Verfijn uw zoekresultaat

Zoekresultaat: 336 artikelen

x
Artikel

Gluren bij de buren

Over strafbaarstelling van heimelijk filmen

Tijdschrift PROCES, Aflevering 5 2017
Trefwoorden Heimelijk filmen, seksuele strekking, rechtsvergelijking
Auteurs Prof. dr. mr. Jeroen ten Voorde
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In early 2016, the Dutch minister of Security and Justice announced a revision of the sexual offences in the Dutch Penal Code. One topic that has been debated in Dutch literature and case law, is whether secretly scanning of naked persons should be criminalised as a separate sexual offence. This article discusses various (recently introduced) criminalisations of secretly scanning of naked persons in different countries, with the purpose of exploring the difficulties of a separate criminal offence.


Prof. dr. mr. Jeroen ten Voorde
Prof. dr. mr. Jeroen ten Voorde is universitair hoofddocent Straf(proces)recht. Hij is tevens als bijzonder hoogleraar Strafrechtsfilosofie, leerstoel Leo Polak, verbonden aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en redacteur van PROCES.

    The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the notion of an interest should be taken more seriously than the notion of a right. It will be argued that it should; and not only because it can be just as amenable to the institutional taxonomical structure often said to be at the basis of rights thinking in law but also because the notion of an interest has a more epistemologically convincing explanatory power with respect to reasoning in law and its relation to social facts. The article equally aims to highlight some of the important existing work on the notion of an interest in law.


Geoffrey Samuel
Professor of Law, Kent Law School, The University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, U.K. This article is a much re-orientated, and updated, adaption of a paper published a decade ago: Samuel 2004, at 263. The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for their very helpful criticisms and observations on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Article

Access_open Evaluating BEPS

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden tax avoidance, tax evasion, benefits principle
Auteurs Reuven S. Avi-Yonah en Haiyan Xu
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article evaluates the recently completed Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project of the G20 and OECD and offers some alternatives for reform.


Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
Reuven Avi-Yonah is Irwin I. Cohn Professor of Law, the University of Michigan.

Haiyan Xu
Haiyan Xu is Professor of Law, University of International Business & Economics, Beijing; SJD candidate, the University of Michigan.

    The OECD BEPS Action 6 report contains a principal purpose test rule (PPT rule) for the purpose of combating abuse of tax treaties. This PPT rule is also included in the OECD Multilateral Instrument.
    The PPT rule is (amongst others) applicable when ‘it is reasonable to conclude’ that a benefit (granted by a tax treaty) was one of the principal purposes of any arrangement/transaction. This requirement contains two elements: the reasonableness test and the principal purpose test.
    In literature it is observed that (i) the reasonableness test of the PPT rule could be contrary to the European Union’s principle of legal certainty; (ii) that the OECD PPT rule gives the tax authorities too much discretion and, therefore, is not in line with EU law and (iii) there is doubt whether the OECD PPT rule contains a genuine economic activity test and therefore is in contravention of the abuse of law case law of the CJEU.
    In this contribution, I defend that none of the above-mentioned reasons the OECD PPT rule is contrary to EU law. The only potential problem I see is that the OECD PPT rule is broader (no artificiality required) compared to the GAARs in Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive and the Parent–Subsidiary Directive.


Dennis Weber
Dennis Weber is a professor of European corporate tax law at the University of Amsterdam and director and founder of the Amsterdam Centre for Tax Law (ACTL).
Article

Access_open The Integrity of the Tax System after BEPS: A Shared Responsibility

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden flawed legislation, tax privileges, tax planning, corporate social responsibility, tax professionals
Auteurs Hans Gribnau
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The international tax system is the result of the interaction of different actors who share the responsibility for its integrity. States and multinational corporations both enjoy to a certain extent freedom of choice with regard to their tax behaviour – which entails moral responsibility. Making, interpreting and using tax rules therefore is inevitably a matter of exercising responsibility. Both should abstain from viewing tax laws as a bunch of technical rules to be used as a tool without any intrinsic moral or legal value. States bear primary responsibility for the integrity of the international tax system. They should become more reticent in their use of tax as regulatory instrument – competing with one another for multinationals’ investment. They should also act more responsibly by cooperating to make better rules to prevent aggressive tax planning, which entails a shift in tax payments from very expert taxpayers to other taxpayers. Here, the distributive justice of the tax system and a level playing field should be guaranteed. Multinationals should abstain from putting pressure on states and lobbying for favourable tax rules that disproportionally affect other taxpayers – SMEs and individual taxpayers alike. Multinationals and their tax advisers should avoid irresponsible conduct by not aiming to pay a minimalist amount of (corporate income) taxes – merely staying within the boundaries of the letter of the law. Especially CSR-corporations should assume the responsibility for the integrity of the tax system.


