By Johana Fernanda Sánchez Jaramillo
Western legal systems have long been influenced by Cartesian philosophy, which conceived animals as irrational beings lacking consciousness and moral significance. This philosophical framework profoundly shaped legal systems by treating animals primarily as objects of property and human use. During the past few decades, however, advances in neuroscience, ethology, and animal behaviour have fundamentally challenged this assumption. Scientific evidence has demonstrated that numerous species experience pain, emotions, and complex cognitive processes, challenging legal systems to reconsider the traditional legal status of animals.
This shift has been reflected in significant legislative reforms. Colombia is known for becoming one of the first Latin American countries to recognise animals as sentient beings through Law 1774 of 2016; however, under Article 655 of the Colombian Civil Code, animals continue to be classified as movable property capable of self-movement (semovientes). This law added a paragraph into the article stating that they are sentient beings, while the United Kingdom reinforced the scientific recognition of animal sentience through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Although both acknowledge that animals are capable of suffering, there is a distinction among them. Colombia relies primarily on criminal law and judicial protection, whereas the United Kingdom incorporates animal sentience into governmental policymaking through administrative oversight. Both legal frameworks remain grounded in the animal welfare paradigm rather than recognising animals as holders of independent legal rights and dignity.
Colombia’s Legal Turn: Law 1774 of 2016
The principal contribution of Law 1774 of 2016 was the explicit recognition of animals as sentient beings (seres sintientes) and that they deserve special protection because of their capacity to experience pain and suffering. Law 1774 introduced the criminal offence of animal abuse (Article 339A of the Criminal Code), establishing aggravated circumstances (Article 339B) (Law 599 de 2000), imposing duties of protection to authorities and individuals and reinforcing administrative sanctions for acts of cruelty that do not result in death or serious injury. Law 1774 reinforced welfare obligations while maintaining the traditional anthropocentric legal structure in which animals remain objects of ownership under private law. By conditioning legality on compliance with minimum welfare standards, Law 1774 effectively entrenches the legal framework governing animal exploitation instead of questioning its underlying legitimacy (Sánchez-Jaramillo, 2023).
Following the enactment of Law 1774, Colombia further strengthened its animal protection framework through Law 2455 of 2025 (“Angel Law”), which amended several provisions relating to criminal sanctions and enforcement. However, because this article compares the original recognition of animal sentience under Law 1774 with the UK’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, the present analysis focuses exclusively on Law 1774.
The UK’s Policy-Based Recognition of Animal Sentience
The United Kingdom adopted a different legislative approach through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Instead of modifying the legal classification of animals, Parliament ensured that animal welfare considerations become a crucial component of governmental decision-making. The Act established the Animal Sentience Committee, an independent advisory team responsible for evaluating if government ministers observe the welfare requirements of animals when they develop and implement public policies.
An innovative feature of the Act is its reliance upon contemporary scientific evidence concerning animal cognition. Following an independent scientific review, the legislation extends the statutory definition of “animal” for the purposes of the Act to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. This represents one of the broadest statutory acknowledgments of animal sentience currently found in domestic legislation. The British Act creates no criminal offences. Instead, it establishes a mechanism of political accountability, requiring ministers to respond publicly to reports issued by the Animal Sentience Committee whenever governmental policies may affect animal welfare.
Although both Colombia and the UK recognise animal sentience, they differ fundamentally in their legislative nature. Colombia’s Law 1774 of 2016 is a substantive law which amends the Civil Code and the Criminal Code, introduces criminal offences related to animal abuse, and strengthens the legal framework for animal protection. In contrast, the United Kingdom’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 is primarily a procedural law which establishes an institutional mechanism for reviewing government policies affecting animal welfare.
Two Paths to Recognizing Animal Sentience: Colombia and UK
| Aspect | Colombia – Law 1774 of 2016 | United Kingdom – Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 |
| Legislative nature | Substantive law amending the Civil Code, the Criminal Code, Law 84 of 1989, and other legal provisions. | Procedural statute establishing an institutional mechanism for reviewing the consideration of animal welfare in government policymaking. |
| Primary objective | Recognises animals as sentient beings and strengthens civil, criminal, and administrative protection against cruelty. | Ensures that Ministers give due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings when formulating and implementing government policy. |
| Recognition of sentience | Introduces the statutory recognition of animals as sentient beings. | Recognises animal sentience as a guiding principle for public policymaking. |
| Legal status of animals | Animals remain classified as bienes mueblessemovientes under Article 655 of the Civil Code despite the statutory recognition of sentience. | The Act does not modify the legal status of animals or confer legal personality. |
| Implementation mechanism | Criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement, including the criminal offence of animal abuse under Articles 339A and 339B of the Colombian Criminal Code, administrative measures, and judicial remedies. | Institutional oversight through the Animal Sentience Committee, which reviews whether Ministers have given due regard to animal welfare when developing and implementing government policy. |
| Scope of application | Applies to animals protected under Colombian legislation. | Applies to vertebrates and extends the statutory definition of “animal” to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. |
| Decision-making model | Judicial and administrative enforcement following violations of animal protection laws. | Preventive review of public policies through parliamentary accountability. |
| Legal consequences of sentience | Recognition of sentience strengthens protection but does not alter animals’ legal personality or property status. | Recognition of sentience guides governmental decision-making but does not confer legal rights or legal personality. |
Source: Congress of Colombia, Law 1774 of 2016; UK Parliament, Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.
