Zoekresultaat: 89 artikelen

x

    Legal doctrinal scholarship engages with the problems of legal practice: it systematizes, comments on, evaluates and debates what goes on in law. These activities do not occur in a vacuum: they are embedded in scholarly traditions and theories. This paper discusses the role of the theoretical frameworks used in legal research and has two related aims. First, it aims to provide some practical conceptualizations and guidelines regarding theoretical and normative frameworks that are useful to understand and conduct legal research. Second, it aims to investigate the relationships between different kinds of normative frameworks and their relationship to empirical work. In the second part, an argument is made for a pragmatist understanding of the interplay between normative theorizing and empirical study. How do these work together in judgments about the state of the law?


Sanne Taekema
Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam; taekema@law.eur.nl.
Praktijk

Wat gebeurt er op de gang? Een kwalitatief empirisch onderzoek naar schikkingsonderhandelingen tijdens civielrechtelijke procedures

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Settlement negotiations, Distributive negotiations, Qualitative empirical research, Biases, Heuristics
Auteurs Mr. Lucas Lieverse
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    There is little known on settlement negotiations during civil lawsuits in the Netherlands. Settlement negotiations take place during a (suspension of the) public court hearing. The public hearing takes place in the majority of the civil lawsuits in the Netherlands. The qualitative empirical research I am carrying out, intents to give insight in these settlement negotiations and questions what lawyers actually do during these negotiations. The research intents to contribute to the effectiveness of settlement negotiations in the sense that (i) the number of settlements increases and of compulsory settlements decreases, (ii) the perceived fairness of procedure and outcome in settled cases increases, and (iii) the number of resolved underlying conflicts increases.
    I expect to find that most settlement negotiations can be qualified as distributive negotiations (as opposed to integrative negotiations). Furthermore, based on a literature review on biases and heuristics I hypothesized that settlement could be more effective than they actually are. The paper touches on the methodology and on both hypotheses.


Mr. Lucas Lieverse
Lucas Lieverse is docent en onderzoeker bij Zuyd Hogeschool en voor zijn PhD-onderzoek als buitenpromovendus verbonden aan het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing van de Universiteit Utrecht. Hij heeft als gewezen advocaat ervaring met en is geïnteresseerd in civiel (proces)recht en (juridische) conflictoplossing, waarbij hij inzichten uit verschillende disciplines verbindt.
Artikel

Access_open Over verplichte excuses en spreekrecht

Wat is er mis met empirisch-juridisch onderzoek naar slachtoffers?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden empirical legal studies, apologies, procedural justice, humiliation, victim rights
Auteurs Vincent Geeraets en Wouter Veraart
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The central question in this article is whether an empirical-legal approach of victimhood and victim rights could offer a sufficient basis for proposals of legal reform of the legal system. In this article, we choose a normative-critical approach and raise some objections to the way in which part of such research is currently taking place in the Netherlands, on the basis of two examples of research in this field, one dealing with compelled apologies as a possible remedy within civil procedural law and the other with the victim’s right to be heard within the criminal legal procedure. In both cases, we argue, the strong focus on the measurable needs of victims can lead to a relatively instrumental view of the legal system. The legal system must then increasingly be tailored to the wishes and needs of victims. Within this legal-empirical, victim-oriented approach, there is little regard for the general normative principles of our present legal system, in which an equal and respectful treatment of each human being as a free and responsible legal subject is a central value. We argue that results of empirical-legal research should not too easily or too quickly be translated into proposals for legal reform, but first become part of a hermeneutical discussion about norms and legal principles, specific to the normative quality of legal science itself.


Vincent Geeraets
Vincent Geeraets is universitair docent aan de afdeling Rechtstheorie en rechtsgeschiedenis van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Wouter Veraart
Wouter Veraart is hoogleraar rechtsfilosofie aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Pursuing Legal Research

Tijdschrift Law and Method, juni 2017
Auteurs Synne Sæther Mæhle
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    By conducting methodological assessments, legal researchers decide which lines of inquiry are worth pursuing. Two aspects of such assessments are highlighted in this article. The first aspect is to construct promising lines of inquiry. The second aspect is to clarify provisionally the potential of various promising lines of inquiry. Clarifying and calibrating such potential through discourse with fellow researchers are essential. Increased awareness of how legal researchers decide which lines of inquiry are worth pursuing is vital to contemporary discourse about legal methodology.


