IS A PERSON THE ONLY HOLDER OF INTERESTS?

Numerous points of view on the essence of interests in modern domestic theory, despite their diversity, agree on who is the subject of interests. The latter is a subject of rights, i. e. a person – an individual or a legal entity. Legal scholars think that other social actors, such as civil society actors much of whom are subjects of rights, have interests too. While some civil society actors, i. e. a family, social groups, population groups, are not subjects of rights, their ability to be subjects of interests is not challenged. In jurisprudence, the interest is increasingly defined as a conscious need, and it inevitably follows that the subject of interests is the only one who has consciousness. Consciousness is peculiar to the only one object of nature – a human. In this regard, the author analyses the views of representatives of different sciences confirming or denying the possibility of animals and other objects of nature to have interests. The conclusion is that the concept of «interest» widely used in jurisprudence needs to step back from its psychological understanding, and this will allow not to consider the conscious need as the only reason for the emergence of interests. As a result, there will be no impediments to recognise any object of nature as a holder of interests.