ISDA(Master(Agreement(is(therefore(a(technical(artifact,(in(the(
sense( that( it( is( an( object( delegated( with( the( task( of( resolving( largeNscale( complexity.( It( is( also( an(
obligatory(passage(point(for(any(trader;(an(indispensable(subprogram(to(the(main(task(of(trading(
that(informs(an(entire(set(of(practices.((
(
Yet( for( Riles,( collateral( suspends( belief( in( order( for( legal( proceedings( to( occur.( The( ISDA( Master(
Agreement(frames(collateral(as(a(placeholder.(It(allows(both(parties(to(proceed(as)if(the(loan(will(be(
securely( paid( back( before( repayments( have( even( begun.( It( allows( both( parties( to( act( in( the(
meantime((2011:(163).(It(is(this(notion(of(legal(technique(in(particular(that(I(would(like(to(use(in(
this(paper,(and(which(I(will(develop(in(chapter(two(in(relation(to(the(hearings(for(requests(of(legal(
personhood(in(one(form(or(another(for(Kiko,(Tommy,(and(Hiasl,(respectively.(
(

!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

7(

1.!The!Legal!Hearings!
(
In(this(chapter,(I(provide(a(brief(overview(of(the(three(legal(cases.(I(describe(the(legal(hearings(of(
Tommy(and(Kiko(together(because(their(petitions(were(filed(together.(The(chapter(concludes(with(a(
discussion(of(the(similarities(and(differences(of(the(hearings.((
(
1.1(Kiko(and(Tommy(

On(the(2nd(December(2013,(the(Nonhuman(Rights(Project(announced(that(it(had(filed(the(first(ever(
lawsuits( on( behalf( of( captive( chimpanzees,( demanding( they( be( granted( rights( to( bodily( liberty(
(Mountain(2013b).(This(was(to(be(done(by(way(of(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus,(a(court(order(requiring(a(
person( under( arrest( to( be( brought( before( a( judge.( The( purpose( of( habeas)corpus( is( to( ensure( that(
persons(are(not(unlawfully(imprisoned.(The(detainer(must(present(a(charge(to(justify(the(detention,(
which(the(court(may(subsequently(accept(or(refuse.(In(this(case,(the(detainees(in(question(were(four(
chimpanzees,( located( in( New( York( State.( Tommy( is( a( 26NyearNold( chimpanzee,( who( at( the( time( of(
the(proceedings(was(caged(in(a(windowless(tin(shed(on(a(used(trailer(park(in(Gloversville,(NY.(Kiko,(
also(aged(26,(and(formerly(used(in(the(entertainment(industry,(was(living(in(a(primate(sanctuary(in(
Niagara(Falls,(NY.(
(
The( petitions( for( the( writ( of( habeas( corpus( are( backed( by( a( number( of( affidavits( from(
primatologists,( neurologists,( and( other( members( of( the( scientific( community.( These( affidavits(
present( evidence( that,( according( to( the( Nonhuman( Rights( Project,( proves( chimpanzees( to( be(
cognitively(complex,(selfNaware,(and(above(all,(autonomous(beings((NhRP)v.)Presti:(3).(As(a(result(of(
these( characteristics,( NhRP( argues( that( these( chimpanzees( have( a( fundamental( interest( in( bodily(
liberty((NhRP)v.)Lavery:(22;(NhRP)v.)Presti:(9)(that(should(be(recognized(by(the(court,(and(protected(
by( a( writ( of( habeas( corpus.( In( other( words,( in( petitioning( for( a( writ( of( habeas( corpus( for( these(
chimpanzees,( NhRP( is( requesting( the( court( recognize( them( as( legal( persons( with( fundamental(
rights.( In( as( much( as( the( court( only( recognizes( such( interests( and( rights( in( legal( persons( and( not(
legal( things,( NhRP( argues( that( although( existing( animal( cruelty( laws( may( still( apply( to( the(
chimpanzees,( they( are( insufficient.2(This( is( an( important( point,( because( although( it( would( grant(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
2(In(NhRP)v.)Presti,(the(judge(asked(whether(the(New(York(State(Agricultural(&(Markets(Law,(which(states(that(

an( animal( includes( every( living( creature( except( a( human( being( (( 350),( would( preclude( the( court( from(
issuing( a( writ( of( habeas)corpus.( NhRP( attorney( Elizabeth( Stein( states( that( it( would( not,( since( the( fact( that( a(
writ(of(habeas(corpus(is(issued(for(people,(renders((353(of(the(Agricultural(&(Markets(Law(not(applicable(to(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

8(

chimpanzees( legal( personhood,( they( would( not( be( deemed( human( beings,( and( would( therefore(
remain(subject(to(Agricultural(&(Markets(law,(as(are(all(nonhuman(animals((NhRP)v.)Presti:(13).(
(
NhRP(argues(that(the(chimpanzees(already(exercise(rights(reserved(for(legal(persons(without(being(
legal(persons(themselves.(Kiko(is(already(the(true(beneficiary(of(a(trust((as(opposed(to(the(honorary(
beneficiary)(that(has(been(set(up(for(him(by(the(NhRP((NhRP)v.)Presti:(9).(In(as(much(as(Kiko(enjoys(
all( the( rights( of( a( human( beneficiary,( attorney( Steven( Wise( of( the( NhRP( argues( that( he( implicitly(
must(be(a(legal(person(because(a(legal(person(has(the(capacity(to(have(a(right((NhRP)v.)Presti:(9).(
There(is(precedence(for(nonhuman(true(beneficiaries(of(trusts,(as(with(In)Re:)Roger)Fouts,(in(which(
five( chimpanzees,( and( not( a( guardian( appointed( by( the( court,( were( deemed( the( principal(
beneficiaries( of( a( trust( set( up( for( their( benefit.( As( such,( the( legal( status( of( chimpanzees( remains(
contentious(and(ambiguous.(
(
1.2(Hiasl(

The(legal(status(of(chimpanzees(remains(equally(ambiguous(in(other(parts(of(the(world.(In(Austria,(
until(recently,(any(entity(that(was(not(a(person(was(a(thing,(as(stipulated(in(section(285(of(its(civil(
law(code.(Yet(in(the(beginning(of(1989,(a(new(section((285a)(was(added,(which(explicitly(stated(that(
animals( are( not( legal( things( (Balluch( &( Theuer( 2007:( 336).( In( a( civil( law( code( where( an( entity( is(
assigned( one( of( two( categories( ( either( person( or( thing( ( how( can( one( be( neither?( This( question(
was( posed( to( the( High( Court( of( Austria( during( a( longstanding( dispute( between( a( Vienna( animal(
shelter( and( Austrian( pharmaceutical( company( Immuno( over( two( chimpanzees( named( Hiasl( and(
Rosi.(The(pair(had(been(flown(to(Vienna(from(Sierra(Leone,(after(being(purchased(by(Immuno(from(
an(Austrian(wild(life(trader.(It(was(intended(for(them(to(be(used(in(medical(experiments(relating(to(
AIDS( and( hepatitis( research( (Balluch( &( Theuer:( 335).( They( arrived( at( Vienna( airport( on( the( 29th(
April( 1982;( one( day( after( Austria( signed( the( Convention( on( International( Trade( of( Endangered(
Species((CITES),(an(international(treaty(that(aims(to(ensure(that(international(trade(in(specimens(of(
wild(animals(and(plants(does(not(threaten(their(existence.3(Lacking(the(necessary(CITES(documents,(
Hiasl(and(Rosi(were(detained,(and(deemed(unlawful(imports(in(breach(of(the(CITES(agreement(by(
Vienna( magistrates.( They( were( then( handed( over( to( the( animal( shelter( (Balluch( &( Theuer( 2007:(
336).((

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
our(situation((NhRP)v.)Presti:(12).(While(those(laws(still(apply(to(Kiko,(the(petition(for(a(writ(of(habeas(corpus(
requires(the(judge(to(consider(extending(the(definition(of(legal(personhood(to(include(chimpanzees.(
3(See(http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.php(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

