Verfijn uw zoekresultaat

Zoekresultaat: 47 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid x

    For a common market, a common patent and a common patent litigation seem self-evident. Although efforts to introduce these common market institutions in Europe started early in the history of the Economic Community, they remained unsuccessful. The reconstruction of this legal history is focused on two theoretical issues.The first concerns the question of power and influence in the EU, in particular the configuration of stakeholders responsible for the non-decision making on this policy issue. The basic mechanism underlying the lack of success of this dossier appears to be a balance of power between the two opposing groups of stakeholders (France and European institutions vs. Germany, UK, supported by their patenting industry and legal experts). This suggests that transnational rule making, proceeding under similar conditions, is likely to have a long (if not unsuccessful) ‘issue career’.The second theoretical issue concerns the agenda-setting mechanisms of recent decades. All initiatives on international or transnational patent policy have mainly been the product of ‘high politics’, although the input of patent legal experts (representatives of ‘low politics’) has increased considerably in recent decades. Further, this history would seem to defy simple schemes of agenda setting. There is no simple sequence of issue initiation, specification, expansion and entrance. At best, it is a series of such sequences.


Alex Jettinghoff
Alex Jettinghoff is a researcher at the Institute for Sociology of Law of the Radboud University Nijmegen. His main research interests are: business contracting and litigation, the role of lawyers in legal change, war and legal transformation, and the practices of intellectual property.

Bregje Dijksterhuis
Bregje Dijksterhuis is docent en onderzoeker bij de opleiding HBO-Rechten van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Zij publiceert over onder andere landelijke rechterlijke samenwerking (haar proefschrift), de taak van de Hoge Raad, echtscheidingsrecht, ontslagrecht en diversiteit in de rechterlijke macht.
Artikel

In blijde verwachting?

Een analyse van de oordelen van de Commissie Gelijke Behandeling over zwangerschapsdiscriminatie

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 02 2009
Auteurs Kirsten Bolier en Nienke Doornbos
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article we report on our research which aimed to investigate which fac-tors influence the outcome of pregnancy discrimination cases of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission (CGB) and the compliance of respondents with this outcome. We studied equal treatment legislation and all 188 cases between the period of September 1994 and March 2008. The results show that equal treatment legislation hardly leaves any room for objections raised by the re-spondents. The arguments made by the employers are often based on financial or other business-related burdens, even though these arguments are legally irrelevant. We assume that the strictness of the legislation might cause the lack of willingness to comply with the outcome. This presumption is confirmed by the fact that the legal representatives of employers put forward these irrelevant arguments as well. Furthermore, the results show that the nature of the relation of the applicant with the respondent has an influence on the compliance of the respondent with the outcome. Respondents are more likely to comply in cases where the applicant is already working for the employer instead of applying for a job. The results also show that non-profit organizations are more likely to comply with the outcome than profit organizations.


Kirsten Bolier
Kirsten Boliervolgt de Legal Research Master van het Departement Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit Utrecht. Zij deed in opdracht van de Commissie Gelijke Behandeling onderzoek naar de oordelen met betrekking tot zwangerschapsdiscriminatie. Haar afstudeeronderzoek betreft een juridisch onderzoek naar algemene rechtsbeginselen in het EG-recht.

Nienke Doornbos
Nienke Doornbosis universitair docente Rechtssociologie bij het Depar-tement Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit Utrecht. Zij promoveerde in 2006 op een rechtssociologisch onderzoek naar de wijze waarop asielzoekers worden gehoord in het kader van de asielprocedure. Haar onderzoeksinteresses betref-fen onder meer de wisselwerking tussen recht en communicatie en het functio-neren van klachten- en geschillenprocedures.
Artikel

