The Base for International Law and ASEAN Legal Studies (BILALS) highlights the need for a stronger regional legal framework for animal welfare through a study entitled “Anti-Cruelty Framework on Animal Husbandry Law: Establishing ASEAN Animal Welfare Protection,” authored by Muhammad Irfan Dhiaulhaq AR. The study examines animal husbandry and welfare regulations across all eleven ASEAN Member States and identifies considerable disparities in the legal protection afforded to livestock. Although animal husbandry is widely regulated throughout Southeast Asia, existing regulations remain predominantly focused on production, animal health, food security, quarantine, transportation, slaughter, and economic utilisation. Protection against cruelty and unnecessary animal suffering, however, remains fragmented and uneven across the region.
The study argues that the increasing economic importance and intensification of animal husbandry should be accompanied by corresponding legal responsibilities toward animal welfare. Livestock are living beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering, while humans exercise extensive control over almost every stage of their lives, from breeding and rearing to feeding, housing, veterinary treatment, transportation, and slaughter. Economic interests, productivity, and food security therefore cannot, by themselves, justify unnecessary suffering, neglect, cruel treatment, or exploitation beyond an animal’s biological and physiological limits. Animal welfare law must establish a clear normative boundary between legitimate utilisation of animals and conduct that should legally be regarded as cruelty.
One of the principal contributions of the research is the construction of an anti-cruelty threshold based on two interrelated components: Negative Prohibition and Positive Obligation. Negative Prohibition represents the core restriction against acts or omissions that cause unjustifiable suffering. It encompasses deprivation of basic necessities, physical suffering, psychological suffering, and excessive exploitation. Positive Obligation complements this prohibition by requiring those responsible for livestock to actively provide adequate food and water, appropriate shelter and space, suitable environmental conditions, veterinary care, disease prevention, and humane treatment. Animal welfare protection therefore goes beyond merely prohibiting intentional physical violence; it also requires affirmative duties to ensure decent living conditions for animals under human control.
The comparative analysis of the eleven ASEAN Member States reveals four different patterns of legal protection. Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, and Indonesia incorporate both Negative Prohibition and Positive Obligation, although the depth and integration of those protections vary considerably. Myanmar primarily adopts Negative Prohibition, while Thailand, Cambodia, and Timor-Leste predominantly demonstrate Positive Obligation. Brunei Darussalam, meanwhile, is placed in a separate category because the regulations examined principally concern animal health, quarantine, livestock movement, slaughter, and trade without substantively establishing either of the two proposed components. This classification demonstrates that ASEAN does not lack animal-related regulation; rather, the principal challenge lies in differences in the scope, substance, and continuity of animal welfare protection among Member States.
These regulatory disparities become increasingly significant as livestock production and trade become more interconnected across Southeast Asia. Different national standards may result in different levels of animal protection within a single regional supply chain and may potentially create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, where activities restricted under higher welfare standards can be shifted to jurisdictions with less stringent requirements. ASEAN has already developed important regional instruments through the ASEAN Good Animal Husbandry Practices (ASEAN GAHP), including provisions relating to housing, feed and water, health, handling, and transportation. Nevertheless, the study finds that these standards remain predominantly sectoral and species-specific and have not yet established a comprehensive anti-cruelty principle applicable across livestock species and throughout all stages of husbandry.
To address this problem, the research introduces the concept of a “Continuum of Anti-Cruelty Protection.” Under this approach, animal welfare protection should operate continuously rather than only at selected stages of production. The combination of Negative Prohibition and Positive Obligation should apply from breeding and rearing through handling and transportation and ultimately to slaughter. In other words, minimum legal protection should not disappear or weaken merely because an animal moves from one stage of the husbandry process to another. This continuum is intended to establish a regional baseline while still allowing ASEAN Member States to maintain or develop higher national standards.
The study ultimately proposes the establishment of an “ASEAN Agreement on Animal Husbandry Threshold for Animal Welfare.” Rather than requiring complete uniformity among national animal welfare laws, the proposed agreement would establish a minimum regional threshold based upon Negative Prohibition, Positive Obligation, and the Continuum of Anti-Cruelty Protection. The research draws upon ASEAN’s treaty-making experience under the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) and the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER), which employ mechanisms of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession followed by implementation through national legal systems. Through a similar mechanism, animal welfare could gradually move beyond sector-specific technical standards toward a stronger regional legal foundation.
For BILALS, this research contributes to the broader development of ASEAN legal studies by demonstrating how regional law can respond to an issue that increasingly transcends domestic regulatory boundaries. Animal welfare is not solely an ethical concern; it is also connected to regional economic integration, livestock governance, cross-border trade, and the responsibility to prevent unnecessary suffering. The proposed ASEAN framework would therefore seek minimum harmonisation rather than absolute regulatory uniformity, respecting the diversity of national legal systems while ensuring that basic protection does not fall below an agreed regional standard. By combining Negative Prohibition, Positive Obligation, and the Continuum of Anti-Cruelty Protection, the study offers a pathway toward a more coherent and legally grounded ASEAN approach to animal welfare in the livestock sector.