| 英文摘要 |
According to the current policy and trend in the world of animal protection, pets wandering on the streets may need some kinds of assistance from human society, such as medical care, housing, adoption, or even euthanasia in special case only for relieving its pain. Nevertheless, animals are usually defined by law as objects in term of ownership applying current law about acquirement, creation, loss and alternation of rights in rem of personal property yet, there are perceivable disputes incurred between ex-owner and later adopter. This comment aims to resolve such disputes with a comparative law approach. It is conceivable that grace period for noticing owner of lost poverty is indications of respecting the property right. However, the owner's interest in his domesticated animals is not without conditions, and should have relative obligations, such as possessing and controlling power de facto over pets, the required ID microchip implantation, and the assurance of animal welfare. These legal protections can be seen as universal global trends. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