Hans Gribnau
Professor of Tax Law, Fiscal Institute and the Center for Company Law, Tilburg University; Professor of Tax Law, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Article

Access_open Corporate Taxation and BEPS: A Fair Slice for Developing Countries?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden Fairness, international tax, legitimacy, BEPS, developing countries
Auteurs Irene Burgers en Irma Mosquera
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The aim of this article is to examine the differences in perception of ‘fairness’ between developing and developed countries, which influence developing countries’ willingness to embrace the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) proposals and to recommend as to how to overcome these differences. The article provides an introduction to the background of the OECD’s BEPS initiatives (Action Plan, Low Income Countries Report, Multilateral Framework, Inclusive Framework) and the concerns of developing countries about their ability to implement BEPS (Section 1); a non-exhaustive overview of the shortcomings of the BEPS Project and its Action Plan in respect of developing countries (Section 2); arguments on why developing countries might perceive fairness in relation to corporate income taxes differently from developed countries (Section 3); and recommendations for international organisations, governments and academic researchers on where fairness in respect of developing countries should be more properly addressed (Section 4).


Irene Burgers
Irene Burgers is Professor of International and European Tax Law, Faculty of Law, and Professor of Economics of Taxation, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Groningen.

Irma Mosquera
Irma Mosquera, Ph.D. is Senior Research Associate at the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation IBFD and Tax Adviser Hamelink & Van den Tooren.

    This case report concerns the lawfulness of a notified boycott against Holship Norge AS (‘Holship’) by the Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (‘NTF’). In its decision, the Supreme Court considered whether the collective agreement exemption from competition law could be applied, and whether the boycott was unlawful pursuant to the right to freedom of establishment established by Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, cf. Article 101 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    The boycott would prevent Holship’s staff from loading and unloading ships docked at the Port of Drammen. NTF’s purpose was to force Holship to enter into a collective agreement containing a priority of engagement clause, reserving loading and unloading work for dockworkers associated with the Administration Office for Dock Work in Drammen. The majority of the plenary Supreme Court found (10-7) that such boycott would be unlawful pursuant to section 2 of the Boycott Act. The dissent concerns the EEA rules.


Kurt Weltzien
Kurt Weltzien is a lawyer in NHO, which is the main representative organisation for Norwegian employers. He has a PhD on the thesis “Boycott in labour conflicts”. Kurt Weltzien also represented NHO in the Supreme Court in the case discussed in this case report.

Anne-Beth Engan
Anne-Beth Engan is an associate with Advokatfirmaet Selmer DA in Oslo.
Artikel

Op de grens van het vreemdelingentoezicht: discretionaire beslissingen binnen het Mobiel Toezicht Veiligheid

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 2-3 2017
Trefwoorden migratiecontrole, crimmigratie, Discretie, grenspolitieambtenaren, Koninklijke Marechaussee
Auteurs Jelmer Brouwer, Maartje van der Woude en Joanne van der Leun
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Mobile Security Monitor (MSM) is a form of migration policing in the border areas of the Netherlands, carried out by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar). The MSM has a complex legal and policy framework, merging migration control aims with certain elements of crime control. This raises the question how the officers carrying out the MSM interpret the exact aim of the instrument and their own accompanying powers and what this means for the way they carry out their task. Our results show that many officers see ‘catching criminals’ an important part of their job and that in order to achieve this, they sometimes make ‘creative use’ of their wide-ranging powers. Although similar results have been found in research with the police, KMar officers differ because of their ability to combine migration law and criminal law powers. This fits in with the process of crimmigration and the broader tendency of ad-hoc instrumentalism, which refers to a way of thinking about law and legal procedures in which the formal distinction between legal domains is considered less important and criminal justice actors can freely choose the most effective instrument to deal with the situation at hand. This means that the formal ground for a decision is not always transparent, especially not for people that are subjected to the MSM. Moreover, criminal law enforcement contains many more legal and procedural safeguards than administrative controls.