9(

(
Immuno(continued(to(appeal(the(decision(until(it(reached(the(High(Court,(which(voted(in(their(favor(
and(ordered(that(Hiasl(and(Rosi(be(relocated(to(the(laboratory.(The(shelter(refused,(and(physically(
blocked(Immuno(representatives(from(reclaiming(the(chimps.(The(shelter(argued(they(had(a(legal(
obligation(to(protect(animals(from(suffering,(to(which(the(judge(responded(animals(are(things(and(
as( such,( have( no( interests( for( themselves.( (Balluch( &( Theuer( 2007:( 336).( The( animal( shelters(
persistent( refusal( to( hand( over( the( chimpanzees( landed( the( case( back( in( court( in( 1989,( by( which(
time( provision( 285a( had( been( added( to( the( civil( law( code.( They( used( the( new( provision( to( argue(
that(Hiasl(and(Rosi,(not(being(things,(have(a(value(in(themselves,(and(that(this(value(should(trump(
the(property(value(of(the(chimps(as(experimental(tools(for(Immunos(research(lab((2007:(336).(The(
judge( ruled( against( this( argument,( maintaining( that( in( spite( of( the( new( provision,( nonNhuman(
animals(remain(things,(and(the(property(owner(has(a(right(to(take(possession(of(his/her(property(
regardless( of( the( consequences( to( the( chimpanzee.( Once( again,( the( judge( ordered( that( Hiasl( and(
Rosi(be(handed(back,(and(once(again(the(animal(shelter(refused.((
(
In( 1999,( Immuno( was( purchased( by( another( pharmaceutical( company,( which( stopped( all(
experimental( use( of( chimpanzees,( and( officially( donated( Hiasl( and( Rosi( to( the( animal( shelter( in(
2002( (2007:( 336).( However,( in( 2006( the( animal( shelter( ran( into( financial( difficulties.( Facing(
bankruptcy,(the(shelter(was(preparing(to(sell(the(chimpanzees,(when(a(large(donation(was(made(to(
Martin(Balluch,(president(of(VGT.(The(donation(was(made(on(the(condition(that(Hiasl(be(appointed(
a(legal(guardian,(who(was(allowed(to(receive(this(money(at(the(same(time,(and(who(would(be(able(
to(decide(what(the(two(together(would(want(to(spend(the(money(on((2007:(337).(This(agreement(
served( to( verify( Balluchs( legal( standing( to( request( a( legal( guardian( for( Hiasl.( An( application( was(
made( in( February( 2007( to( the( District( Court( in( Mdling,( Lower( Austria( for( Matthias( Hiasl( Pan(
(2007,( 337).( The( application( was( supported( by( four( expert( statements( from( professors( of(
anthropology,( civil( rights,( law,( and( biology,( establishing( an( argument( for( Hiasl( to( be( considered( a(
legal( person( in( accordance( with( Austrian( law.( This( application( was( also( rejected,( as( was( the(
subsequent(appeal(to(the(European(Court(of(Human(Rights((ECHR).((
(
1.3(Expanding(personhood(

(
In(attempting(to(expand(the(definition(of(legal(personhood(to(include(nonhuman(animals,(scientific(
evidence(is(deployed(to(render(the(legal(distinction(between(person(and(thing(scientifically(obsolete(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

10(

(Bevilaqua( 2013).( In( the( absence( of( a( formal,( precise( legal( definition( of( person,( those( requesting(
legal( personhood( for( the( chimps( often( provide( their( own( definitions.( In( the( case( of( Hiasl,( Martin(
Balluch( asserts,( [t]he( definition( of( human( in( Article( 16( ABGB( has( to( be( interpreted( biologically.(
(2007:(337).(We(share(99.4%(of(our(DNA(with(chimpanzees;(we(have(matching(chromosomes;(we(
could(even(produce(offspring(with(them.4(Interpreted(biologically,(human(beings(are(those(animals(
that(belong(to(the(homo(genus,(of(which(chimpanzees(are(also(members.(The(term(homo(after(all,(is(
Latin(for(human((2007:(337).(
(
Wise( also( provides( his( own( scientific( understanding( of( persons,( rooted( in( cognitive( science.( The(
affidavits( that( accompany( his( applications( suggest( that( chimpanzees( have( a( level( of( cognitive(
sophistication(equal(to(our(own,(or(at(least,(equal(enough(to(constitute(autonomy(and(selfNinterest:(
the( defining( characteristics( of( the( person( according( to( New( York( state( law( (NhRP) v.) Lavery:( 21).(
Balluch(also(deploys(findings(in(cognitive(science(to(argue(that(chimpanzees(have(a(theory(of(mind,(
the( validating( feature( of( the( person( as( defined( within( the( philosophical( tradition( of( the(
Enlightenment,(which(is(the(basis(for(the(Austrian(civil(law(code.((2007:(339).(
(
Although(these(definitions(carry(the(epistemological(weight(of(scientific(certainty,(in(each(case(the(
court( finds( little( reason( to( be( swayed( by( these( arguments.( During( Tommys( hearing( in( December(
2013,(Judge(Joseph(Sise(expressed(appreciation(of(the(argument(presented(by(Wise(and(Stein,(but(
did(not(sign(the(writ,(explaining(that(the(court(would(not(recognize(a(chimpanzee(as(an(entity(who(
could( seek( a( writ( of( habeas( corpus( under( Article( 70( of( New( York( state( law.( Good( luck( with( your(
venture,(he(concluded,(Im(sorry(I(cant(sign(the(order,(but(I(hope(you(continue.(As(an(animal(lover,(
I(appreciate(your(work((NhRP)v.)Lavery:(26).((
(
Hiasl(on(the(other(hand,(was(initially(denied(guardianship(due(to(the(problem(of(his(identity.(When(
the(applicants(for(legal(guardianship(were(able(to(provide(witnesses(to(Hiasls(arrival(in(Austria,(the(
problem(then(became(the(legitimacy(of(his(need(for(a(guardian,(not(because(was(a(legal(thing,(but(
because(he(was(not(mentally(handicapped(and(faced(no(imminent(threat((Balluch(&(Theuer:(339).(
The(decision(was(appealed,(as(the(applicants(argued(that(having(been(forcefully(taken(from(both(his(
family( and( natural( environment,( Hiasl( had( been( seriously( traumatized( (Balluch( &( Theuer( 2007:(
339),(and(was(for(that(reason(unable(to(care(for(himself(and(in(need(of(a(guardian(who(could(do(so.(
Furthermore,(the(applicants(argued(that(this(threat(was(even(more(imminent,(due(to(the(impending(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

4(As(attempted(by(Soviet(biologist(Ilya(Ivanovich(Ivanov((Bonnicksen(2009).(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

11(

bankruptcy( of( the( shelter,( which( could( result( in( Hiasls( deportation( into( an( unknown( future(
(Balluch( &( Theuer( 2007:( 339).( The( judge( dismissed( the( appeal( on( the( grounds( that( the( applicant(
had(no(legal(standing.5((
(
(
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

(
(
(
(
(
(

!
(
(
(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

5(For(an(overview(of(the(legal(standing(of(humans(and(apes(see(Kolber((2001).(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

12(

2.!The!Petitioners:!The!science!of!personhood!claims!
(
In( this( chapter,( I( examine( the( arguments( presented( to( the( courts( by( the( petitioners.( How( do( they(
present(the(chimpanzee(as(a(legal(person?(Scientific(evidence,(typically(in(the(form(of(affidavits,(is(
central(to(the(petitioners(construction(of(the(chimpanzee(as(a(legal(person.(In(this(chapter(I(look(at(
how( the( chimpanzee( is( constructed( as( such,( focusing( on( the( facilitative( role( of( ambiguity( in( the(
emergence(of(a(particular(kind(of(legal(subjectivity(appropriate(to(the(chimpanzee.(
(
2.1:(From(attribution(to(substance(

All( three( cases( are( anchored( in( scientific( evidence( that( posits( the( chimp( as( equal( to( human,( and(
therefore(N(at(least(by(analogy(N(a(legal(person.(This(is(most(evident(in(the(NhRP)vs)Presti(hearing,(
wherein(Wise(argues(that(although(humans(have(not(always(automatically(been(legal(persons,(there(
are( humans( less( cognitively( sophisticated( than( Kiko( who( are( nonetheless( recognized( as( persons.6(
The( reliance( on( scientific( evidence( in( their( legal( arguments( is( an( important( detail( of( these( court(
cases( that( merits( closer( attention.( Balluch( himself( has( trained( as( a( physicist,( and( has( published( a(
number( of( academic( papers( on( astronomy.( All( chimp( related( NhRP( cases( present( the( court( with(
hundreds(of(pages(of(affidavits(from(primatologists,(neurologists,(geneticists,(and(other(members(of(
the(scientific(community.(But(why(is(there(so(much(science(in(a(legal(case?(Is(science(an(adequate(
foundation( for( legal( argumentation?( In( order( to( understand( what( science( does( for( the( law,( I(
propose(we(first(invert(the(question(and(ask(what(the(law(does(for(science.(Doing(this(can(help(us(
take(a(step(back(from(the(case,(to(focus(less(on(the(disputed(facts(and(more(on(the(process(of(legal(
objectification.(What(constitutes(person(and(what(constitutes(thing?(Can(something(count(as(both,(
and( why?( So,( does( Hiasl( or( Kikos( recognition( as( a( legal( person( have( any( benefits( for( the( science(
involved(in(figuring(them(as(autonomous(beings(with(agentive(potential((Belivalqua(2013)?(((
(
In( order( to( answer( these( questions,( I( draw( on( Bruno( Latours( (1999)( analysis( of( the( relationship(
between( Louis( Pasteur( and( his( ferments,( which( bears( resemblance( to( Balluch,( Wise,( and( their(
chimps.(Latour(opens(his(piece(on(Pasteur(with(a(question:(Did(ferments(exist(before(Pasteur(made(
them(up?(to(which(he(responds,(No,(they(did(not(exist(before(he(came(along((1999,(145).(That(is(
not( to( say,( however,( that( the( ferments( are( mere( mythology.( Rather,( each( laboratory( experiment,(
and( every( literary( presentation( of( his( findings,( entailed( a( mutual( exchange( of( competencies(
between(Pasteur(and(the(ferments,(such(that(they(were(able(to(make)each)other.(Pasteur(describes(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