Synne Sæther Mæhle
Associate professor, Faculty of Law, University of Bergen, Norway

Hilke Grootelaar
Hilke Grootelaar is promovenda bij het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing van de Universiteit Utrecht. Ze doet onderzoek naar ervaren procedurele rechtvaardigheid en vertrouwen in instituties. Daarnaast is ze redactiesecretaris van dit tijdschrift.
Redactioneel

Access_open Introduction Special Issue Stumbling Blocks in Empirical Legal Research

Tijdschrift Law and Method, oktober 2016
Auteurs Gijs van Dijck en Sanne Taekema

Gijs van Dijck

Sanne Taekema

Jing Hiah
Jing Hiah is PhD candidate at the Department of Criminology, Erasmus University Rotterdam (hiah@law.eur.nl).

Thomas Riesthuis
Thomas Riesthuis is PhD candidate at the Department of Sociology, Theory and Methodology, Erasmus University Rotterdam (riesthuis@law.eur.nl).
Artikel

De bijzondere zorgplicht van de bank jegens de particuliere aspirant-borg: waar ligt de grens?

Tijdschrift Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht, Aflevering 6 2016
Trefwoorden zorgplicht, borg, draagkracht, art. 4:34 Wft, art. 4:23 Wft
Auteurs Mr. B.M.H. Fleuren
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Dit artikel gaat in op de vraag hoe ver de bijzondere zorgplicht van de bank strekt bij het aangaan van een particuliere borgtocht. Moet de bank de draagkracht van de borg onderzoeken? En moet de bank de borg informeren over de financiële toestand van de hoofdschuldenaar?


Mr. B.M.H. Fleuren
Mr. B.M.H. Fleuren is advocaat bij De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek te Amsterdam.

    In this article I argue that the major issue in taxonomies of interdisciplinary research is the problem of authority. In a project on the needs of Aboriginal Australians in inheritance, involving interdisciplinary research using law (in both common law and customary law form) and anthropology, issues of translateability and truth/validity arose. Issues for the Aboriginal people included problems of identifying the correct kin, dealing with the body, and protecting customary law information and secrecy, all matters which the customary law could handle but which were not recognised by Australian common law. Because the characterization of these matters in law is often characterized as a problem of authority the article explores the various different ways forms of authority in law and anthropology exist and how they might clash. Because the anthropology concerned was about Aboriginal Customary Law there seemed to be a double problem of authority which needed to be resolved in order to ensure that the connections between the disciplines were clear and the inheritance issues could be resolved.


Prue Vines
Professor, Director of First Year Studies, Co-Director, Private Law Research & Policy Group Faculty of Law, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Email: p.vines@unsw.edu.au.

Thomas Riesthuis
Thomas Riesthuis is a PhD candidate at Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    With more and more information disclosed online and with open-access policies on the rise, legal academic research is becoming more accessible. The potential impact of this development is enormous, particularly in areas or jurisdictions where offline information is scarce and where access to subscription-based journals or books is limited or non-existing. Because the current literature lacks materials that guide researchers who conduct legal research while relying on open access, this article discusses where and how to find and select relevant academic books, journal articles, and working papers in the open access world. The resources, selection tools, and search strategies explained in this article particularly focus on finding open access sources in English. Consequently, this article assists researchers who rely on materials that are freely accessible because they lack access to books and to subscription-based journals outside of their own jurisdiction. The section on search strategy is relevant for researchers who aim to identify sources in an effective and efficient way.


