This article collects publications in this journal about the emergence and effects of legislation. It covers the developments and results of research of the last four decades. First it is concluded that there has been considerable attention to the subject. Second a clear broadening and (theoretical) deepening from different perspectives can be observed. Social-legal research of legislation also appears to have specific characteristics. Subsequently, various points of attention are pointed out, such as more attention to the relationship between legal characteristics and effects, more variation in research methods and more systematic theory-driven research. Finally, attention is drawn to the relationship between (the working of) legislation and social transformations such as globalization, digitization and the increasing and profound influence of social media in society.

Because of the sharp contrast between the law-in-the-books and the law-in-action regulatory enforcement has always been a popular subject in socio-legal research. This paper looks back at forty years of Dutch research on regulatory enforcement, using several key publications in this journal from each decade. First, it is argued that these Dutch studies reveal three general themes: this research can be seen as a time machine that takes us back to some of the most important social and political events of the past decades, these studies emphasize the crucial role of individual enforcement officials, and in everyday enforcement state law only plays a limited role. Next, this review also discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses of Dutch research. Most studies on regulatory enforcement are more interested in the role of the state than in the role of citizens and businesses. As a result, research focuses more on issues of effectiveness and less on questions of legitimacy. Finally, empirical research is seen as more important than theory development. Based on this overview, the author introduces a new research agenda for future research on regulatory enforcement.

A question that has preoccupied sociolegal scholars for ages is whether law can change ‘hearts and minds’. This article explores whether non-discrimination law can create social change, and, more particularly, whether it can change attitudes and beliefs as well as external behaviour. The first part examines how sociolegal scholars have theorised about the possibility and desirability of using law as an instrument of social change. The second part discusses the findings of empirical research on the social working of various types of non-discrimination law. What conclusions can be drawn about the ability of non-discrimination law to create social change? What factors influence this ability? And can non-discrimination law change people’s hearts and minds as well as their behaviour? The research literature does not provide an unequivocal answer to the latter question. However, the overall picture emerging from the sociolegal literature is that law is generally more likely to bring about changes in external behaviour and that it can influence attitudes and beliefs only indirectly, by altering the situations in which attitudes and opinions are formed.

The basics of how to conduct participant observation are not taught in law schools. This is striking because this methodology has become a common feature of qualitative research and could be very useful in sociolegal research. For those interested in studying ‘law in practice’ instead of ‘law in the books’, qualitative research methods like participant observation are inevitable. However, participant observation is, at best, secondary in the literature on qualitative research in the sociolegal discipline, while there is no guidance on how to conduct this technique whatsoever.Therefore, this article is written with two audiences in mind: It should serve as a useful reference and guide for those who teach qualitative research methods in legal education and who are looking to enhance their knowledge and skills concerning participant observation; it is also meant to serve as a basic primer for the beginning sociolegal researcher who is about to become a participating observer for the first time.

Het kabinet heeft, blijkens een recente brief over de transparantie van wetgeving, transparantie van het wetgevingsproces hoog in het vaandel. In dit artikel loop ik een aantal ontwikkelingen in eigen land en in andere landen langs die het verhogen van de transparantie van het wetgevingsproces tot doel hebben. De bijdrage laat zien dat transparantie van het wetgevingsproces geen doel op zich is, het is slechts een middel om de toegankelijkheid van het wetgevingsproces – en dat dan in termen van de mogelijkheden om goed geïnformeerd te kunnen meeweten, meedenken en wellicht zelfs op enigerlei wijze deel te kunnen nemen aan de beslissingen (participatie) – te borgen of te verhogen. Voor het draagvlak – de legitimiteit – van wettelijke regels zijn transparantie en de daardoor mogelijk gemaakte participatie van burgers (rechtstreeks of via hun vertegenwoordigers) van groot belang. Het artikel concludeert met de vaststelling dat het Nederlandse wetgevingsproces niet erg transparant is in de zin dat het buitenstaanders buiten de kring van de wetgevingsactoren zelf actief uitnodigt tot het deelnemen aan het debat over de beleidsvorming via wetgeving. De voornemens uit de brief van het kabinet veranderen daar niet veel aan.

This contribution explains what access to justice can encompass and how the ideals about access to justice have developed in time. The way to do this is going back to the work of the famous scholars Cappelletti and Garth, who were responsible for a worldwide project on access to justice in the 1970s. Their main issue was to explain access to justice is more than the access to a judge and the organization of courts. Primarily, the system must be equally accessible to all, irrespective of social or economic status or other incapacity. But it also must lead to results that are individually and socially just and fair. Equal access and effective access are the central notions. Their work is put in perspective. The importance of their legacy and the question how we can get along with their work are stressed. Their definition is compared to a few other authoritative definitions. The waves in the history of access to justice are described and putting them in the current context illustrates why a fourth waved can be observed. The major question to be answered is how one can assess the challenges and obstacles of access to justice in the current context. Therefore, some recent dimensions and developments within access to justice are presented: the democratic dimension, the effectiveness of new social rights, the attention for poor and vulnerable people, further juridification, expanding frontiers of and monitoring access to justice, e-justice, and self-help. Finally, a few building blocks for reforms are presented.

The right to adequate housing has since long been established in international and European human rights law and has been (constitutionally) incorporated into many domestic legal systems. This contribution focuses on the extent to which this fundamental right influences rental law and the horizontal relationship between tenant and landlord and how it contributes to the tenant’s access to justice. The right to housing certainly accounts for tenant’s rights, but since international and European human rights law evidently centres around state obligations, any possible impact on the position of tenants remains indirect. This is of course different on the national plane. In Belgium, the constitutional right to housing has been implemented through regional Housing Codes, complementing private law measures and creating additional protection to tenants. Nonetheless, many challenges still remain in increasing access to justice for tenants, both top-down and bottom-up: lack of knowledge and complexity of law, imbalance in power and dependency, discrimination, etc.

It is well known that the role of the national legislator in setting legally relevant norms is rapidly changing under the influence of increasing Europeanization, globalization and privatization. Today the national legislator is only one of the relevant norm-setters. This contribution considers the role that the Dutch legislator sees for itself in this emerging multilevel legal order. To this end, six themes of fundamental importance in a multilevel order are explored: (1) the question of when government regulation is to be preferred over private regulation; (2) the question of at which level of government (national, European, sub-national or supranational) a topic is preferably dealt with; (3) the role of the national legislator in realizing the cognoscibility and coherence of law; (4) the preferred way of implementing EU directives; (5) the question of whether the national legislator must refer to codes of conduct, certification and norms of standards bodies, and if so how; (6) the question of whether the national legislator must position its own national law on the international ‘law market.’

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.

In 2000 the Netherlands has lifted the ban on brothels. By legalizing sex work the Dutch government aimed to increase the opportunities to regulate this sector and to improve the social position of sex workers. This article examines to what extent the application of a particular fiscal regulation known as ‘opting-in’ to certain branches of the Dutch prostitution industry is legitimate from a socio legal perspective. It takes into account both the efficacy of the regulation with an eye on achieving the goals which were formulated in 2000 and the experiences of sex workers with this fiscal construction. Aubert’s theory regarding the influence of social factors on the observance of regulations is used to explain the discrepancy between the high degree of acceptance of the regulation amongst sex workers and the limited effectiveness with regard to the improvement of their labour rights.

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.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Recht der Werkelijkheid.