6(See(Jessica(Bergs((2007)(discussion(of(the(legal(status(anencephalic(infants.(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

13(

noticeable(spots(of(gray(substance(with(greater(detail(and(specificity,(ascribes(them(with(properties(
and( characteristics( that( are( confirmed( by( other( scientists( in( their( own( replications,( thereby(
granting( Pasteur( greater( validity( as( a( truth( claimant.( Pasteur( is( designing( an( actor( as( Latour(
explains,(or(more(accurately:((
(
Designing( trials( for( the( actor( to( show( its( mettle.( Why( is( an( actor( defined( through( trials?(
Because(there(is(no(other(way(to(define(an(actor(but(through(its(action,(and(there(is(no(other(
way(to(define(an(action(by(asking(what(other(actors(are(modified,(transformed,(perturbed,(or(
created(by(the(character(that(is(the(focus(of(attention((1999:(122).((
(
Yet( if( Pasteur( is( successful,( his( involvement( will( go( unnoticed.( The( ferments( will( appear( to( have(
done( all( the( work;( they) will) present) themselves,( rendering( Pasteur( a( highly( skilled( yet( humble(
observer.( If( he( is( unsuccessful,( the( whole( suggestion( will( be( seen( as( a( fiction,( in( which( Pasteur(
prompted(the(ferments(to(say(what(he(fancied.(((
(
Are( the( chimpanzee( hearings( not( involved( in( a( similar( process( of( anchoring( attribution( to(
substance?(In(both(the(Balluch(and(Wise(cases,(scientific(evidence(is(used(to(design(a(trial(for(the(
actor( to( show( its( mettle( in( a( legal( context.( The( attributes( of( personhood( are( anchored( to( the(
chimpanzee(via(the(wealth(of(evidence(that(affirms(their(humanness,(or(rather,(which(suggests(that(
there(is(no(difference(between(human(and(chimpanzee:([t]here(is(practically(no(quality(or(ability(
traditionally(considered(typically(human(that(chimpanzees(do(not(also(possess((Balluch(&(Theuer(
2007,(337).(An(automatic(connection(between(human(and(person(is(taken(for(granted.(In(seeking(to(
clarify( the( definition( of( legal( personhood,( Balluch( and( Wise( recruit( scientific( knowledge( and( the(
legal(subjectivity(of(the(human(to(assert(their(own(definition(of(the(person,(while(at(the(same(time(
redefining( that( crucial( term( (human)( upon( which( the( legal( analogy( of( person( and( chimpanzee( is(
made.(The(science(affirms(the(humanNchimpanzee(relation(by(cancelling(out(the(initial(distinction.(
(
This( process( of( rendering( the( legal( boundaries( between( human( and( chimpanzee( artificial( and(
scientifically( obsolete( (Bevilaqua( 2013,( 77)( suggests( personhood( status( for( the( chimpanzee( by)
default.( The( human( is( the( bridge( between( person( and( chimpanzee,( presented( by( Balluch( and(
Wises(affidavits,(such(that(Kiko(and(Hiasl(present)themselves)as(legal(persons.(Through(their(actions(
in( dexterity( tests( and( cognitive( examinations,( Kiko( and( Hiasl( emerge( as( subjects( contending( for(
legal(personhood,(and(from(their(characters(emerge(new(types(of(litigants,(legal(hearings,(areas(of(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

14(

scientific( investigation,( and( entire( organizations,( such( as( NhRP.( From( a( scientific( perspective( at(
least,( the( similarities( between( human( and( chimpanzee( are( such( that( the( chimpanzees( claim( to(
personhood( appears( to( be( selfNevident,( while( the( scientific( understanding( of( human( has( become(
considerably(more(complex.(Legally,(however,(the(person(is(enacted(as(a(solid(and(reliable(category,(
its(inclusion(of(human(taken(for(granted(such(that(it(should(produce(the(same(legal(result(even(if(
the( meaning( of( the( terms( to( which( the( operation( refers( are( different.( Humans( are( redefined(
scientifically( on( the( condition( that( they( remain( the( same( legally.( The( human,( like( the( person,(
remains(a(legal(operation.((
(
2.2(Anticipating(the(Courts(Response(

(
The(problem(with(this(approach(is(that(the(legal(person((although(functional(as(a(legal(operation(as(
much(as(it(is(referable(as(a(category((is(no(more(stable(than(EuroNAmerican(concepts(of(the(human.(
As(Alain(Pottage(explains:(
(
Legal( forms( do( not( have( an( analogue( relation( to( nature,( nor( do( they( have( the( kind( of(
stability( or( integrity( that( would( allow( them( to( function( as( armatures( of( subjective(
existence( persons( and( things( have( their( existence( in( legal( formulae( that( are( formed( and(
reformed(within(specific(cases(or(transactions.(Again,(the(semantic(or(epistemological(form(
of( the( person( (or( thing)( is( eclipsed( by( the( technical( operations( within( which( it( is(
actualized(we(should(think(of(cognitive(or(epistemological(forms(as(substantives(that(have(
been(turned(into(procedures((2014:(160).(
(
Legal( status( cannot( be( taken( as( an( indication( of( the( essence,( or( moral( disposition( of( a( person( or(
thing.( Pottage(illustrates(this(point(by(way(of(an(example(from(Roman( law,(which(treated(acts(as(
things( in( themselves( rather( than( an( expression( of( subjective( intention( (2014:( 153).( The( actor( is(
captured(retroactively(by(their(act,(not(truly(the(agent(of(a(wrong,(so(much(as(the(subject(included(
in(it((Thomas,(1977:(71).(A(similar(formulation(of(the(relationship(between(action(and(actor(is(at(
play(in(the(petitioners(presentation(of(the(chimpanzee(as(a(person,(given(their(participation(in(acts(
thought(to(be(reserved(for(human(persons.(Admittedly(this(is(a(shortcoming(of(Balluchs(argument,(
because( it( leaves( his( case( open( to( accusations( that( he( is( trying( to( attain( full( human( rights( for( all(
animals( based( on( genetic( similarity.( Even( if( this( is( his( agenda,( Wises( argument( is( here( more(
fathomable(precisely(because(of(the(distinction(he(makes(between(human(and(person,(which(then(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

15(

goes(on(to(frame(his(argument(for(nonhuman(personhood(for(chimpanzees,(a(claim(that(is(easier(to(
digest.(
(
In(this(chapter(we(have(reviewed(the(techniques(by(which(the(petitioners(present(the(chimpanzees(
as( already( persons( by( possession( of( their( attributes.( This( presentation( assumes( a( particular(
response( from( the( court.( It( assumes( that( an( entity( can( be( recognized( as( person( or( a( thing( in(
accordance(with(a(preNexisting(status.(The(petitioners(attempt(to(undo(this(claim(by(demonstrating(
that(the(limits(of(that(status(are(unclear,(and(as(such,(possession(of(characteristics(associated(with(
that( status( N( such( as( autonomy( and( mindfulness( N( are( what( constitute( persons.( They( therefore(
take( a( similar( position( to( Roman( lawyers,( binding( subjects( to( particular( actions,( rather( than(
designating( actions( according( to( the( status( of( the( subject.( Within( the( temporal( frame( of( the( court(
proceedings,(such(an(assertion(is(more(a(matter(of(technique(than(moral(belief,(substantives(that(
have(been(turned(into(procedures((Pottage(2014:(160).((
(
To( assume( that( one( can( present( the( science,( and( the( rest( will( be( selfNevident,( is( to( overlook( the(
extent( to( which( law( relies( on( its( own( actions( to( inform( its( decisions.( Pottage( continues,( the(
specificity( of( legal( technique( becomes( visible( only( if( one( remains( within( the( space( between( form(
and( frame,( retracing( the( recursive( analogies( that( loops( the( forms( of( person( and( thing( (back)( into(
the( frame( of( a( legal( action( (2014:( 162).( The( frame( in( this( case( is( a( petition( for( a( writ( of( habeas)
corpus,(and(it(is(the(applicants(failure(to(reference(that(frame(within(the(proceedings,(as(opposed(to(
the( courts( failure( to( understand( or( even( accept( the( nature( of( what( is( being( said,( that( contributes(
towards( the( rejection( of( their( argument.7(Yet( as( we( shall( see,( the( selfNreferential( nature( of( legal(
procedures(continually(intervenes(in(the(distinction(between(form(and(frame.((
(
The( distinction( between( form( and( frame( is( similar( to( the( distinction( between( substantive( and(
procedural( considerations( (Balluch( 2007,( Bevilaqua( 2013).( The( selfNreferential( nature( of( legal(
procedures( renders( this( distinction( rather( problematic.( In( the( law,( a( decision( may( very( easily(
become( a( procedure,( as( is( the( case( when( one( draws( on( precedent( to( make( an( argument.(
Furthermore,( both( the( scientific( and( legal( depiction( of( the( chimpanzee( is( ultimately( a( reduction,(
although(such(objectification(is(necessary(for(the(legal(proceedings(to(continue.(The(question,(then,(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
7 (It(

is( also( important( to( note( that( there( is( a( legitimate( concern( regarding( the( objectivity( of( expert(
testimonies/statements( produced( specifically( for( the( purposes( of( a( court( case.( The( affidavits( submitted( by(
Wise,(and(the(research(referenced(by(Balluch,(are(of(a(different(nature(to(an(article(published(in(a(wellNknown,(
peerNreviewed,(academic(journal.(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