Jelmer Brouwer
Jelmer Brouwer is promovendus aan het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie van de Universiteit Leiden.

Maartje van der Woude
Maartje van der Woude is hoogleraar Rechtssociologie, Van Vollenhoven Instituut, Universiteit Leiden.

Joanne van der Leun
Joanne van der Leun is hoogleraar Criminologie en Decaan Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid aan de Universiteit Leiden.
Casus

De rechter als wetgevingswaakhond

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden beleidsneutraliteit, proportionaliteitstoets, evidence base, Daubert-doctrine
Auteurs Prof. dr. R.A.J. van Gestel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    We zien in de Verenigde Staten momenteel hoe belangrijk rechterlijke controle op de kwaliteit van wetgeving kan zijn, bijvoorbeeld bij het omstreden inreisverbod voor migranten uit ‘islamitische landen’. Gevaar daarbij is echter dat de rechter te veel in politiek vaarwater terechtkomt. Misschien dat de Amerikaanse rechter op dit punt wat kan leren van het Hof van Justitie van de EU, dat een procedurele toets heeft ontwikkeld om de ‘evidence base’ van wetten te toetsen door bijvoorbeeld te kijken in hoeverre er impact assessments zijn uitgevoerd volgens de methoden die daartoe in het wetgevingsbeleid ontwikkeld zijn. Tegelijkertijd laat de Luxemburgse jurisprudentie zien dat men er daarbij misschien toch niet altijd aan ontkomt om ook naar de kwaliteit van het onderliggende bewijs te kijken. Hier kan Luxemburg wellicht wat leren van het U.S. Supreme Court, dat regels heeft ontwikkeld met betrekking tot de vraag hoe rechters dienen om te gaan met deskundigenbewijs en wetenschappelijke gegevens.


Prof. dr. R.A.J. van Gestel
Prof. dr. R.A.J. (Rob) van Gestel is hoogleraar Regulering en Juridische methoden en technieken aan de Tilburg Law School.
Case Reports

2017/9 The influence of the threat of terrorism on the right to strike (NL)

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden Industrial action, Strike
Auteurs Ruben Houweling en Amber Zwanenburg
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Dutch Cantonal judge prohibited a strike because the safety of passengers could not be guaranteed. At the hearing, which took place a few days after the Berlin Christmas market attacks, weight was given to the threat of terrorism. Nor is this the first time the threat of terrorism has been explicitly referred to by a Dutch court in a case concerning the right to strike.


Ruben Houweling
Ruben Houweling and Amber Zwanenburg are respectively a professor and a lecturer of Labour Law at the Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Amber Zwanenburg
Artikel

English and Welsh experience of marketisation, payment by results and justice devolution in the probation sector

Tijdschrift PROCES, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Transforming Rehabilitation, Payment by Results, Justice Devolution, Innovation
Auteurs Prof. Chris Fox
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The UK government has embarked on an ambitious programme to reform the English and Welsh probation sector. Key to these reforms has been ‘marketisation’ involving Payment by Results. More recently the devolution of justice has become a key theme. This paper describes key reforms that have taken place since 2010 and sets out evidence for their effectiveness. Currently, the available evidence is limited, but more evidence is available from other sectors where similar models have also been used. This evidence base is discussed with particular reference to the potential for the reforms to promote innovation.


Prof. Chris Fox
Prof. Chris Fox is Professor of Evaluation and Policy Analysis and Director of the Policy Evaluation and Research Unit at Manchester Metropolitan University.
Editorial

Access_open Legal Control on Social Control of Sex Offenders in the Community: A European Comparative and Human Rights Perspective