Gijs van Dijck
Tilburg University. The author thanks Lukas Dziedzic, Marie-Claire Menting, Zihan Niu, Marnix Snel, Eric Tjong Tjin Tai and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on a previous version of this article.Parts of section 2 and section 3 can also be found in Gijs van Dijck, ‘Eerste hulp bij juridisch bronnenonderzoek: waar te zoeken en hoe relevante bronnen te selecteren op het internet?’ (2015) Surinaams Juristenblad 29 (in Dutch). For a general overview of research strategies, see https://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/content/skill-guides (last accessed 26 April 2016).

mr.dr. Maria Geertruida IJzermans

Joris Groen
Joris Groen is werkzaam als wetgevingsjurist bij het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.
Editorial

Access_open Editors’ Introduction

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2015
Auteurs Rachel Herdy en Sanne Taekema
Auteursinformatie

Rachel Herdy
Rachel Herdy is Associate Professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Faculty of Law.

Sanne Taekema
Sanne Taekema is Professor of Jurisprudence at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.
Artikel

Regulation & governance-onderzoek in het rechtenonderwijs in Nederland

Stranger in a strange land?

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden onderwijs, wetgeving, regulering, governance, curriculum
Auteurs K. Van Aeken
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Het onderzoeksdomein regulering en governance groeit gestaag sinds 2007. Toch weerspiegelt dit succes zich niet in de curricula van de rechtenopleidingen in Nederland. De kloof tussen het onderzoek en het onderwijs inspireert tot dit artikel. Eerst wordt dit onderzoeksveld afgebakend ten opzichte van klassiek wetgevingsonderwijs en de zogenaamde leg-reg studies. Kenmerkend voor de regulering-en-governancebenadering is de erkenning van de rol van niet-statelijke actoren en niet-hiërarchische vormen van gezag, terwijl de klassieke rechtsstaat wijkt voor een administratieve, regulerende overheid. Dit perspectief is bij uitstek multidisciplinair en empirisch, en zou een verrijking betekenen voor de opleiding van de toekomstige jurist. Personele, perceptieve en institutionele factoren verklaren waarom de bevindingen uit het regulering-en-governanceonderzoeksveld maar beperkt doorsijpelen naar het rechtenonderwijs. Vooral de perceptie van het veld als niet-juridisch lijkt van groot belang te zijn. Een blijvende ondervertegenwoordiging in het onderwijs zou een gemiste kans zijn, temeer omdat de rechtswetenschappen een unieke bijdrage kunnen leveren aan de reguleringsstudies door de instrumenteel ingestelde sociale wetenschappers vertrouwd te maken met normatieve vraagstukken.


K. Van Aeken
Dr. K. Van Aeken is Assistant Professor aan de Tilburg Law School.
Diversen

Sociology of law in search of a distinct identity

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2015
Trefwoorden sociology of law, legal sociology, socio-legal studies, interdisciplinary study of law, law & society
Auteurs Koen Van Aeken
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Rechtssociologie en recht-en-samenlevingstudies hebben behoefte aan de ontwikkeling van een eigen identiteit, die hen onder meer onderscheidt van het groeiende juridisch onderzoek waarbij empirische methoden gehanteerd worden. Deze identiteit kent vijf verbindende elementen: excellente (primaire of secundaire) empirische methodologie, kritisch, nuttig, blijvend geïnformeerd door theorie uit een inclusieve sociologie, en afwijzend tegenover reductionistische benaderingen van de werkelijkheid. Als een van deze eigenschappen ontbreekt, is er geen sprake van volwaardige rechtssociologie. Als alle eigenschappen aanwezig zijn, is de rechtssociologie bijzonder goed uitgerust om de actuele veranderingen in recht en samenleving te bestuderen. In die context kan de ontwikkeling en verspreiding van een eigen identiteit, die de vijf eigenschappen incorporeert, kansen bieden om de rechtssociologie een meer centrale positie toe te kennen in de rechtenfaculteiten.