16(

is(whether(two(distinct(depictions(can(be(reconciled,(and(at(what(cost(to(the(chimpanzee?(Or(rather,(
might(the(realization(of(another(agency(for(the(chimpanzee(lie(precisely(in(this(irreconcilability?(In(
order(to(resolve(this(problem,(we(must(first(address(the(way(that(the(court(received(and(responded(
to(the(evidence(discussed(in(this(chapter.(We(have(reviewed(the(tactics(that(the(petitioners(use(to(
align( chimp( and( person,( and( how( they( anticipate( responses( from( the( court.( What( can( the( courts(
actual( response( tell( us( about( the( way( that( person,( thing,( and( their( distinction( operate( in( a( legal(
capacity?(
!

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

17(

3.!The!Court:!Means!and!Ends!
(
In( this( chapter( I( switch( focus( from( the( arguments( presented( by( the( petitioners( to( the( courts(
response.(With(Balluchs(distinction(between(procedure(and(substance(in(mind,(I(take(a(closer(look(
at(what((little)(is(said(in(the(hearings,(to(better(understand(the(courts(articulation(of(person,(thing,(
and(their(distinction.(I(argue(that(Balluchs(distinction(between(procedure(and(substance(overlooks(
the(selfNreferential(nature(of(law(in(which(means(become(ends,(as(with(the(case(of(legal(precedent.(I(
then(go(on(to(consider(juridical(personhood(as(a(method(for(managing(uncertainty,(to(argue(that(the(
ambiguity(of(the(distinction(between(person(and(thing(in(the(chimpanzee(hearings(plays(a(similar(
role.( I( do( so( by( way( of( a( close( reading( of( the( response( issued( by( the( European( Court( of( Human(
Rights(to(Balluchs(application(for(legal(guardianship(on(behalf(of(Hiasl.(
(
3.1:(Procedural(Response(v(Qualitative(Consideration(
(
Neither(of(the(jurisdictions(within(which(these(cases(take(place,(Austria(and(New(York,(has(clearly(
defined(categories(of(legal(person(and(thing.(Rather,(what(is(certain(is(that(person(and(thing(stand(
in(opposition(to(each(other(in(a(manner(so(absolute(as(to(constitute(a(fundamental(characteristic(of(
each(countrys(civil(law(code.(In(as(much(as(legal(person(and(thing(are(terms(defined(in(opposition(
to(one(another,(it(is(unclear(what(each(term(means(independently.(What(makes(chimp(personhood(
cases(so(interesting(is(that(they(require(a(definition(of(legal(personhood(without)reference(to(legal(
thing.(Defining(the(legal(person(is(the(only(way(to(manage(the(problems(raised(by(the(request(for(
chimpanzee( personhood:( to( simply( state( that( the( chimpanzee( is( not( a( legal( person( because( it( is( a(
legal(thing(is(both(to(restate(the(obvious(and(to(answer(a(different(question.((
(
Wises(request(for(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus,(and(Balluchs(request(for(legal(guardianship(ask(that(the(
chimpanzee( be( seen( as( both) person) and) thing.( The( Wise( case( in( particular( does( not( dispute( the(
chimps(legal(status(as(thing,(it(simply(asks(why(it(cannot(also(be(a(person,(given(its(accordance(with(
a(number(of(characteristics(often(attributed(to(the(legal(person((autonomy,(selfNinterest).(In(doing(
so,(it(unhinges(those(characteristics(that(through(their(attribution(to(legal(persons(are(often(thought(
to( define( them.( Legal( personhood( does( not( have( a( formal( definition,( only( formal( attributions.(
Autonomy( is( one( such( attribution.( In( NonChuman) Rights) Project) v.) Presti) (NhRP) v.) Presti),( the(
autonomy( of( Tommy( is( qualified( by( the( nine( affidavits( from( some( of( the( greatest( primatologists(
that(are(working(in(the(world((2)(included(in(the(initial(petition(for(the(writ(of(habeas(corpus.(If(the(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

18(

court(accepts(the(affidavits(as(sufficient(evidence(of(Kikos(cognitive(sophistication(and(autonomy(
then,( Wise( and( Stein( argue,( he( must( be( eligible( for( the( right( to( bodily( liberty,( and( therefore(
personhood.( This( conceptual( jump( from( scientifically( validated( cognitive( sophistication,( to( a( legal(
qualification( of( equality( and( liberty( (from( a( cognition( that( science( qualifies( as( sophisticated( to(
being(a(person(in(legal(terms),(is(for(Wise(and(Balluch,(a(substantive)issue)that(they(are(encouraging(
the( court( to( consider( (Wise( 2006a,( Theuer( 2014;( Appendix( A).( Yet( the( use( of( science( as( a( way( of(
qualifying(Kikos(personhood(remains(a(technical(analogy,(drawn(between(chimpanzee(and(person(
via(the(human.(Evidence(as(to(genetic(similarity,(shared(chromosomes,(and(cognitive(sophistication(
meets( those( attributes( of( the( legal( person( that( are( also( properties( of( human( beings.( As( such,( it(
would( suggest( that( chimpanzees( are( legal( persons( by( default:( if) human,) then) not) thing.( This(
strategy( engages( the( person/thing( distinction( as( an( operation( while( presenting( itself( as( a(
satisfaction( of( the( person/thing( distinction( as( if( they( were( normative( categories.( This( paradox(
becomes(apparent(when(Wise(explains(in(NhRP)v.)Presti(that([t]he(court(has(to(assume(that([Kiko](
is(a(person(for(the(purpose(of(deciding(whether(he(is(a(person((7).(
(
Seen(as(such,(the(distinction(between(procedural(response(and(qualitative(consideration(becomes(
as( contentious( as( that( between( thing( and( person.( Bruno( Latour( (2010)( has( argued( that( the( law(
decides(not(to(decide,(to(judge(at(the(Council(is(never(merely(to(judge(a(case(but(always(also(to)
judge) the) law( itself( (2010,( 103).( Bevilaqua( (2013)( has( applied( this( notion( to( her( study( of( the(
Balluch( case,( arguing( that( the( court( recourses( to( procedural( matters( when( confronted( with( the(
possibility(of(qualitative(consideration(of(an(argument.(Yet,(as(previously(discussed,(the(invocation(
of( particular( notions( such( as( autonomy( and( biological( resemblance( figure( as( a( procedural(
mechanism( with( which( to( advance( a( case.( Furthermore,( Wises( constant( reference( to( qualitative(
terms( such( as( autonomy( and( selfNinterest( are( deployed( as( cues( by( which( to( initiate( a( particular(
procedural( response,( such( as( the( courts( rejection( of( the( argument,( which( invites( the( appeal( to( a(
higher(court.(NhRP(has(been(explicit(about(the(automatic(right(to(appeal(being(a(primary(reason(for(
their(choice(of(New(York(as(the(ideal(state(to(petition(the(writ(of(habeas)corpus((Mountain(2013c).(A(
rejection(of(the(writ(of(habeas)corpus(may(therefore(be(more(of(a(qualitative(engagement(with(the(
argument( than( simply( recourse( to( legal( procedure.( Such( appears( to( be( the( case( in( The( New( York(
Supreme( Court( hearing( for( Tommys( writ( of( habeas( corpus,( in( which( Justice( Sise( rejected( the(
argument( ( claiming( I( do( not( agree( with( the( argument( only( insofar( as( Article( 70( applies( to(
chimpanzees( (NhRP)v.)Lavery:( 26)( ( but( then( reveals( himself( as( an( animal( lover( who( appreciates(
NhRPs( work,( offering( his( assistance( in( future( cases.( For( Wise,( such( procedural( formalities( add(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

