Abstract

I revisit the divide between environmental and animal ethics and explore the role that territory—a recently theorized subject in political theory—could play in this dispute. Specifically, I contend that a concept of state territory and territorial rights informed by values shared by environmental and animal ethics would greatly strengthen the case of non-anthropocentric ethics against the pervasive form of anthropocentrism that shapes current state policies and institutions. I propose what I dub an ecological account of territorial sovereignty and contend that a state’s territorial rights are, significantly, a function of its commitment to respecting the value of non-human organisms inhabiting the geographical area over which it claims these rights. I argue that respecting the natural world entails a commitment to the development of state policies and practices that are in line with some central tenets of animal ethics and, at the same time, requires embracing a kind of holistic moral standpoint that conforms to a plausible version of environmental ethics. If successful, my proposal will show how the dispute between animal and environmental ethics could be softened if viewed through the lens of territorial rights, and contribute to an articulation of territorial rights and sovereignty that is sensitive to the environmental challenges we face today.