Koen Van Aeken
Koen Van Aeken studeerde politieke en sociale wetenschappen en methodologie en promoveerde op een rechtssociologisch proefschrift over wetsevaluatie aan de Universiteit Antwerpen. Sinds 2006 is hij verbonden aan Tilburg Law School. Zijn onderwijs en onderzoek situeren zich op het terrein van de interdisciplinaire benadering van het recht, met bijzondere aandacht voor reguleringsvraagstukken.

    This article studies the significance of insights from non-legal disciplines (such as political science, economics, and sociology) for comparative legal research and the methodology connected with such ‘interdisciplinary contextualisation’. Based on a theoretical analysis concerning the nature and methodology of comparative law, the article demonstrates that contextualisation of the analysis of legal rules and case law is required for a meaningful comparison between legal systems. The challenges relating to this contextualisation are illustrated on the basis of a study of the judicial use of comparative legal analysis as a source of inspiration in the judgment of difficult cases. The insights obtained from the theoretical analysis and the example are combined in a final analysis concerning the role and method of interdisciplinary contextualisation in comparative legal analysis conducted by legal scholars and legal practitioners.


Elaine Mak Ph.D.
Endowed Professor of Empirical Study of Public Law, in particular of Rule-of-Law Institutions, at Erasmus School of Law. Contact: mak@law.eur.nl.

    The seriousness of the incorporation problem in interdisciplinary legal research, this article argues, depends on how legal research is understood. If legal research is understood as a single, inherently interdisciplinary discipline, the problem largely falls away. On this view, the incorporation of other disciplines into legal research is what legal academics have for the last 40 years already successfully been doing. If, on the other hand, legal research is best conceived as a multi-disciplinary field, consisting of a core discipline – doctrinal research – and various other types of mono-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, the incorporation of other disciplines presents real difficulties. For legal academics engaged in socio-legal research, in particular, two problems arise: the practical problem of trying to address a legal professional and academic audience at the same time and the philosophical problem of trying to integrate the internal perspective of doctrinal research with the external perspective of other disciplines. In the final part of the article, these practical and philosophical difficulties are illustrated by reference to the author’s research on the politics of judicial review in new democracies.


Theunis Robert Roux
Theunis Robert Roux is Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Article

Access_open Introduction: The Incorporation Problem in Interdisciplinary Legal Research

Part 1: Theoretical Discussions

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2015
Auteurs Sanne Taekema en Wibren van der Burg
Auteursinformatie

Sanne Taekema
Sanne Taekema is Professor of Jurisprudence at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.

Wibren van der Burg
Wibren van der Burg is Professor of Legal Philosophy and Jurisprudence at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.

    The paper offers a legal theoretical analysis of the disciplinary character of the contemporary practice of legal scholarship. It is assumed that the challenges of interdisciplinary engagement are particularly revealing about the nature of legal scholarship. The paper argues for an understanding of legal scholarship that revolves around cultivating doctrinal knowledge about law. Legal scholarship is characterised as a normative and interpretive discipline that offers an internalist and non-instrumentalist perspective on law. The paper also argues that interdisciplinary engagement is sometimes necessary for legal scholars because some concepts and ideas built into the doctrinal structures of law cannot be made fully intelligible by way of pure normative legal analysis. This point is developed with the help of an epistemological clarification of doctrinal knowledge and anchored in an account of the practice of legal scholarship. The paper explores the implications of this account by way of analysing three paradigms of interdisciplinary engagement that respond to distinctive challenges facing legal scholarship: (1) understanding better the extra-legal origins of legal ideas, (2) managing discursive encounters that can generate frictions between disciplinary perspectives, and (3) building the knowledge base to handle challenge of validating policy initiatives that aim at changing the law. In different ways, all three challenges may require legal scholars to build competence in other disciplines. The third paradigm has particular relevance for understanding the methodological profile of legal scholarship. Legal scholarship is the only discipline with specific focus on how the social environment affects the doctrinal structures of law.


Matyas Bodig
Dr Matyas Bodig is Senior lecturer at the University of Aberdeen School of Law, Aberdeen, UK.
Toont 21 - 40 van 89 gevonden teksten
« 1 2 4 5
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.