19(

substance( to( his( argument,( raising( the( case( to( higher( and( higher( courts( and( adding( to( the( official(
legal(material(with(which(to(argue(Tommy(and(Kikos(case.(Positioning(one(response(as(procedural(
and(the(other(as(qualitative(overlooks(the(chains(of(reference(produced(by(the(law(in(which(means(
become(ends,(and(ends(become(means(from(other(angles.(
(
In(short,(the(chimps(recognition(as(legal(person(is(both(the(end(and(the(means.(Wise(and(Balluch(
are(not(arguing(that(chimpanzees(be(granted(full(human(rights,(only(that(they(be(recognized(as(legal(
persons(who(bear(rights.(He(explains(that(humans(and(persons(are(very(different(entities,(and(that(
the(two(should(not(be(confused.(Yet(in(order(to(argue(this(position,(Wise(must(present(the(scientific(
evidence( amassed( as( if( humans( and( persons( are( synonymous( in( order( to( construct( Tommy( as(
autonomous,(and(therefore(a(person,(within(the(parameters(of(the(case.(In(doing(so,(Wise(constructs(
the(trial(by(which(Tommy(will(show(his(mettle.(There(is(a(further,(more(literal(sense(in(which(the(
means( for( granting( chimpanzee( personhood( become( the( ends.( In( the( court( hearing( for( NhRP) v.)
Presti,( Wise( references( in) re) Fouts,( a( case( in( which( five( chimpanzees( were( found( to( be( the( true(
(that( is,( not( honorary)( beneficiaries( of( a( pet( trust.( Following( this( line( of( argument,( Wise( explains(
that(in(many(ways(Tommy(already(is(recognized(as(a(person,(to(the(extent(that(only(persons(may(be(
recognized(as(the(true(beneficiaries(of(a(trust.(
(
Wises(suggestion(of(a(flexible(identity(is(a(provocative(one(that(merits(closer(attention.(Bevilaquas(
reading(of(the(Hiasl(case(concludes(human(agency(is(the(only(form(of(agency(acknowledged(within(
the( framework( of( Western( legal( systems,( a( predicament( that( condemns( all( nonhumans( to(
perpetual(immobility,(while(those(entities(recognized(as(possessing(agentive(potential,(invariably(
human,(can(shift(between(the(categories(of(person(and(thing(in(certain(situations.((2013:(85).(Yet(
Wises( remarks( suggest( a( different( scenario,( one( in( which( a( chimpanzee( can( move( between(
categories( as( easily( as( a( person.( Therefore,( whereas( Bevilaqua( suggests( that( the( Hiasl( case(
foregrounds( the( need( to( conceptually( fabricate( another( difference,( (2013:( 85),( it( may( be( more(
effective( to( preserve( the( disregard( for( difference( that( emerges( from( the( underlying( ambiguity( of(
person,(thing,(and(their(distinction.(If(we(are(to(believe(that(person(and(thing(are(not(static(in(their(
definitions,(but(are(operations(of(the(legal(system(that(manage(inclusion(and(exclusion,(defined(in(
and( for( each( instance,( then( it( follows( that( uncertainty( allows( for( a( greater( range( of( possibilities(
concerning( what( can( and( cannot( be( a( legal( person.( Latours( aforementioned( suggestion( that( to(
judge(a(case(is(to(judge(the(law(itself(emphasizes(the(centrality(of(ambiguity(in(the(law(at(large.(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

20(

3.2:(Personhood(and(the(management(of(uncertainty(
(
The(interchangeability(of(means(and(ends(points(to(the(centrality(of(legal(fictions(in(legal(operations.(
Furthermore,(legal(fictions(create(more(legal(fictions.(Or(rather,(legal(fictions(create(legal(facts.(The(
hearing( takes( place( as)if( Kiko( is( a( person,( and( he( must( then( be( constructed( as( a( person( as)if,( for(
example,( the( human( person( analogy( was( categorical.( Yet( Wise( is( adamant( that( the( human( person(
has( not( always( been( automatic,( that( there( was( a( time( when( human( slaves( were( not( considered(
persons.( He( asserts( this( in( reference( to( the( historic( case( Somerset) v.) Stewart( of( 1776,( in( which( a(
slave(was(recognized(as(having(selfNinterest(and(autonomy,(and(was(therefore(a(legal(person((Wise(
2006b).(Nowadays,(however,(the(human(person(relationship(is(automatic.(Furthermore,(there(are(a(
number( of( clearly( nonhuman( entities,( such( as( corporations( and( states,( which( are( technically(
recognized(as(legal(persons.((
(
Yet,( as( Guther( Teubner( (2006)( explains,( the( practice( of( applying( the( construct( of( the( juridical(
person(to(nonhumans:((
(
Has( been( devalued( as( merely( an( analogy,( a( linguistic( abbreviation( of( a( complex( legal(
relationship(between(individuals,(as(a(trap(of(corporatist(ideologies,(at(best(as(a(legal(fiction,((
a( superfluous( myth,( that( should( be( replaced( by( the( nexus( model( which( conceives( the(
organization(as(a(multitude(of(contracts(between(individuals.((2006:(2)(
(
As(such,(the(petition(for(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus(or(legal(guardianship(is(made(on(the(premise(that(
the( original( legal( fiction( of( nonhuman( personhood( is( a( legal( fact( that( can( be( adapted( and(
reinterpreted(in(different(forms.(These(legal(fictions(are(necessary(for(the(case(to(come(to(court(at(
all.( As( pointed( out( by( Wise,( Tommy( must( be( recognized( as( a( person( in( order( for( it( to( be( decided(
whether(or(not(he(in(fact(is(one.(Kiko,(Tommy,(or(Hiasl(must(then(be(constructed(as(a(person(within(
the(proceedings(in(a(manner(that(is(convincing(enough(to(satisfy(the(operational(procedure(of(the(
court(system.((
(
Following(this(line(of(thought,(Teubner((2006)(explains(the(personification(of(nonhuman(entities(as(
a( means( of( coping( with( uncertainty.( He( provides( old( and( more( recent( examples,( from( the( rats( of(
Autun,( who( in( 1522( were( placed( on( trial( to( defend( themselves( against( charges( of( the( crime( of(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

21(

having( eaten( and( wantonly( destroyed( barley( crops( in( the( jurisdiction( (2006:( 1)8(to( more( recent(
contract( law( concerning( transactions( between( humans( and( software( agents.( In( the( first( case,( the(
rats(are(held(accountable(for(their(actions(as)if(they(were(cognizant(and(selfNaware,(endowed(with(
the(same(duties(and(responsibilities(possessed(by(persons.9(In(the(second(case,(the(software(agent(
assumes( a( quasiNpersonhood,( either( by( the( construct( of( deNfacto( contracting10,( or( by( recourse( to(
property(law:((
(
To( combine( the( quasiNactions( of( the( nonNhuman( contract( partner( with( the( actions( of( an(
individual( person( or( an( organization( and( to( attribute( contractual( acts( to( this( socioN
technical( ensemble,( safely( hidden( behind( the( screen( of( the( wellNacquainted( juridical( person(
(2006:(9).(
(
Such(solutions(rarely(resolve(all(ambiguity;(nevertheless,(they(deal(with(uncertainty(by(making(it(a(
communicable(entity.(It(becomes(a(way(of(incorporating(the(actions(of(an(external(system(into(ones(
internal(operations.(The(decision(given(by(the(European(Court(of(Human(Rights((ECHR)(in(response(
to(the(application(of(legal(guardianship(for(Hiasl(is(a(case(in(point.(In(their(decision,(the(ECHR(states:(
(
The( Court( holds( that( the( complainant( is( not( affected( personally( by( the( violation( of( the(
Convention.( Therefore( the( complainant( is( not( justified( in( claiming( to( be( a( victim( of( the(
violation(themselves.(In(accordance(with(Article(35(3)(the(complaint(is(therefore(inconsistent(
with( the( personal( scope( [persnlichen) Geltungsbereich]( of( the( Convention.( (Stibble( 2014;(
Appendix(B)(
(
The( aforementioned( Article( 35(3)( of( the( European( convention( of( human( rights( states( that( any(
application(to(the(ECHR(shall(be(considered(inadmissible(either(if( the(application(is(incompatible(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
8(Teubner( identifies( rationalizing( science( as( the( influential( factor( in( minimizing( the( number( and( variety( of(

legal( actors.( After( the( scientific( revolution,( after( philosophical( Enlightenment,( after( methodological(
individualism(dominating(the(social(sciences,(after(psychological(and(sociological(analysis(of(purpose(action,(
the(only(remaining(plausible(actor(is(the(human(individual((2006:(2).(Yet(in(the(hearings(of(Hiasl(and(Kiko,(
we(see(a(rationalizing(science(fighting(to(expand(the(range(of(legal(actors.(Balluchs(initial(application(for(legal(
guardianship,( as( I( have( already( mentioned,( included( reports( from( anthropologists,( political( scientists,(
psychologists,(and(biologists.(
9(The( practice( of( placing( animals( on( trial( was( common( in( Europe( from( 13th( ( 18th( century( (Evans( 1987).(
Similar(instances(were(recorded(in(Ancient(Greece,(along(with(a(murder(trial(in(which(the(defendant(was(a(
knife((Hyde(1917).(((
10(Teubner( describes( deNfacto( contracting( as( a( way( of( reducing( the( elaborate( requirements( for( contracting(
partners( such( as( intentionality,( to( a( minimum,( namely,( to( the( factual( entry( into( a( standardized( business(
relation((2006:(8).(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

