Zoekresultaat: 114 artikelen

x
Jaar 2015 x
Artikel

Is de mens voor een biocriminoloog per definitie onvrij?

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 5 2015
Trefwoorden biocriminology, autonomy, plasticity, integration of neurosciences, psychology and social data, conscious and unconscious processes
Auteurs L.J.M. Cornet en C.H. de Kogel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Does biocriminology by definition corrode the image of human beings as ‘free’ in the sense of being autonomous and responsible? This article focuses on modern biocriminological research and discusses important aspects in which current biocriminological insights differ from historical perspectives on biology and criminal behaviour. Three aspects are discussed: plasticity, integration and conscious/unconscious processes. Illustrating their case with empirical research examples the authors argue that modern biocriminological research does not consider human beings as ‘unfree’. Instead, research shows that biological characteristics are subject to change and that biological insights are complementary to more traditional psychological and sociological perspectives. Finally, the authors argue that recognizing the biological influences on human behaviour should not be viewed as a threat to autonomy, but instead should be considered as an enrichment of our understanding of human behaviour, and may therefore even increase autonomy.


L.J.M. Cornet
Liza Cornet, MSc is als wetenschappelijk medewerker verbonden aan het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) van het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.

C.H. de Kogel
Dr. Katy de Kogel is als senior wetenschappelijk medewerker verbonden aan het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) van het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.

    Bestuursorganen kunnen zonder tussenkomst van de rechter bestuurlijke sancties opleggen. De zwaarte van deze sancties is in enkele decennia fors toegenomen. Dat geldt in de eerste plaats voor de bestraffende maatregel van de bestuurlijke boete, maar ook veel herstelsancties zijn in kracht toegenomen. Naast de bestuurlijke boete zijn er ook sancties die door een leedtoevoegend element als punitief zijn te kenschetsen en daarmee niet of niet langer het karakter dragen van een niet bestraffende sanctie gericht op het herstel van een rechtmatige toestand. Is sprake van een punitieve sanctie, dan heeft het bestuursorgaan een reeks rechtswaarborgen te eerbiedigen.


mr. A. de Groot
Artikel

Moord en doodslag gevolgd door een clandestiene begraving van het slachtoffer

Tijdschrift PROCES, Aflevering 1 2015
Trefwoorden Clandestiene graven, Moord, Profileren, Typologie
Auteurs Romano Buijt MSc, Chris Pellemans MSc en Dr. Johan van Wilsem
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article focuses on Dutch homicide cases involving victim burial in a clandestine grave. There is a lack of adequate criminological research about the nature of this kind of homicide. The results indicate that there are differences between the ‘regular’ homicide cases and clandestine burial cases. For example, clandestine burial cases included a higher proportion of sexual homicides. Second, different types of burial cases were analysed through cluster analysis, based on victim, offender and crime characteristics. Three distinct types of burial cases were defined which differ substantially with respect to the gender of the victim, where the burial took place and the relationship between victim and offender.


Romano Buijt MSc
Romano Buijt MSc is afgestudeerd als forensisch criminoloog aan de Universiteit Leiden. Ten tijde van dit onderzoek liep hij stage als wetenschappelijk onderzoeker bij de Eenheid Noord-Holland.

Chris Pellemans MSc
Chris Pellemans MSc is afgestudeerd als forensisch criminoloog aan de Universiteit Leiden. Ten tijde van dit onderzoek werkte hij als wetenschappelijk onderzoeker voor de Eenheid Noord-Holland en het Nederlands Forensisch Instituut.

Dr. Johan van Wilsem
Dr. Johan van Wilsem is universitair hoofddocent aan het Instituut voor Strafrecht & Criminologie van de Universiteit Leiden.
Artikel

Estoppel vanuit civil law perspectief

Proefschrift van mr. J.H. Ermers

Tijdschrift Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht, Aflevering 1 2015
Trefwoorden venire contra factum proprium, estoppel, rechtsvergelijking, rechtsverwerking, dwaling
Auteurs Prof. dr. V. Mak
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In welke omstandigheden kan een beroep worden gedaan op de eerder door de wederpartij opgewekte schijn? Ermers onderzocht hoe het Engelse leerstuk van ‘estoppel’ als inspiratiebron kan dienen voor het Nederlandse recht.


Prof. dr. V. Mak
Prof. dr. V. Mak is hoogleraar Nederlands en Europees verbintenissenrecht aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.

    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.

    This article sets out to contribute to the special issue devoted to multi-disciplinary legal research by discussing first the limits of purely doctrinal legal research in relation to a particular topic and second the relevant considerations in devising research that (inter alia) draws on non-legal, auxiliary disciplines to ‘fill in’ and guide the legal framework. The topic concerned is the (analysis of the) fundamental rights of minorities.
    The article starts with a long account of the flaws in the current legal analysis of the European Court of Human Rights regarding minorities’ rights, particularly the reduction in its analysis and the related failure to properly identify and weigh all relevant interests and variables. This ‘prelude’ provides crucial insights in the causes of the flaws in the Court’s jurisprudence: lack of knowledge (about the relevant interests and variables) and concerns with the Court’s political legitimacy.
    The article goes on to argue for the need for multi-disciplinary legal research to tackle the lack of knowledge: more particularly by drawing on sociology (and related social sciences) and political philosophy as auxiliary disciplines to identify additional interests and variables for the rights analysis. The ensuing new analytical framework for the analysis of minorities’ rights would benefit international courts (adjudicating on human rights) generally. To operationalise and refine the new analytical framework, the research should furthermore have regard to the practice of (a selection of) international courts and national case studies.


