Deryck Beyleveld

It is argued that accepting that there are human rights, or that there are categorically binding requirements of any kind on action, logically requires accepting the PGC (Principle of Generic Consistency) as the supreme criterion of practical reasonableness.Consequently, all legal systems that recognise human rights (hence, the English legal system), all who view law as a matter of obligation, and all who consider that there are categorically binding requirements on action, must take the PGC to be a necessary criterion of legal validity. Conventions on human rights must, as conventions on human rights, be interpreted to conform with the PGC.

The philosophical debate about the concept of Law is dominated by two traditions: Legal Positivism and Natural-Law Theory. Within Anglo-American Jurisprudence, Legal Positivism is unquestionably the more popular approach. Whilst in recent years there have been a number of assaults upon this ruling view, opposition to Legal Positivism is still very much at the margins of contempory Jurisprudence, The authors of this major work argue, however, that Legal Positivism should be rejected, contending that it is incorrect not in some minor detail but in what they take to be its central tenet, the thesis that the concept of law is morally neutral. Their contention amounts to a rejection of Legal Positivism in favour of Natural-Law Theory. Law as a Moral Judgment is an important and controversial contribution to Jurisprudence. It puts forward a coherent and well argued case which will have to be answered by those of opposed opinion.

In a community that takes rights seriously, consent features pervasively in both moral and legal discourse as a justifying reason: stated simply, where there is consent, there can be no complaint. However, without a clear appreciation of the nature of a consent-based justification, its integrity, both in principle and in practice, is liable to be compromised. This book examines the role of consent as a procedural justification, discussing the prerequisites for an adequate consent -- in particular, that an agent with the relevant capacity has made an unforced and informed choice, that the consent has been clearly signalled, and that the scope of the authorisation covers the act in question. It goes on to highlight both the Fallacy of Necessity (where there is no consent, there must be a wrong) and the Fallacy of Sufficiency (where there is consent, there cannot be a wrong). Finally, the extent to which the authority of law itself rests on consent is considered. If the familiarity of consent-based justification engenders confusion and contempt, the analysis in this book acts as a corrective, identifying a range of abusive or misguided practices that variously under-value or over-value consent, that fictionalise it or that are fixated by it, and that treat it too casually or too cautiously. In short, the analysis in Consent in the Law points the way towards recognising an important procedural justification for precisely what it is as well as giving it a more coherent application.