22(

with( the( provisions( of( the( Convention( or( if( the( applicant( has( not( suffered( a( significant(
disadvantage.(Indeed,(the(decision(omits(information(regarding(the(deliberation(of(the(committee(
of( judges;( as( such,( it( is( not( clear( whether( the( application( is( inconsistent( as( a( result( of( the(
complainants( incompatibility( as( a( nonhuman( animal,( or( due( to( the( insignificance( of( his( suffering.(
Hiasl( is( not( addressed( as( person( or( thing;( rather,( his( addressability( is( made( possible( by( the(
prevailing( ambiguity( of( his( legal( status.( Again,( Teubner( provides( an( interesting( point( of(
consideration(by(way(of(Luhmann(and(Latour:(
(
On( the( background( of( given( regularities( of( the( natural( and( social( world( they( are( seen( as(
irregularities,( as( anomalies.( In( such( a( situation,( when( the( new( Kuhnian( paradigm( to( deal(
with(these(anomalies(is(not(in(sight,(a(different(way(out(of(the(dilemma(is(to(transform(these(
objects( into( actants,( i.e.( to( presuppose( a( relation( of( double( contingency( with( them.( This(
makes(an(experimental(interaction(possible(by(presupposing(alterantive(courses(of(action,(
independent(of(the(vexing(indeterminancy/determinancy(question(It(is(sufficient(to(know(
what(questions(to(ask(them(and(to(answer(their(questions(in(order(to(conclude(a(contract(
independent(of(any(psychojuridical(capacities((2006:(12).(
(
In(other(words,(the(designation(of(Hiasls(legal(status(is(shadowed(by(his(participation(in(a(hybrid(
entity( comprised( of( Martin( Balluch,( VGT,( a( willing( guardian,( and( other( humans( and( nonNhumans.(
For(the(court,(what(matters(is(the(communicability(of(this(hybrid(entity,(even(though(it(leaves(the(
petitioners(arguments(unresolved.(Such(solutions(rarely(alleviate(all(ambiguity;(nevertheless,(they(
deal( with( uncertainty( by( making( it( a( communicable( entity.( It( becomes( a( way( of( incorporating( the(
actions(of(an(external(system(into(the(courts(internal(operations.((
(
Hiasl(is(addressable(without(being(explicitly(acknowledged(as(a(person(or(a(thing.(What(matters(is(
that( he( is( incorporated( into( the( legal( system( as( (part( of)( a( communicable( entity( that( can( be(
presupposed,( even( if( this( admission( does( not( deal( with( the( arguments( of( the( petitioners.( This( is(
what( Balluch( means( when( explaining( the( courts( response( as( procedural( and( void( of( substantive(
consideration.(Bevilaqua(is(therefore(correct(in(asserting(that(the(courts(decide(not(to(decide(with(
regards( to( this( case( (2013:( 78).( A( positive( inflection( of( this( statement( would( be( that( the( courts(
communicate( that( they( can( communicate.( ( Therefore,( although( Hiasl( may( be( denied( legal(
guardianship,( it( is( not( clear( whether( this( rejection( is( a( consequence( of( his( legal( status.( As( Wise(
argues,( Kiko( and( Tommy( have( already( demonstrated( their( ability( to( engage( in( acts( that( are(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

23(

technically(reserved(for(legal(persons,(such(as(occupying(the(role(of(true(beneficiary(to(a(trust(and(
being(subjects(of(a(petition(for(a(writ(of(habeas)corpus.(Similarly,(the(ECHR(does(not(deny(Hiasl(the(
right( to( a( legal( guardian;( it( simply( states( that( his( suffering( is( not( significant( enough( to( fulfill( the(
conditions( of( the( Convention.( The( Mdling( District( Court( only( raised( doubts( concerning( Hiasls(
identity(and(the(extent(of(his(handicap.((
(
To( bring( Balluch( &( Theuers( substance/procedure( distinction( back( into( focus,( all( procedure( is(
substance(in(that(it(constitutes(a(form(of(communication.(The(software(agent(is(not(person,(but(is(
made( to( temporarily( possess( an( attribute( of( persons( N( intentionality( N( that( simplifies( and(
presupposes(its(role(within(a(particular(relationship.(These(examples(are(indicative(of(occasions(in(
which( ambiguity,( and( not( personification( (or( some( other( form( of( legal( objectification)( becomes( a(
way(of(dealing(with(uncertainty.(
(
(
!

(
(
(

!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

24(

4.!!Legal!technique!and!chimp!personhood.!
(
As( Wise( demonstrates( with( reference( to( in) re) Fouts( and( Roe) v.) Wade,( ambiguity( enables( flexible(
identity((Strathern(1996)(for(legal(things(and(persons,(of(the(kind(that(Bevilaqua(claims(is(specific(
to(the(latter.(To(that(extent,(the(ambiguity(of(the(distinction(between(person(and(thing(may(actually(
work(in(favor(of(Wise(and(Balluchs(argument.(Similar(to(Cussins((1996)(description(of(the(agentive(
potential( realized( as( a( result( of( the( patients( interaction( with( medical( technologies,( I( argue( that(
engaging( the( chimpanzee( with( the( legal( ambiguity( of( person( and( thing( fosters( the( emergence( of(
agency(through(legal(objectification.(As(the(beneficiary(of(a(fund,(as(the(subject(of(a(writ(of(habeas)
corpus,( Kiko,( Tommy,( and( Hiasl( are( legal( persons,( but( not( in( other( instances.( This( is( significant(
because( it( suggests( that( N( contrary( to( understandings( of( taxonomy( and( specificity( as( ways( of(
bringing(things(into(existence(N(ambiguity(too(bears(a(similar(creative(potential.(
(
4.1(Agency(Through(Legal(Objectification(

Within(legal(proceedings,(ambiguity(carries(things(forward(as(often(as(certainty(does,(and(in(more(
than(one(way.(There(is(that(which(Bevilaqua(describes,(that(the(tacit(assumptions(underlying(the(
foundational( opposition( of( Western( legal( systems( can( only( function( properly( if( they( go( without(
saying( (2013:( 76).( Taken( for( granted( as( such,( these( assumptions( lack( formal( definitions,( and( are(
therefore( host( to( a( plethora( of( referents,( which( can( be( assembled( in( infinite( varieties.( The(
applicants(in(Austria(and(New(York(have(therefore(been(at(liberty(to(draw(on(topics(as(diverse(as(
neuroscience( and( social( contract( theory( to( argue( their( cases.( Yet,( as( previously( explained,( this(
ambiguity( can( also( help( the) court) to( act( in( interesting( and( unexpected( ways.( An( example( of( this(
would(be(the(response(given(to(Wise(&(Stein(by(Judge(Joseph(Sise(during(NhRP)v.)Lavery.(The(court(
issued(a(formal(rejection(of(the(petition(as(an(informal(demonstration(of(support.(In(rejecting(the(
case,( they( assisted( Wise( &( Stein( in( bringing( their( case( to( a( higher( court,( hoping( to( grant( the(
argument( greater( consideration,( or( preserving( the( issue( as( Wise( explains.( As( such,( the( court(
enriches(the(process(of(what(Wise(has(called(legal(transubstantiation((2006b),(whereby(the(chimp(
enters(the(legal(system(as(a(legal(thing(and(exits(the(same(chimp,(but(as(a(different(legal(entity.(
(
It( is( this( process( of( legal( transubstantiation( that( I( believe( closely( resembles( the( process( of(
transformation( endured( by( medical( patients( at( infertility( clinics,( as( described( by( Charis( Cussins(
(1996).( She( coins( the( term( ontological( choreography( to( describe( the( reciprocal( constitution( of(
subjectivity( (as( experienced( by( the( medical( patient)( and( objectivity( (through( the( patients(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

