In deze bijdrage gaat de auteur in op het feitencomplex achter drie elementen uit de Urgenda-uitspraak van het Gerechtshof Den Haag. Het gaat om de noodzaak om de temperatuurstijging te beperken tot twee graden, de invloed die Nederlandse emissies op wereldschaal hebben, en de kosten van emissiereducerende maatregelen.

In deze bijdrage wordt de onderbouwing van het wetsvoorstel voor een Klimaatwet vergeleken met de uitspraak van het Gerechtshof Den Haag in de zaak tussen de Nederlandse Staat en Urgenda over het klimaatbeleid.

In deze bijdrage gaat de auteur in op de voortgang van de stelselherziening omgevingsrecht (de Omgevingswet). In deze aflevering staat het proces centraal van de parlementaire behandeling van de voorstellen voor de Invoeringswet en de Aanvullingswetten bodem, natuur, geluid en grondeigendom.

In deze bijdrage doen de auteurs verslag van een onderzoek naar bestuursgeschillen die in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties is uitgevoerd.

This article deals with the criminal offence of recruiting persons for armed struggle (art. 205 of the Dutch Criminal Code), a provision that nowadays mainly arises in terrorism cases. It revolves around the dilemmas and interpretative questions that this criminal offence has yielded so far – especially since the amendments in 2004 – and examines how the courts have dealt with it.

At first sight there seems to be a strong relationship between crimmigration and the criminology of administrative law enforcement. However, a further analysis shows that crimmigration fits more in the concept of the so-called integrated science of criminal justice. Crimmigration can be identified as an interdisciplinary concept, while the criminology of the administrative law enforcement should be classified as an empirical discipline. Nevertheless, both concepts complement each other with regard to the socio-scientific study of the practice of immigration law.

This article presents and critically discusses a new Recommendation on restorative justice (CM/Rec(2018)8) that was adopted on 3 October 2018 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This new regulation builds on the previous Recommendation No. R(99)19 on mediation in penal matters and recommends the governments of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe the adopt and implement the principles of restorative justice as described in the Appendix of the new Recommendation. These guidelines apply to national authorities and national agencies in general, and to judges, public prosecutors, police, prisons, probation, juvenile justice agencies, victim support services and restorative justice services in particular. The article presents the origins of the Recommendation, its contents and its meaning for restorative justice developments in Europe and beyond.

This article is based on research into the use of mediation in criminal cases at ZSM Midden-Nederland. It focusses on the question how referrals to mediation can be optimized. The research shows that there is much room for improvement and a broader deployment of mediation. Lack of knowledge of the criminal justice partners involved, leads to misconceptions about the mediation process, about which institution should be deployed, and about the (in)suitability of cases for mediation. This lack of knowledge seems to be greatest among the police, while they play an important role within ZSM. Moreover, Victim Support Netherlands has a dominant role in the choice whether or not to refer to mediation. The overall conclusion is that mediation is not yet sufficiently anchored in the criminal justice partners’ system.