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden social control, folk devils, moral panic, dangerousness, sex offenders
Auteurs Michiel van der Wolf (Issue Editor)
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper provides first of all the introduction to this special issue on ‘Legal constraints on the indeterminate control of “dangerous” sex offenders in the community: A European comparative and human rights perspective’. The issue is the outcome of a study that aims at finding the way legal control can not only be an instrument but also be a controller of social control. It is explained what social control is and how the concept of moral panic plays a part in the fact that sex offenders seem to be the folk devils of our time and subsequently pre-eminently the target group of social control at its strongest. Further elaboration of the methodology reveals why focussing on post-sentence (indeterminate) supervision is relevant, as there are hardly any legal constraints in place in comparison with measures of preventive detention. Therefore, a comparative approach within Europe is taken on the basis of country reports from England and Wales, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain. In the second part of the paper, the comparative analysis is presented. Similar shifts in attitudes towards sex offenders have led to legislation concerning frameworks of supervision in all countries but in different ways. Legal constraints on these frameworks are searched for in legal (sentencing) theory, the principles of proportionality and least intrusive means, and human rights, mainly as provided in the European Convention on Human Rights to which all the studied countries are subject. Finally, it is discussed what legal constraints on the control of sex offenders in the community are (to be) in place in European jurisdictions, based on the analysis of commonalities and differences found in the comparison.


Michiel van der Wolf (Issue Editor)
Ph.D., LL.M, M.Sc., Reader in Criminal Law (Theory) and Forensic Psychiatry at the Erasmus School of Law; Member of the Editorial Board of the Erasmus Law Review.
Article

Access_open Legal Constraints on the Indeterminate Control of ‘Dangerous’ Sex Offenders in the Community: The Spanish Perspective

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden Supervised release, supervision, sex offenders, dangerousness, safety measures, societal upheaval, proportionality
Auteurs Lucía Martínez Garay en Jorge Correcher Mira
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article presents an overview of the legal regime provided in the Spanish system of criminal sanctions regarding the control of dangerous sex offenders in the community. It focuses on the introduction, in 2010, of a post-prison safety measure named supervised release. We describe the context of its introduction in the Spanish Criminal Code, considering the influence of societal upheaval concerning dangerous sex offenders in its development, and also the historical and theoretical features of the Spanish system of criminal sanctions. We also analyse the legal framework of supervised release, the existing case law about it and how the legal doctrine has until now assessed this measure. After this analysis, the main aim of this article consists in evaluating the effectiveness and the proportionality of the measure, according to the principle of minimal constraints and the rehabilitative function of the criminal sanctions in Spanish law, stated in Article 25.2 of the Spanish Constitution.


Lucía Martínez Garay
Lucía Martínez Garay is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Valencia, Department of Criminal Law.

Jorge Correcher Mira
Jorge Correcher Mira, Ph.D., is an Assistant Lecturer at the University of Valencia, Department of Criminal Law.
Article

Access_open Legal Constraints on the Indeterminate Control of ‘Dangerous’ Sex Offenders in the Community: The German Perspective

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden Supervision, twin track system, principle of proportionality, human rights, violent and sex offenders
Auteurs Bernd-Dieter Meier
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    After release from prison or a custodial preventive institution, offenders may come under supervision in Germany, which means that their conduct is controlled for a period of up to five years or even for life by a judicial supervising authority. Supervision is terminated if it can be expected that even in the absence of further supervision the released person will not commit any further offences. From the theoretical point of view, supervision is not considered a form of punishment in Germany, but a preventive measure that is guided by the principle of proportionality. After a presentation of the German twin track system of criminal sanctions and a glimpse at sentencing theory, the capacity of the principle of proportionality to guide and control judicial decisions in the field of preventive sanctions is discussed. The human rights perspective plays only a minor role in the context of supervision in Germany.


Bernd-Dieter Meier
Prof. Dr. Bernd-Dieter Meier is the Chair in Criminal Law and Criminology at the Law Faculty of Leibniz University Hannover.
Article

Access_open Legal Constraints on the Indeterminate Control of ‘Dangerous’ Sex Offenders in the Community: The Dutch Perspective

