No abstract

This essay makes an assessment of Jack Donnelly's model of overlapping consensus on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It raises key questions, such as: How to adjudicate competing rights; what is to become of "unreasonable" views; whence come reasonable views; and, beyond the obvious cases of slavery and genocide, how is the overlapping consensus obtained? While an alternative theory is not developed, a critical perspective is provided that might facilitate further inquiries.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract