This contribution offers a partial explanation of the differences between procedural systems. In most jurisdictions, civil procedural regulations constitute a carefully designed system. Generally, a number of underlying principles, guidelines, theories and objectives can be identified that clarify and justify more specific rules of procedure. It will be argued that the main differences between legal systems flow from different political and theoretical views of those who determine and shape the form of the legal process. This contribution identifies the ideological influences on the rules of procedure in a number of influential jurisdictions. |
Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy
Meer op het gebied van Algemeen, Open Access
Over dit tijdschriftMeld u zich hier aan voor de attendering op dit tijdschrift zodat u direct een mail ontvangt als er een nieuw digitaal nummer is verschenen en u de artikelen online kunt lezen.
Redactioneel |
De vrije mening van politici |
Auteurs | Stefan Rummens |
Auteursinformatie |
Artikel |
Burgerlijk procesrecht en ideologie |
Trefwoorden | civil procedure, ideology, principles of procedural law |
Auteurs | Remme Verkerk |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Artikel |
Legitimiteit, gemeenschap en rechtvaardigheidEen kritiek op Dworkins verklaring voor legitimiteit |
Trefwoorden | legitimacy, associative obligations, justice, community, Dworkin |
Auteurs | Thomas Decreus |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
In Law’s Empire Ronald Dworkin offers a specific answer to the age old question of political legitimacy. According to Dworkin, legitimacy originates in a ‘true community’ that is able to generate associative obligations among its members. In this article I illustrate how this answer contrasts with the moral and political principle of justice. The question remains how a conceptual link can be found between a community-based view on legitimacy and a more universal demand for justice. I try to answer this question by offering a close reading of Law’s Empire and other basic essays in Dworkin’s philosophy of law. In my attempt to solve this problem I propose an alternative view on community and legitimacy. In opposition to Dworkin I claim that legitimacy is prior to the community. |
Artikel |
When regulators mean businessRegulation in the shadow of environmental Armageddon |
Trefwoorden | ecological catastrophe, regulatory legitimacy, regulatory effectiveness, geo-engineering |
Auteurs | Han Somsen |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
This article considers the question how knowledge of an impending ecological catastrophe is likely to impact on regulatory legitimacy and regulatory effectiveness. If the ultimate aim to safeguard meaningful human life on earth is in acute danger, this is likely to translate into zero tolerance towards non-compliance with environmental rules designed to avert catastrophe. This, in turn, will persuade regulators to employ normative technologies that do not engage with the moral reason of regulatees at all, but leave no option but to comply. In addition, regulators may turn to panoptic surveillance techniques that allow no breaches of rules to remain undetected. Finally, it is argued that if and to the extent that impending ecological catastrophe marks the end of maintaining the status quo as a plausible policy goal, regulators will be more sympathetic towards potentially apocalyptic technologies that carry greater promise for future gain than otherwise would be the case. |
Artikel |
Law in the twilight of environmental ArmageddonA response to Han Somsen |
Trefwoorden | environmental catastrophe, legitimacy, geo-engineering, phenomenology |
Auteurs | Luigi Corrias |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
This paper argues that Somsen’s article, though brave in approach and daring in ideas, suffers from some fundamental flaws. First of all, it remains unclear how Somsen conceptualises the relationship between legitimacy and effectiveness, and what this means for his position towards the argument of a state of exception. Secondly, a plea for regulation by code has serious consequences for the claim to attain justice. Finally, geo-engineering poses some profound difficulties, both because of its consequences and because of its presuppositions. |
Diversen |
De onschuld voorbijJeff McMahans Killing in War |
Trefwoorden | just war, non-combatant immunity, self-defense |
Auteurs | Koos ten Bras en Thomas Mertens |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Jeff McMahan, one of the leading contemporary writers on ‘just war thinking’, argues in the book under review, Killing in War, that one of the central tenets of the ‘ius in bello’, namely the moral equality of combatants, is both conceptually and morally untenable. This results from a reflection upon and a departure from two basic assumptions in Walzer’s work, namely the idea that war itself isn’t a relation between persons, but between political entities and their human instruments and the idea that the ‘ius ad bellum’ and ‘ius in bello’ are and should be kept distinct. This book merits serious reflection. However, the disadvantages of McMahan’s position are obvious. If the rights of combatants during war depend on the justice of their cause, the immunity of the civilians on the side of the supposed ‘unjust’ enemy is seriously endangered. |
Boekbespreking |
Bart J. de Vos, Horizontale werking van grondrechten. Een kritiek |
Auteurs | Stefan Somers |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Stefan Somers, book review of Bart. J. de Vos, Horizontale werking van grondrechten. Een kritiek |
Boekbespreking |
Roland Pierik en Wouter Werner, Cosmopolitanism in Context |
Auteurs | Edwin Nijhof |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Edwin Nijhof, book review of Roland Pierik en Wouter Werner, Cosmopolitanism in Context |
Boekbespreking |
Afshin Ellian, Timo Slootweg en Carel Smith, Recht, beslissing en geweten. Beschouwingen naar aanleiding van Paul Scholten |
Auteurs | Harry Groenenboom |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Afshin Ellian, Timo Slootweg en Carel Smith (red.), Recht, beslissing en geweten |