The traditional perspective on environmental law has long been dominated by an anthropocentric ideology, which asserts that the right to an ecologically balanced environment is inherently human and should be enjoyed by current and future generations. This point of view, reflected in international agreements such as the 1972 Stockholm Conference, constructs an environmental legal framework that aims to safeguard and realize human rights through nature conservation, serving as a channel for promoting well-being and prosperity of humanity.

In an attempt to provide greater legal protection to their natural environment, several nations have embarked on a path of legal innovation, providing their ecosystems and natural entities with a higher legal status, recognizing them as independent entities with an intrinsic right to exist and flourish, beyond mere resources available for human use.

This vision, aligned with the perspectives of ecocentrism and biocentrism, has become widely known as the Rights of Nature, and has been applied by countries such as: Ecuador, a pioneer in recognizing the rights of nature as a constitutional matter, Bolivia, through legislative decrees such as the Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, and Pakistan, through court decisions.

However, as discussions about the rights of nature gain momentum, they inevitably turn into debates about the legal status of animals within our legal frameworks. Given that, on a fundamental level, if nature has rights, and it is made up of various non-human entities subject to judicial protection, it would not be strange to think that claims regarding the rights of non-human animals could be made on the basis of the existing factors of the rights of nature doctrine.

Nevertheless, despite the progress made in some jurisdictions, significant obstacles remain, especially in the Brazilian context, as Brazilian civil law still does not consider non-human animals as legal subjects, relegated instead to the status of semi-moving entities under property law. This often allows for their commodification and interchangeable treatment, undermining their intrinsic worth and dignity.

This legal gap can be partially attributed to the historical perspective that confines sentience – a capacity for suffering, perception and environmental awareness – to the human domain, allowing humanity to be the only species that enjoys fundamental rights and guarantees. Being updated over time, especially with the efforts of activists and scientific progress shedding light on the cognitive and emotional capabilities of non-human beings, this perspective developed a growing awareness that has led to significant legislative reforms aimed at combating animal cruelty and improving animal welfare, although still with an anthropocentric bias.

In this sense, Article 225 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution states that “everyone has the right to an ecologically balanced environment, which is a common good of the people and essential to a healthy quality of life, imposing on the public authorities and the community the duty to defend and preserve it for present and future generations”, while section (7) guarantees the protection of fauna and flora, “prohibiting, in accordance with the law, practices that jeopardize its ecological function, cause the extinction of species or subject animals to cruelty”.

While these measures represent laudable efforts to safeguard animal welfare, they fail to confer substantive legal rights on animals themselves. These actions aim to ensure that animals can live according to their natural behaviors, in a safe and protected environment. Although it is commendable to guarantee this protection, these measures cannot be considered animal rights in itself, as they aim to protect a fundamental human right, extending limited protection to animals based on human interests and desires.

Nevertheless, amidst these legal and philosophical deliberations, there are encouraging signs of progress. A landmark decision by the Superior Court of Justice in Special Appeal No. 1.797.175/SP of 2018 signals a departure from traditional anthropocentric notions of human dignity, stating that, in light of the current ecological crisis facing the planet, it is necessary to “reflect on the Kantian, anthropocentric and individualistic concept of human dignity, in other words, to also address non-human animals, as well as all forms of life in general, in the light of the biocentric (or ecocentric) jusphilosophical matrix, which is capable of recognizing the web of life that permeates relations between human beings”.

It is important to emphasize that when analyzing the case, the court uses precisely article 225 of the Federal Constitution of Brazil, raising from its limited language a guiding principle for deliberating on the rights of nature and acknowledging sentience in non-human animals in general, by pointing out in the aforementioned ruling that the replacement of the practice of ‘objectification’ or ‘commodification’ should extend beyond human beings alone, warranting its broader application to encompass other forms of life.

In the same relevance, it is also worth mentioning Decree 24.645/1934, which, despite being the subject of debate regarding its potential repeal, continues to exert influence in Brazilian jurisprudence (Interlocutory Appeal No. 0059204-56.2020.8.16.0000, 7th Civil Chamber of the TJPR). The decree raises pertinent questions concerning sentience and animal rights due to its stipulation of animals being the plaintiff in legal proceedings in cases of mistreatment, represented by a member of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. While their legal substitutes or an animal protection entity acting as their assistant in court (procedural capacity in the strict sense).

Initiatives like these represent a significant paradigm shift in the national context, especially in judicial decisions, which recognize the importance of animals as beings with intrinsic value and their own dignity, in addition to mere objects of human rights, being a positive indication of broad potential of the Brazilian State in promoting animal protection.

However, it is crucial to highlight that this potential has not yet been fully realized. The newfound perspective reflected in judicial decisions must translate into concrete legal reforms to transcend the anthropocentric bias entrenched in animal law, establishing a greater legal certainty in cases related to the topic.

Therefore, it is imperative that the Civil Code undergoes a thorough reassessment in alignment with constitutional principles, preventing any interpretations that may undermine animal rights, specially in such a great opportunity as discussions surrounding a new Civil Code unfold in legislative chambers. Brazil has the chance to serve as a global exemplar in advancing environmental legislation and animal rights, but for this to happen, reform is necessary, and urgent.