This article takes the example of single men who wish to become single fathers, using surrogacy, as a case study to examine the nature of legal subjectivity and the process by which persons acquire social visibility through legal mechanisms. The article investigates the notion of the absent subjects in law and examines the ways in which single men have been rendered invisible in the area of assisted reproduction. It investigates the emergence of legal subjectivity through the acquisition of rights in the context of fertility treatment. In this respect, it analyses the recent jurisprudence of the English courts and the changes in the human rights law that helped construct single men as subjects of law. The article proposes the concept of (in)visibilization for a number of reasons. It allows us to observe and examine the slow and contingent emergence of legal subjectivity in law. It illuminates ways, in which aspects of the critique of human rights as an inadequate vehicle of social inclusion can be overcome. In both respects, the concept of (in)visibilization provides a diction, in which we can analyse legally relevant experiences, which have not yet crossed the threshold into the formal system of law.
The non‐legal factors that influence judicial decisions have been the subject of extensive debate. Theoretical and empirical work has focused on factors including political ideology, activism, attitudes, and demographics. Personal values are related to these factors and are central to decision making. The study described in this article translated theories and techniques from psychological research to examine the role of personal values in judicial decision making. A novel method of assessment of value expression in legal opinions revealed a different pattern of values expressed in the majority and minority opinions of a case that divided the Supreme Court. An empirical study of legal academics extended this analysis and highlighted the significant influence of personal values on legal decisions. The value:decision paradigm provides a new framework to analyse judicial decision making, judicial division, and judicial discretion and has significant implications for judicial diversity.
Commercial lawyers often signal that 'client first' is an essential element of their DNA, and some scholarly proponents have laid claim to a moral justification for zeal. That moral justification is found, in particular, in the notion of lawyers as friends. One critique of zeal is that this moral claim is bogus: that 'client-first' is a convenient trope for disguised selfinterest. This paper explores the empirical validity of this 'client first' ideal through a valuebased analysis of zeal in lawyering. Our data suggest plausible differences in ethical decisionmaking related to those values. The data are consistent with more zealous lawyers having stronger self-interested rather than client-interested motivations. More zealous lawyers are also less constrained by valuing conformity to rules. If our results are valid, they suggest that the claim that zeal is motivated by placing a high value on the interests of the client is false.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.