Acquiring Ownership of Unowned Wild Animal: Concepts of Legal Principle and Buddhist Literature

Abstract

This academic article aims to study a case in which a person wounds and hunts after a wild animal and another person catches the injured animal or the animal dies on another person’s premises. It causes a controversy centered on the ownership of the wild animal. According to Section 12, the Civil and Commercial Code, the first person is the owner of the animal. From another point of view, the author considered the Buddhist literature on the Buddha and the Swan. Prince Devadatta shot a swan with arrow and hunted after the injured bird. However, Prince Siddhartha managed to heal and save swan’s life before Prince Devadatta caught up. An argument over the ownership of the swan arose. The Buddhist literature judged that the savior had a preferred right to the opposer. Hence, Prince Siddhartha owned the swan.

The study found that the concept of law principles was contrary to the concept of Buddhist literature. According to the law principles, those who come first gained the absolute right. In Buddhist literature, the savior’s right prevailed. It draws a comparison between law and morality. Lon Fuller and Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (P. A. Payutto) believed that the law should always be consistent with morality. John Austin argued that there is no necessary connection between law and morality. Although these two concepts are different but has been adapted into the law. The author thought that Thai legislation should take into account morality as a guideline to ensure a suitable relevance to the way of life of the Buddhists.