Kristin Henrard
Professor of minorities and fundamental rights at the Erasmus School of Law.

    The article takes as its point of departure some of the author’s multidisciplinary projects. Special attention is given to the question of whether the disciplines united in the various research team members already constituted a kind of ‘inter-discipline’, through which a single object was studied. The issue of how the disciplinary orientations of the research team members occasionally clashed, on methodological issues, is also addressed.
    The outcomes of these and similar multidisciplinary research projects are followed back into legal practice and academic legal scholarship to uncover whether an incorporation problem indeed exists. Here, special attention will be given to policy recommendations and notably proposals for new legislation. After all, according to Van Dijck et al., the typical role model for legal researchers working from an internal perspective on the law is the legislator.
    The author concludes by making a somewhat bold case for reverse incorporation, that is, the need for (traditional) academic legal research to become an integral part of a more encompassing (inter-)discipline, referred to here as ‘conflict management studies’. Key factors that will contribute to the rise of such a broad (inter-)discipline are the changes that currently permeate legal practice (the target audience of traditional legal research) and the changes in the overall financing of academic research itself (with special reference to the Netherlands).


Annie de Roo
Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open Expounding the Place of Legal Doctrinal Methods in Legal-Interdisciplinary Research

Experiences with Studying the Practice of Independent Accountability Mechanisms at Multilateral Development Banks

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2015
Auteurs Andria Naudé Fourie
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    There is a distinct place for legal doctrinal methods in legal-interdisciplinary research methodologies, but there is value to be had in expounding that place – in developing a deeper understanding, for instance, of what legal doctrinal analysis has to offer, wherein lies its limitations, and how it could work in concert with methods and theories from disciplinary areas other than law. This article offers such perspectives, based on experiences with an ‘advanced’ legal-interdisciplinary methodology, which facilitates a long-term study of the growing body of practice generated by citizen-driven, independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs) that are institutionally affiliated with multilateral development banks. The article demonstrates how legal doctrinal methods have contributed towards the design and development of a multipurpose IAM-practice database. This database constitutes the analytical platform of the research project and also facilitates the integration of various types of research questions, methods and theories.


Andria Naudé Fourie
Research Associate, Erasmus University Rotterdam, School of Law.

    In this article, I want to show that some doctrinal problems of legal interpretation and argumentation can be analysed in a more precise way than a standard doctrinal analysis, when we use insights from speech act theory and argumentation theory. Taking a discussion about the accusation of the criminal act insulting as a starting point, I will try to show that the doctrinal perspective on meaning of statutory norms and of the qualification of utterances as legal acts lacks the instruments to explain why discussions about these meanings and utterances are so complicated. In short, a doctrinal analysis focuses on word or sentence meaning, distinguishing between the literal or semantic meaning on the one hand and the meaning in context on the other. However, the analysis of this ‘meaning in context’ is often rather vague, especially in cases of indirect and strategic communication. It is the analysis of this meaning in context that can profit from insights from speech act theory. I do not want to ‘solve’ the problems of the interpretation of the norms concerning insulting. I only use this case in point as an exemplary example to discuss important (often implicit doctrinal) starting points about the related concepts meaning and intention (or commitment) in interpretative discussions.


Harm Kloosterhuis
Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    The doctrinal methodology is in a period of change and transition. Realising that the scope of the doctrinal method is too constricting, academic lawyers are becoming eclectic in their use of research method. In this transitional time, legal scholars are increasingly infusing evidence (and methods) from other disciplines into their reasoning to bolster their reform recommendations.
    This article considers three examples of the interplay of the discipline of law with other disciplines in the pursuit of law reform. Firstly the article reviews studies on the extent of methodologies and reformist frameworks in PhD research in Australia. Secondly it analyses a ‘snapshot’ of recently published Australian journal articles on criminal law reform. Thirdly, it focuses on the law reform commissions, those independent government committees that play such an important role in law reform in common law jurisdictions.
    This examination demonstrates that while the doctrinal core of legal scholarship remains intact, legal scholars are endeavouring to accommodate statistics, comparative perspectives, social science evidence and methods, and theoretical analysis, within the legal research framework, in order to provide additional ballast to the recommendations for reform.


Terry Hutchinson
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, QUT Law School (t.hutchinson@qut.edu.au); Marika Chang (QUT Law School) was the research assistant on this project.

Sanne Taekema

Wibren van der Burg
Sanne Taekema and Wibren van der Burg are Professor of Jurisprudence and Professor of Legal Philosophy and Jurisprudence, respectively, at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.
Toont 101 - 114 van 114 gevonden teksten
1 2 3 4 6 »
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.