Reviews animal protection in Chinese criminal law, suggesting solutions for legislative gaps to improve animal welfare.
China’s legal system currently lacks a comprehensive animal protection law, and its Criminal Law contains no specific offense for animal cruelty. Consequently, judicial protection for companion animals relies on offenses designed to safeguard human interests, such as intentional destruction of property, theft, and releasing hazardous substances, manifesting a distinct characteristic of indirect protection. This study systematically reviews criminal cases to examine the current state of animal protection provided by Chinese criminal law, identifying the fundamental limitation that such protection is merely incidental or reflective. The research findings indicate that while current frameworks are human-centric, there is significant untapped potential within existing statutes. Specifically, this article advocates for utilizing the crime of illegal use of information networks and other relevant offenses to address the critical regulatory gap concerning the production, sale, and dissemination of animal torture media. This pragmatic solution offers a valuable reference for jurisdictions facing similar legislative voids where specialized animal protection laws are unlikely to be enacted in the short term, promoting a more effective utilization of existing criminal doctrines to safeguard animal welfare.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: