Recent proposals in political philosophy concerning nonhuman animals as property-holders - by John Hadley and Steve Cooke - have focused on the interests that nonhuman animals have in access to and use of their territories. The possibility that such rights might be grounded on the basis of a Lockean (that is, labour-mixing) account of property has been rejected. In this paper, I explore four criticisms of Lockean property rights for nonhuman animals - concerning self-ownership, initiative, exertion and the sufficiency of protection offered - concluding that Lockean property rights could be extended to nonhuman animals. I then suggest that Lockean property rights actually offer advantages over interest-based accounts: they more clearly ground property, they are potentially broader, and they are considerably stronger.

中文翻译：

---

作为财产持有者的非人类动物：洛克劳动混合账户的探索

最近关于非人类动物作为财产所有者的政治哲学提案——由约翰·哈德利 (John Hadley) 和史蒂夫·库克 (Steve Cooke) 提出——重点关注非人类动物在进入和使用其领土方面的利益。此类权利可能基于洛克式（即劳动混合）财产说明的可能性已被拒绝。在本文中，我探讨了洛克对非人类动物的财产权的四个批评——关于自我所有权、主动性、努力和所提供的保护的充分性——得出的结论是洛克财产权可以扩展到非人类动物。然后，我认为洛克产权实际上比基于利息的账户更具优势：它们更清楚地建立了财产基础，它们可能更广泛，而且它们相当强大。