TACIT CONSENT WITHOUT POLITICAL OBLIGATION

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 10, 133 - 161, 29.04.2020

James Furner Çevirmen: Yunus Badam

Öz

'Tacit consent' has long interested historians of political thought and political philosophers, but its nuances nevertheless remain unappreciated. It has its roots in the Roman law concept of a 'tacit declaration of will'. Explicating this concept allows a new con- ception of tacit consent to be proposed, which I term the 'tacit decla- ration of consent'. The tacit declaration of consent avoids both the triviality of common sense views and a weakness in Hobbes' account. Unlike other contemporary philosophical accounts, it avoids fictions and meets the condition of intentionality. Furthermore, it also advances understanding of the sorts of claim offered by proponents of a tacit consent-based theory of political obligation, whilst facilitating a more radical critique. The tacit consent-based theory of political obligation is not simply limited in application, but indefensible. It unwarrantedly transposes onto tacit consent the potentially fictional character of declarations of will

Anahtar Kelimeler

Locke, political obligation, silence, tacit consent

SİYASİ YÜKÜMLÜLÜK OLMADAN ZIMNİ RIZA

Öz

‘Zımni Rıza’, uzun zamandır siyasi düşünce ve siyasi filozofların tarihçilerini ilgilendiren bir konu olmakla beraber, buna dair ince detaylar hala değerlendirilmemiştir. Kökeni Roma hukuk kavramındaki ‘Zımni irade beyanına’ dayanmaktadır. Bu kavramın açıklanması, ‘Zımni rıza beyanı’ olarak adlandırdığım yeni bir zımni rıza kavramının belirmesine olanak tanır. Zımni rıza beyanı, hem sağduyu görüşlerinin önemsizliğini hem de Hobbes'ın beyanında ki zayıflığı önler. Diğer çağdaş felsefi görüşlerin aksine, kurgulardan kaçınır ve yönelmişliği yerine getirir. Ayrıca, daha radikal bir eleştiriyi gün yüzüne çıkarırken zımni rıza temelli siyasi yükümlülük teorisinin savunucuları tarafından sunulan iddia türlerinin anlaşılmasına da olanak sağlar. Zımni rıza temelli siyasi yükümlülük teorisi sadece uygulamada sınırlı değil, aynı zamanda savunulamaz niteliktedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Locke, Siyasi Yükümlülük, Sessizlik, Zımni Rıza

Kaynakça

• Austin, J. 1861. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. London: Murray Beale, H, et al. 2002, Contract Law, Portland: Hart. Bennett, J. G. 1979. 'A Note on Locke's Theory of Tacit Consent'. The Philosophical Review 2, 224-234. Bentham, J. 1977. 'A Fragment on Government' in J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart (eds) The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham. London: Athlone Press. Beran, H. 1987. The Consent Theory of Political Obligation. London: Croom Helm. Beyleveld, B. and R. Brownsword. 2007. Consent in the Law, Oxford: Hart. Franklin, J. H. 1996. 'Allegiance and Jurisdiction in Locke's Doctrine of Tacit Consent'. Political Theory 24, 407-422. Fuller, L. L. 1967. Legal Fictions. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gross, W. and W. Söhnlein (eds). 1993. Bürgerliches Recht 1. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Gursky, K.-H. A. Pfeifer, and W. Wiegand. 2004. J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Drittes Buch, Sachenrecht, §§ 925-984. Berlin: Sellier-de Gruyter. Hart, H. L. A. 1955. 'Are There Any Natural Rights?'. The Philosophical Review 64:2, 175-191. _____1994. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. den Hartogh, G. 2002, Mutual Expectations: A Conventionalist Theory of Law, The Hague: Kluwer. Hobbes, T. 1998. Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horton, J. 1992. Political Obligation. Basingstok: Macmillan Press. Hume, D. 1875. 'Of the Original Contract' in T. H. Green and T.H. Grose (eds) The Philosophical Works of David Hume, Longmans. III. London: Longmans. Knowles, D. 2010. Political Obligation. London: Routledge. Locke, J. 2003. Second Treatise on Government. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Martinek, M. (ed). 2004. J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Zweites Buch, Recht der Schuldverhältnisse, §§433-487. Berlin: Sellier - de Gruyter.
• Maurer, J. 2001. Die Prinzipien der Abstraktion, Kausalität und Trennung, insbesondere bei Verfügungen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Murphy, M. C. 1994. 'Hobbes on Tacit Covenants'. Hobbes Studies 7, 69-94. ____2006. Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plamenatz, J. P. 1968. Consent, Freedom and Political Obligation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Riesenfeld, S. 1989. 'The Influence of German Legal Theory on American Law'. American Journal of Comparative Law 37, 1-7. Russell, R 1986. 'Locke on Express and Tacit Consent'. Political Theory 14, 291-306. von Savigny, F. K. 1841. System des heutigen römischen Rechts Band 3. Berlin: Veit und Comp. Simmons, A. J. 1976. 'Tacit Consent and Political Obligation'. Philosophy and Public Affairs 5, 274-291. ____.1979. Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ____.1993. On the Edge Of Anarchy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ____.2001. Justification and legitimacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ____.2005.’Consent Theory for Libertarians’. Social and Philosophy and Policy 22,330-356. Snare, F. 1975. 'Consent and Conventional Acts in John Locke’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 13, 27-36. Zimmermann, R. 1990. The Law of Obligations. Cape Town: Juta