25(

interaction(with(medical(technology).(It(is(through(this(reciprocal(constitution((wherein(the(patient(
becomes(aware(of(their(body(and(their(situation(in(a(new(way((that(a(new(notion(of(agency(is(made(
possible,(not(opposed(by,(but(pursued(in(objectification((Cussins(1996,(575).(In(the(context(of(the(
chimp( hearings,( a( similarly( new( kind( of( agency( is( made( possible,( whereby( the( ambiguity( of( the(
distinction(between(person(and(thing(renders(new(possibilities(for(the(kind(of(agency(the(chimp(can(
assume.( These( new( agencies( are( produced( and( developed( both( within( the( temporal( space( of( the(
court(hearings((as(Wise(suggests(when(he(explains(that(the(chimp(must(be(a(person(for(the(sake(of(
considering(whether(he/she(is(a(person((and(beyond,(as(suggested(by(his(explanation(of(the(term(
legal( transubstantiation.( These( emergent( agencies( are( not( solely( in( the( domain( of( law,( but( are(
rather( a( cumulative( product( of( scientific( documents( and( measurements,( petitioners( arguments,(
legal( codes,( and( chimpanzee( actions.( The( courts( are( made( heterogeneous( with( scientific( and(
ecological( practices( that( give( trial( to( the( sentient( chimp,( in( Latours( sense,( letting( it( show( its(
mettle.(((
(
Cussins( point( is( useful( for( highlighting( the( problem( of( distinguishing( between( substance( and(
procedure:( both( make) the( chimpanzees( legal( status( in( equal( measure.( In( her( paper,( Bevilaqua(
considers(whether(the(Austrian(hearings(actually(foreground(the(difference(or(the(affinity(between(
humans(and(chimpanzees?(Does(the(use(of(genetic(evidence(reassert(the(real(human(person(as(the(
exemplary(model(of(the(legal(subject((2013:(84)(or(does(it(highlight(the(ambiguity(of(human(beings(
themselves( (2013:( 81)?( Bevilaqua( concludes( that( to( take( either( position( is( to( remain( within( the(
limits(of(a(conceptual(framework(in(which(difference(is(regarded(as(binary(and(exclusive((2013:(
84).( Instead,( the( court( and( the( petitioners( are( both( actors( in( the( service( of( a( longNrange( self(
(Cussins( 1996:( 600).( Needless( to( say,( the( court( decision( could( go( either( way,( and( as( Wise(
demonstrates(with(reference(to(previous(cases,(the(law(does(not(necessarily(need(to(be(consistent(
in(order(to(preserve(its(integrity.(Ambiguity,(like(personification,(is(a(way(of(managing(complexity.(
It( is( a( legal( technique( available( to( both( the( court( and( the( petitioners.( The( chimps( legal(
objectification( is( unavoidable.( Kiko( will( either( be( formally( recognized( as( person( or( thing( (or( in(
Austria,(a(nonNthing).(Regardless(of(the(courts(decision,(Kiko(will(continue(to(benefit(from(his(fund(
and(engage(in(other(acts(reserved(for(persons,(and(to(fall(under(animal(welfare(law(as(a(thing.(His(
genetic( makeup( and( capacity( for( language( will( continue( to( suggest( a( familial( link( to( humans(
whereby(he(has(stepped(out(of(nature(and(into(culture.(Yet(the(irrefutability(of(our(genetic(affinity(
with(Kiko(will(not(be(pressing(enough(to(merit(formal,(legal(recognition.(((((((((
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

26(

Haraway( situates( the( predicament:( the( question( turns( out( not( to( be( what( are( animal( rights,( as( if(
they(existed(preformed(to(be(uncovered,(but(how(may(a(human(enter(into(a(rights(relationship(with(
an( animal?( (2003:( 53).( In( a( legal( context,( her( assertion( is( useful( in( highlighting( the( predicament(
that(emerges(from(crossNpollination(between(person(and(thing.(Conceiving(of(ambiguity(as(a(legal(
technique(indicates(a(further(possibility(beyond(the(introduction(of(more(differences,(as(Bevilaqua(
suggests,( and( the( existing( person/thing( dyad.( However,( although( it( is( apparent( that( the( existing(
dyad(is(insufficient(for(the(various(forms(of(legal(agency(that(are(emerging(at(an(increasing(rate11,(
we( should( be( skeptical( of( the( notion( that( difference( is( accommodated( by( establishing( more( legal(
categories.(The(problem(with(such(a(notion,(which(is(inherent(to(much(animal(rights(discourse,(is(
that( it( remains( within( a( confined( and( paradoxical( sense( of( agency.( Wise( and( Balluchs( arguments(
acknowledge(the(fact(that,(as(Teubner(explains,(individual(as(well(as(collective(actors(are(created(
by(social(attribution((2006:(4).(Yet(it(is(important(to(consider(that(when(we(attribute(qualities(to(an(
entity(that(is(unable(to(speak(for(itself(in(a(formal(capacity,(we(also(take(away(from(it.(((((((
(
Haraways(experience(as(a(dog(trainer(bears(important(insights(into(the(way(entities(from(different(
camps( relate( to( each( other.( In( the( previous( chapter( I( explained( how,( contrary( to( Bevilaquas(
understanding,( legal( things( are( just( as( capable( of( crossing( between( the( poles( of( subjective(
experience( as( are( legal( persons.( Both( can( traverse( the( boundary( for( particular( purposes.( For(
Haraway,( the( traversability( is( an( opportunity( to( think( across( difference:( [a]( dog( and( handler(
discover(happiness(together(in(the(labor(of(training.(That(is(an(example(of(emergent(naturecultures(
[sic]((2003:(52).(She(draws(on(dog(trainer(Vicki(Hearne,(who(believed:((
(
That( the( origin( of( rights( is( in( committed( relationship,( not( in( separate( and( preNexisting(
category(identities...(In(relationship,(dogs(and(humans(construct(rights(in(each(other,(such(
as(the(right(to(demand(respect,(attention,(and(response((2003:(53).(
(
Marilyn( Strathern( has( commented( that( the( overdetermination( [sic]( of( certain( idioms( means( that(
when(it(comes(to(legislation(and(litigation,(a(relationship(is(not((and(cannot(be)(a(legal(subject(in(
Western( (EuroNAmerican)( law( (2005:( 31).( Yet( that( does( not( mean( that( the( Western( law( does( not(
have( ways( of( accounting( for( relational( entities( within( the( existing( idioms( of( juridical( person( and(
thing.( Corporate( personhood( is( a( point( of( encouragement( for( Wise( and( Balluch,( not( so( much(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
11 There(

is( a( growing( sense( that( animals( and( the( environment( need( legal( protection( from( humans(
(Klinkenborg(2014)(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

27(

because( it( is( a( formal( recognition( of( a( nonhuman( entity( as( a( legal( person,( but( because( it( is( an(
instance(of(legal(objectification(across(difference.(It(is(therefore(suggestive(of(other(ways(in(which(
processes( of( association( between( humans( and( nonhumans( (what( Latour( would( call( the) collective(
(1999:(304))(can(proliferate)through)objectification,(as(Cussins(suggests.((
(
4.2(Ambiguity(as(Speed(Bump(

The(ambiguity(of(the(distinction(is(upheld(by(the(acts(of(both(the(courts(and(the(petitioners.(Both(
present( a( chimpanzee( of( their( own( making,( be( it( person,( thing,( or( nonNthing.( No( presentation( is(
validated;( each( manifestation( will( have( a( career( of( its( own.( The( ambiguous( distinction( helps( limit(
what(can(and(cannot(count(as(a(person(within(particular(jurisdictions,(but(that(does(not(mean(it(can(
prevent( the( proliferation( of( manifestations( beyond( the( law,( which( nevertheless( feed( off( of( legal(
knowledge.(((
(
Bruno(Latour(has(used(the(example(of(a(speed(bump((1999)(to(illustrate(the(associative(process(of(
techniques.( The( people( who( install( speed( bumps( do( so( to( reduce( the( possibility( of( car( accidents.(
Their(goal(is(safety.(The(drivers(of(a(vehicle(interact(with(a(speed(bump(by(slowing(down.(Their(goal(
is( to( preserve( their( vehicles( suspension.( Neither( goal( is( immediately( visible( to( the( pedestrian(
walking(by.(The(speed(bump(does(not(stand(out(to(them(as(a(moral(or(economically(inflected(object.(
These( different( realities( are( embedded( within)the)interactions)of( technologies( (vehicles;( concrete)(
and(users((engineers;(drivers;(pedestrians;(politicians)((Beard(2000:(106).(
(

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

28(

Conclusion!
(
Ambiguity(is(a(speed(bump.(For(the(courts,(the(goal(of(ambiguity(is(to(preserve(integrity(in(spite(of(
complexity.(In(the(absence(of(formal(definitions,(the(meanings(of(personhoods(defining(attributes(
are( taken( to( be( selfNevident.( For( the( petitioners,( ambiguity( is( operated( to( opposite( ends:( to( grant(
things(formal(recognition(as(persons.(Both(petitioners(and(the(court(rely(on(ambiguity(to(their(own(
ends,(and(from(an(observers(point(of(view,(the(question(remains(with(the(chimp,(when(it(might(be(
more(accurately(framed(as(a(question(of(legal(terms(and(operations.(
(
When( the( Mdling( District( Court( of( Austria( states( that( the( law( surrounding( the( writ( of( habeas)
corpus( is( unambiguous,( that( anyone( must) mean) human( (Bevilaqua( 2013:( 89),( what( emerges( is(
precisely( the( lack( of( defined( boundaries.( What( is( being( performed( is( a( delegation( to( the(
assumptions(of(what(is(a(juridical(person((some(nonhumans,(but(not(animals),(and(therefore,(what(
is(a(juridical(thing((some(nonhumans,(including,(and(especially,(animals).(This(is,(again,(a(reason(for(
the(emphasis(on(scientific(research(in(the(petitioners(arguments:(it(undoes(the(human(as(a(way(of(
(re)doing(the(person.(
(
Ambiguity( is( therefore,( in( this( sense( that( is( greatly( indebted( to( Bruno( Latour( (1994;( 1999),( a(
technique(of(the(law.(Seemingly(a(black(box,(once(unpacked,(it(is(a(complex(unit(composed(of(many(
different(bits(and(pieces(that(can(be(used(to(articulate(different(potentialities.(This(is(not(a(question(
of(relativism,(because(each(articulation(is(as(valid(as(the(next.(What(my(exegesis(has(attempted(to(
show( is( how( new( configurations( of( person( and( thing( are( an( emergent( process.( Attribution( comes(
from( more( than( one( place,( and( as( such( the( act( of( creation( to( which( Teubner( refers( is( surely(
reworked(in(limitless(ways.(As(the(current(arrangements(of(persons(and(things(suggest,(status(and(
rights(are(emergent)properties.(They(emerge(from(and(with(the(less(specified(aspects(of(legal(code.(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

