There is a critical research gap regarding the trade and animal welfare interface: we do not know, empirically, what the impact of trade on animal welfare is. This gap exists, in part, as a result of the paternalism of international trade law and the underdevelopment of global animal law. This article addresses, firstly, the collision of dichotomous trade and animal welfare priorities in legal and political systems. It then explores attempts at reconciliation by the World Trade Organization and the European Union. This involves an investigation of the impact of trade on animal welfare. This impact is categorized into four component parts: (i) open markets, (ii) low animal-welfare havens, (iii) a chilling effect, and (iv) lack of labelling. Case studies from the European Union are examined. Thirdly, the article critiques trade law and policy as ill-suited primary drivers of global governance for animals. Global animal law is identified as a promising alternative, although its early development has been unduly affected by international trade law.

In 1876, Captain Joseph Wiggins reached the mouth of the Enisei River aboard his screw schooner Thames. This was the second expedition that approached this river from the sea in almost 150 years. The voyage paved a path for British commercial shipping in the Kara Sea, which saw its greatest intensity in the concluding decade of the 19th century. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Wiggins stubbornly continued staging expeditions even after repeated failures. His devotedness to the idea of establishing a sea highway to Siberia inspired others. This circumstance makes him a key figure in polar history. Regardless of the commercial nature of his expeditions, Wiggins was not an entrepreneur. Neither was he an accomplished polar explorer. In fact, we find in him the last of the merchant adventurers, the heir to Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor. This article focuses on Wiggins’s expedition of 1876–1877 to the Enisei River, which has not yet become an object of special attention in literature, and discusses the development and exploitation of the Kara Sea Route in connection with it.

The article comparatively maps state involvement in the establishment of filiation and the placement of destitute children into new families. It first reports findings from an expert survey that investigates four key areas of state involvement—the legal framework, the role of courts and ministries, guardianship regulations, and financial support and services for destitute children—across fourteen jurisdictions, twelve Muslim-majority countries, and two Muslim-minority countries. Overall, the placement of children into new families remains a sensitive issue because it is linked to different communities “claiming” the child. In principle, the states surveyed do not allow the creation of new families across religious lines. Using Jordan as a case study, the article then focuses on the implications of one particular survey finding: non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries sometimes cannot have children placed into their homes. This finding is based on qualitative data collected in Jordan on adoption (tabannī) in the Greek Catholic community. The article argues that in settings of legal pluralism, state involvement affects different religious communities in different ways. In Jordan, due to structural factors, the state shapes Islamic family law differently than the family laws applied by Christian communities. This leads to the unequal development of different bodies of religious law and thereby to the unequal treatment of Muslim and Christian citizens.