Abstract
Several litigation strategies are used to gain support from courts in order to protect animals. While the emerging litigation strategy themed in One Health stimulates judicial protection in the animal health sector, little is known about whether and how such strategies are supported by courts. In this article, we investigate how animal welfare litigation strategies influence judge's choices within their discretion. We argue that litigators equipped with the litigation strategy themed in One Health are placed in an advantageous position in animal health cases, but that this tendency varies markedly across zoonoses. Specifically, we suggest that litigators utilizing One Health's litigation strategy are associated with higher probabilities to win, whereas normal litigators are not. Further, we propose that litigators equipped with the One Health litigation strategy are awarded more damages from judges. We test and find support for our predictions using a cross sectional dataset of civil lawsuit cases centering on the animal health industry in Chinese mainland. Our findings indicate that courts indeed were persuaded by the One Health litigation strategy, even when bound by the discretion rules. At the same time, we suggest that for advocates who would like to litigate for animal welfare in the animal health sector, the litigation strategy themed in One Health might have potentially positive implications.