De deskundige als rechter

Ondernemingskamer, Penitentiaire Kamer en Pachtkamer

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2010
Trefwoorden deskundigen, betrokkenheid niet-juristen in de rechtspleging, Ondernemingskamer, Penitentiaire Kamer, Pachtkamer, rechtspraak
Auteurs Marijke Malsch
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Experts may be involved in the trial of various types of legal cases. In most cases, they act as an advisor to the court or to the parties. In this model, the so-called ‘advisor model’, the expert writes a report that is used by the court for decision making. Experts may be called to attend the hearing of cases to answer questions that arise regarding their advise. In the other model, the ‘decision model’, the expert forms part of the panel that is in charge of decision making in a case. Decisions in cases are made in co-operation between judges and experts in this model. This model is not used on a large scale; the advisor model is prevailing in Dutch courts.This article discusses advantages and disadvantages of the ‘decision model’. An empirical study to the operation of this model as it is used in a variety of courts is explained. Panels in which experts are included seem to profit from the direct availability of expertise while making decisions in a case. Respondents state that external acceptance of the court decisions is also increased by the involvement of experts in a panel. Participation by experts in these panels is voluminous and they are considered to exert a large influence on the outcomes of decisions.


Marijke Malsch
Marijke Malsch is als senior onderzoeker werkzaam bij het Nederlands Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving (NSCR) te Amsterdam. Zij is onder meer betrokken bij onderzoeksprojecten over de thema’s ‘Openbaarheid van de strafrechtspleging’, ‘De inbreng van leken in de rechtspraak’, ‘Stalkingswetgeving’ en ‘Deskundigen in het strafrecht’. Daarnaast is zij rechter-plaatsvervanger bij de Rechtbank Haarlem en raadsheer-plaatsvervanger bij het Hof Den Bosch.
Artikel

Draagt aansprakelijkheidsrecht bij aan de voedselveiligheid?

Over de preventieve werking van schadeclaims en aansprakelijkheidsverzekering

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2010
Trefwoorden voedselveiligheid, regulering, aansprakelijkheid, aansprakelijkheidsverzekering, preventie, schadeclaim, ‘moreel risico’, voedingsindustrie, productaansprakelijkheid, sociale werking
Auteurs Tetty Havinga
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Most research on food safety has focussed on direct forms of food safety regulation. This paper explores the opportunities for product liability law to encourage food safety measures within firms. It aims to contribute to the discussion on the role public and private actors could have in providing an effective food safety system. Liability law is assumed to promote food safety. The author distinguishes three ways in which liability law could act as an incentive for firms to implement enhanced food safety controls: liability claims, liability insurance and direct effects of liability law on management strategy. The paper concludes that the assumption that liability laws make firms sensitive to prevention of food safety risks is too optimistic. However, liability law could stimulate a culture within firms to take responsibility for food safety. Existing economic and legal analysis could gain from a sociological analysis of the actual impact of liability on company decisions.


Tetty Havinga
Tetty Havinga is universitair hoofddocent bij het Instituut voor Rechtssociologie van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Zij verricht rechtssociologisch onderzoek op diverse terreinen, waaronder de relaties tussen het bedrijfsleven en recht, regulering van voedsel, beleidsuitvoering, arbeidsrecht en gelijke behandeling. Ze is co-auteur van Specialisatie loont?! Ervaringen van ondernemingen met specialistische rechtspraakvoorzieningen (2010).

Joke Kusters
Joke Kusters (joke.kusters@ua.ac.be) studied law at the University of Antwerp and Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leuven. From 2002-2008 she did doctoral research in the field of legal anthropology at the University of Antwerp and during 2009, she was visiting research scholar at the Cardozo School of Law. Her main research areas are the Jewish communities of Antwerp and the state legal approach of Romani culture.
Artikel

Tort, Social Aims and the Iron Cage

On the Relevance of Weber’s Concepts for the Analysis of Tort

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 03 2008
Auteurs Rob Schwitters
Auteursinformatie

Rob Schwitters
Rob Schwitters is Associate Professor Legal Theory at the University of Amsterdam. – 1991 PhD. His research interests include transformations of legal rationality (especially within tort law), risk-society, the symbolic qualities of law, medical decisions concerning the end life. Recent publications: Recht en samenleving in verandering (Kluwer, 2000 & 2008), Over maatmannen en het subjectieve, enkele overwegingen bij de doctrine van het privaatrecht (R&R 2008); Zorgvuldigheid op maat van derden. (Derden in het privaatrecht, Reinhartz c.s. (eds.), Boom 2008).
Toont 41 - 47 van 47 gevonden teksten
1 3 »
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.