Despite emerging from distinct legal traditions, both Colombia and the United Kingdom embrace a common scientific premise: animals are sentient beings whose capacity to suffer deserves legal consideration. The divergence lies not in the recognition of sentience itself but in the institutional mechanisms through which that recognition is implemented.
In Colombia, the recognition of sentience has strengthened criminal prosecution for animal. Colombia implements the recognition of animal sentience through criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement mechanisms. This approach has been further developed by the Constitutional Court, which in Decision C-041 of 2017 affirmed the constitutional importance of Law 1774 and its role in strengthening the legal protection of animals as sentient beings.
The United Kingdom, by contrast, relies upon a preventive and policy-oriented model. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act seeks to improve governmental decision-making by requiring ministers to consider the welfare implications of public policies before their implementation. The principal impact is observed at the policy level, influencing governmental decisions concerning agriculture, fisheries, wildlife management, scientific research, kept animals (e.g., captive and companion animals), and environmental regulation.
Yet both legislative models share a fundamental limitation. Neither statute recognises animals as holders of independent legal rights or legal personality. Sentience serves as the justification for improving welfare protections, but it does not alter the anthropocentric system that permits their use under the capitalist economic model that exploits non-human and human animals.
Conclusion
The recognition of animal sentience represents a development in contemporary animal law. Colombia’s Law 1774 of 2016 and the United Kingdom’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 demonstrate an important departure from the outdated Cartesian conception of animals as insentient objects by incorporating scientific knowledge into legal regulation.
However, both statutes remain firmly embedded within the welfare paradigm. Animals continue to receive legal protection because they are capable of suffering rather than because they possess inherent rights, dignity and should be entitled to moral consideration by human animals. Consequently, sentience functions as an ethical and scientific foundation for welfare legislation that allows economic exploitation.
The future evolution of animal law may therefore require moving beyond sentience as the sole criterion for protection. Emerging approaches based on relational legal theories propose a more profound transformation by recognising non-human beings as members of interconnected communities possessing intrinsic value independent of human interests. From this perspective, the next frontier of legal development is not merely improving animal welfare but fundamentally redefining the legal relationship between humans, animals, and the living Earth.
About the author:
Johana Fernanda Sánchez Jaramillo holds a Ph.D. in Law from Universidad del Rosario, graduating with Academic Excellence. She earned her law degree (LL.B.) cum laude from Universidad Santo Tomás and also holds a Master’s degree in International Relations. In addition, she holds a degree in Social Communication and Journalism, reflecting her commitment to rigorous academic training in both law and journalism.
Her research focuses on the rights of nature, animal law, Indigenous peoples’ rights, and ecological justice, with particular emphasis on kinship as a legal foundation for rethinking the relationship between humans, nature, and other animals. She is the author of The Rights of Nature and Their Impact on the Defense of Katsa Su of the Awá People of Nariño (Colombia) (2024) and Animals as Subjects of Rights: A Contested Legal Category (2023), both published by Editorial Universidad del Rosario.
As a journalist, she has been awarded prestigious international fellowships and scholarships from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Argentina, recognizing her work in journalism and public interest reporting. Through both her academic research and her journalistic writing, she seeks to build bridges between legal scholarship and the stories of those who protect nature and other animals.
References
Congress of Colombia. (2025). Law 2455 of 2025, by which the fight against animal abuse is strengthened and the National Animal Protection Statute (Law 84 of 1989) is updated (Ley Ángel). Diario Oficial No. 53,096 (April 22, 2025). https://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?id=30054814
Congress of Colombia. (2016). Law 1774 of 2016, by which the Civil Code, Law 84 of 1989, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and other provisions are amended regarding animals as sentient beings and protection against suffering and pain. Official Gazette No. 49,747. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=68135
Congress of Colombia. (2000). Law 599 of 2000, by which the Criminal Code is enacted. Diario Oficial No. 44,097 (July 24, 2000). https://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?ruta=Leyes/1663230 Constitutional Court of Colombia. Decision C-041 of 2017. (2017). Decision C-041/17. Constitutional Court of Colombia. https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2017/C-041-17.htm
UK Parliament. (2022). Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 (c. 22). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/22/enacted
Sánchez Jaramillo, J. F. (2023). Los animales como sujetos de derechos: Una categoría jurídica en disputa. Editorial Universidad del Rosario. https://doi.org/10.12804/urosario9789585001442