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden Dutch penal law, preventive supervision, dangerous offenders, human rights, social rehabilitation
Auteurs Sanne Struijk en Paul Mevis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the Netherlands, the legal possibilities for post-custodial supervision have been extended considerably in recent years. A currently passed law aims to further increase these possibilities specifically for dangerous (sex) offenders. This law consists of three separate parts that may all result in life-long supervision. In the first two parts, the supervision is embedded in the conditional release after either a prison sentence or the safety measure ‘ter beschikking stelling’ (TBS). This paper focuses on the third part of the law, which introduces an independent supervisory safety measure as a preventive continuation of both a prison sentence and the TBS measure. Inevitably, this new independent sanction raises questions about legitimacy and necessity, on which this paper reflects from a human rights perspective. Against the background of the existing Dutch penal law system, the content of the law is thoroughly assessed in view of the legal framework of the Council of Europe and the legal principles of proportionality and less restrictive means. In the end, we conclude that the supervisory safety measure is not legitimate nor necessary (yet). Apart from the current lack of (empirical evidence of) necessity, we state that there is a real possibility of an infringement of Article 5(4) ECHR and Article 7 ECHR, a lack of legitimising supervision ‘gaps’ in the existing penal law system, and finally a lack of clear legal criteria. Regardless of the potential severity of violent (sex) offenses, to simply justify this supervisory safety measure on the basis of ‘better safe than sorry’ is not enough.


Sanne Struijk
Sanne Struijk, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Erasmus School of Law.

Paul Mevis
Paul Mevis is a Professor at the Erasmus School of Law.
Article

Access_open Legal Constraints on the Indeterminate Control of ‘Dangerous’ Sex Offenders in the Community: The French Perspective

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden Preventive detention, mandatory supervision, sex offenders, retrospective penal laws, legality principle
Auteurs Martine Herzog-Evans
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    France literally ‘discovered’ sexual abuse following neighbour Belgium’s Dutroux case in the late 1990s. Since then, sex offenders have been the focus of politicians, media and law-makers’ attention. Further law reforms have aimed at imposing mandatory supervision and treatment, and in rare cases, preventive detention. The legal framework for mandatory supervision and detention is rather complex, ranging from a mixed sentence (custodial and mandatory supervision and treatment upon release or as a stand-alone sentence) to so-called ‘safety measures’, which supposedly do not aim at punishing an offence, but at protecting society. The difference between the concepts of sentences and safety measures is nevertheless rather blurry. In practice, however, courts have used safety measures quite sparingly and have preferred mandatory supervision as attached to a sentence, notably because it is compatible with cardinal legal principles. Procedural constraints have also contributed to this limited use. Moreover, the type of supervision and treatment that can thus be imposed is virtually identical to that of ordinary probation. It is, however, noteworthy that a higher number of offenders with mental health issues who are deemed ‘dangerous’ are placed in special psychiatric units, something that has not drawn much attention on the part of human rights lawyers.


Martine Herzog-Evans
Martine H-Evans, PhD, is a Professor at the Department of Law, Universite de Reims Champagne-Ardenne.

    The comparative discussions held during this seminar show that the different jurisdictions make use of – approximately – the same ingredients for their legislation on adult guardianship measures and continuing powers of attorney. Given the common international framework (for example the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and given the common societal context (cfr. the strong increase of the ageing population) this may not come as a surprise. Despite these common ingredients, the different jurisdictions have managed to arrive at different dishes spiced with specific local flavours. Given that each jurisdiction bears its own history and specific policy plans, this may not come as a surprise either. The adage ‘same same but different’ is in this respect a suitable bromide.
    For my own research, the several invitations – that implicitly or explicitly arose from the different discussions – to rethink important concepts or assumptions were of most relevance and importance. A particular example that comes to mind is the suggestion to ‘reverse the jurisprudence’ and to take persons with disabilities instead of healthy adult persons as a point of reference. Also, the invitation to rethink the relationship between the limitation of capacity and the attribution of a guard comes to mind as the juxtaposition of the different jurisdictions showed that these two aspects don’t need to be automatically combined. Also the discussion on the interference between the continuing powers of attorney and the supervision by the court, provoked further reflection on hybrid forms of protection on my part. Finally, the ethical and medical-legal approaches may lead to a reconsideration of the traditional underlying concepts of autonomy and the assessment of capacity.