29(

Bibliography!
(
Legal(References(
(
Convention(on(International(Trade(in(Endangered(Species(of(Wild(Fauna(and(Flora((CITES).(2014.(
United(Nations(Environment(Programme.(http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.php(Accessed(
12/08/2014.(
(
In(Re(Roger(Fouts(Et(Al.,(176(Misc.(2d(521((N.Y.(Sur.(Cl.(July(10,(1998).(
(
N.Y.(Agric.(&(Mkts.(Law((350(
(
The(Nonhuman(Rights(Project,(Inc.(v.(Presti,(Presti(and(The(Primate(Sanctuary.(No.(151725((N.(Y.(
App.(Div.(4d(Dept,(filed(on(Dec.(2,(2013).(http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/wpN
content/uploads/2013/12/Transcript_of_Oral_ArgumentN_Niagara_County_12N9N13.pdf(Accessed(
12/08/2014.(
(
The(Nonhuman(Rights(Project,(Inc.(v.(Lavery,(Lavery(and(Circle(L(Trailer(Sales,(Inc.(No.(02051((N.(Y.(
App.(Div.(3d(Dept,(filed(on(Dec.(2,(2013).(
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/wpNcontent/uploads/2013/12/FultonNCtyNhearingNre.N
TommyN12N2N13.pdf(Accessed(12/08/2014.(

(
Stibbe,(P.(2014.(Hiasl.([Email(attachment(sent(5th(July(2014].(
(
Literature(
(
Balluch,(M(&(Theuer,(E.(2007.(Trial(on(Personhood(for(Chimp(Hiasl.(Altex(24.(335N342.(
(
Beard,(D.(2000.(Pandoras(Hope:(Essays(on(the(Reality(of(Science(Studies(by(Bruno(Latour((Book(
Review).(Rhetoric)Society)Quarterly(30:(2,(104N107.(
(
Berg,(J.(2007.(Of(Elephants(and(Embryos:(A(Proposed(Framework(for(Legal(Personhood.(Hastings)
Law)Journal(59:(369,(369N406(
(
Bevilaqua,(C.(B.(2013.(Chimpanzees(in(court:(What(difference(does(it(make?(In(Law(and(the(Question(
of(the(Animal,(A(Critical(Jurisprudence((eds.)(Y.(Otomo(&(E.(Mussawir,(71N88.(New(York:(Routledge.(
(
Bonnicksen,(A.(2009.(Chimeras,)Hybrids,)and)Interspecies)Research:)Politics)and)Policymaking.(
Georgetown:(University(Press.(
(
Cussins,(C.(1996.(Ontological(Choreography:(Agency(through(Objectification(in(Infertility(Clinics.(
Social)Studies)of)Science(26:(3,(575N610.(
(
Evans,(E.(P.(1987.(The)Criminal)Prosecution)and)Capital)Punishment)of)Animals:)The)Lost)History)of)
Europes)Animal)Trials.(London:(Faber(and(Faber(Ltd.((
(
Haraway,(D.(2003.(The)Companion)Species)Manifesto:)Dogs,)People,)and)Significant)Otherness.(
Chicago:(Prickly(Paradigm(Press.(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

30(

.(2008.(When)Species)Meet.(Minneapolis:(University(of(Minnesota(Press.(
(
Hearne,(V.(1991.(Whats(wrong(with(animal(rights:(Of(hounds,(horses,(and(Jeffersonian(happiness.(
Harpers(Magazine.(September(1991(
(
Hyde,(W.(W.(1917.(The(Prosecution(of(Lifeless(Things(and(Animals(in(Greek(Law:(Part(I.(The)
American)Journal)of)Philology.(38:(2,(152N175.(
(
Kolber,(A.(2001.(Standing(Upright:(The(Moral(and(Legal(Standing(of(Humans(and(Other(Apes.(
Stanford)Law)Review(54:(1,(163N204.(
(
Klinkenborg,(V.(2014.(Animal(Personhood:(Muddled(Alternative(to(Real(Protection.)E360.yale.edu.(
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/animal_personhood_muddled_alternative_to_real_protection/2734/(
Accessed(01/08/2014.(
(
Latour,(B.(1999.(Pandoras)Hope:)Essays)on)the)Reality)of)Science)Studies.(Cambridge:(Harvard(
University(Press.(
(
.(2010.(The)Making)of)Law:)An)Ethnography)of)the)Conseil)DEtat((trans(M.(Brilman(&(A.(
Pottage).(Cambridge:(Polity(Press.(
(
Luhmann,(N.(2013.(Introduction)to)Systems)Theory.(London:(Polity(Press.(
(

Mountain,(M.(2013a.(Bios)on)the)Chimpanzees)in)New)York)Lawsuits.(
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/11/30/biosNonNtheNchimpanzeesNinNnewN
yorkNlawsuits/(Accessed(10/07/2014.(
(
Mountain,(M.(2013b.(Lawsuit)Filed)Today)on)Behalf)of)Chimpanzee)Seeking)Legal)Personhood.(
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/12/02/lawsuitNfiledNtodayNonNbehalfNofN
chimpanzeeNseekingNlegalNpersonhood/(Accessed(10/07/2014.((

(
Mountain,(M.(2013c.(New)York)Cases))Judges)Decisions)and)Next)Steps.(
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/12/10/newNyorkNcasesNjudgesNdecisionsN
andNnextNsteps/(Accessed(10/07/2014.(
(
Pottage,(A.(2014.(Law(after(Anthropology:(Object(and(Technique(in(Roman(Law(Theory)Culture)
Society(31:(2/3,(147N166.(
(
Riles,(A.(2011.(Collateral)Knowledge:)Legal)Reasoning)in)the)Global)Financial)Markets.(Chicago:(
University(of(Chicago(Press.(
(
Singer,(P(&(Cavalieri,(P.(1993.(The)Great)Ape)Project:)Equality)Beyond)Humanity.(New(York:(St.(
Martins(Griffin.(
(
Strathern,( M.( 1996.( Enabling( Identity?( In:( Stuart( Hall( &( Paul( du( Gay( (eds)( Questions) of) Cultural)
Identity.(London:(SAGE(Publications(Ltd.(((
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

31(

.(2005.(Kinship,)Law,)and)the)Unexpected:)Relatives)are)Always)a)Surprise.(Cambridge:(
Cambridge(University(Press.(
(
Teubner,(G.(2006.(Rights(of(NonNhumans?(Electronic(Agents(and(Animals(as(New(Actors(in(Politics(
and(Law.(Journal)of)Law)and)Society(33:(497N521.(
(
Thomas,(Y.(1977.(Acte,(agent,(socit:(Sur(lhomme(coupable(dans(la(pense(juridique(romaine.(
Archives)de)la)philosophie)du)droit(23:(93N114(
(
Theuer,(E.(2014.(Hiasl)Case.([Email(sent(5th(July(2014].(
(
Wise,(S.(2006a.(Entitling(Nonhuman(Animals(to(Fundamental(Legal(Rights(on(the(Basis(of(Practical(
Autonomy.(In(Animals,)Ethics,)and)Trade((eds.)(J.(Turner(&(J.(DSilva,(87N101.(New(York:(Earthscan.(
(
.(2006b.(Though)the)Heavens)May)Fall:)The)Landmark)Trial)That)Led)to)the)End)of)Human)
Slavery.(Cambridge:(Da(Capo(Press.(
(
.((2014.(Update)on)Appeals)for)Tommy,)Kiko,)Hercules,)and)Leo.(
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2014/06/03/updateNonNappealsNforNtommyNkikoN
herculesNandNleo/(Accessed(10/07/2014.(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

!
!
!
!
(
(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

32(

Appendix!
!
Appendix(A:(Email(from(Eberhardt(Theuer.(Received(July(5th,(2014((personal(information(removed).(
(

Candidate(No.(19217
(

33(

Appendix(B:(The(unofficial(decision(from(the(European(Court(of(Human(Rights,(in(response(to(an(
application(of(legal(guardianship(for(Hiasl.(Received(as(an(email(attachment(from(Hiasls(
prospective(guardian,(Paula(Stibble,(on(5th(July,(2014.((
(

(
((
(