Veerle Vanderhulst Ph.D.
Veerle Vanderhulst works at the Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Artikel

De discretionaire ruimte bij het gebruik van geweld: hoe kleiner, hoe beter?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden discretionary space, use of force, Training, Survey, hypothetical cases
Auteurs Jannie Noppe
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    First line police officers need a certain amount of discretion as they have to deal with various and complex situations on a daily basis. In this article the author examines the extent to which police officers have room for discretion in their use of force. We start from Mastrofski’s proposition that in case of decisions to use deadly force (use of firearm) police officers’ discretionary space must be restricted as much as possible. In case of less intrusive use of force, police officers may have more room for discretion. We used data from a small survey in three local police forces in Belgium to examine whether police officers have similar opinions on the decision to use their firearm – in comparison with the decision to use lower levels of force (non-firearm/non-lethal). Furthermore, we compare police officers who are highly trained in the use of force, with less trained police officers. Our results indicate that police officers are indeed more univocal when it comes to decisions to use their firearm, especially in case of more trained police officers.


Jannie Noppe
J. Noppe is doctoraatstudente bij de onderzoeksgroep IRCP, Vakgroep Criminologie, Strafrecht en Sociaal Recht, Universiteit Gent.
Artikel

Street-level bureaucrats in de justitiële jeugdinrichting?

Hoe groepsleiders hun discretionaire ruimte benutten

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden street-level bureaucracy, juvenile correctional facility, group workers, discretion
Auteurs Dr. Marie-José Geenen, Prof. dr. Emile Kolthoff, Drs. Robin Christiaan van Halderen e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Although group workers in juvenile correctional facilities (JCFs) are restricted in their actions by many rules and regulations, they still have the opportunity for tailor-made actions. Based on Lipsky’s (2010) theory of ‘street-level bureaucracy’ this article explains what this discretion means for group workers in JCFs and how they deal with it. Based on 24 interviews with group workers, this article outlines how they exercise discretion in a context where group dynamics and dealing with emotions affect their actions to an important degree. In addition, this article describes how group workers deal with dilemmas they encounter.


Dr. Marie-José Geenen
Dr. M.-J. Geenen is docent en supervisor bij het Instituut voor Social Work en onderzoeker bij het lectoraat Werken in Justitieel Kader van de Hogeschool Utrecht.

Prof. dr. Emile Kolthoff
Prof. dr. E.W. Kolthoff is hoogleraar criminologie aan de Open Universiteit en lector Veiligheid, openbare orde en recht bij Avans Hogeschool in Den Bosch.

Drs. Robin Christiaan van Halderen
Drs. R.C. van Halderen is onderzoeker bij het Expertisecentrum Veiligheid van Avans Hogeschool in Den Bosch.

Drs. Jeanet de Jong
Drs. J. de Jong is docent bij de Academie Sociale Studies in Breda en onderzoeker bij het Expertisecentrum Veiligheid van Avans Hogeschool in Den Bosch.
Redactioneel

Street-level bureaucracy en actoren in de veiligheidszorg

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden street-level bureaucracy, discretionary power, public safety, frontline worker, dilemmas
Auteurs Prof. dr. Emile Kolthoff, Dr. Kim Loyens en Prof. dr. Antoinette Verhage
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The editorial introduction to this special issue on street-level bureaucracy (36 years after the publication of Michael Lipsky’s book) draws attention to the important role of frontline workers in the implementation of policy in practice. The two narratives as distinguished by Maynard-Moody and Musheno (2000) – that of government as an institution and that of the frontline workers themselves – are discussed in the light of the use of discretionary power by the frontline workers. The various dilemmas that the frontline worker encounters while doing so are briefly introduced and the role of the emergence of New Public Management and the resulting public-private partnerships since the eighties discussed.


Prof. dr. Emile Kolthoff
Prof. dr. E.W. Kolthoff is hoogleraar criminologie aan de Open Universiteit en lector Veiligheid, openbare orde en recht bij Avans Hogeschool in Den Bosch.

Dr. Kim Loyens
Dr. K. M. Loyens is universitair docent aan het departement Bestuurs- en Organisatiewetenschap van de Universiteit Utrecht en geaffilieerd onderzoeker aan het Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie van de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Prof. dr. Antoinette Verhage
Prof. dr. A.H.S. Verhage is docent aan de vakgroep Criminologie, Strafrecht en Sociaal Recht (Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Gent, en verbonden aan het Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Universiteit Gent).
Toont 121 - 140 van 336 gevonden teksten
1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 16 17
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.