In 1991 is een scherpe scheiding aangebracht tussen het militair tuchtrecht en het (militair) strafrecht. De bijdrage bespreekt twee aspecten die met de scherpe scheiding verband houden, de aangifteplicht voor commandanten (art. 78 Wmt) en de uitzondering op de scherpe scheiding (art. 79 Wmt). Betoogd wordt dat de materiële uitwerking van zowel de aangifteplicht als de uitzonderingsmogelijkheid onvoldoende aansluiten bij het doel dat met de scherpe scheiding werd beoogd.

Previous research has shown that gruesome evidence influences guilt decisions. Several scholars have put forward that the emotional response to gruesome evidence drives this effect. The current systematic review aims to critically scrutinize the current literature on this underlying emotion mechanism, by reviewing studies on the potential mediating role of emotion. A synthesis of the literature suggests that specific emotions have different effects: disgust shows a mediating effect, fear and sadness do not, whereas the effect of anger is inconsistent. The question remains whether an emotional effect is desirable in the courtroom. Recommendations for future research and the legal practice are made.

Restorative justice as implemented in many countries adopts a rather narrow approach, where responding to crime and other types of injustice is being restricted to the interpersonal level. ‘Society’ as important pillar in ­restorative justice does not play an ­important role in daily practice, and ­linkages to the institutional and political ­level are seldom established. Such practice risks to replicate or to strengthen structural inequalities in society. One possible strategy to deal with this challenge, is to engage in network oriented ­approaches in order to develop a better understanding of system injustices, and to contribute to more encom­passing and sustainable response mechanisms in society. Can and should the restorative justice movement build alliances with other social movements in order to realise this perspective? The article is structured along the following lines. First, various visions of ‘structural violence’ are reflected upon. Reference is made, for example, to the issue of ­(de)colonisation and concomitant forms of ‘epistemic injustice’. Considerable attention is given to the complexity and the multilayered nature of underlying causes of injus­tices in the respective social fields, and to the risk of simplification and polarisation in society but also within social movements. The discussion then fo­cuses on practices of dealing with conflict, diversity and participatory decision making within the respective social movements, and whether and how restorative justice can offer inspiration and practical support. Thirdly, broader strategies on social transformation are discussed, dealing with, for example, how the interchangeable roles of warrior and healer can be adopted, and how, at a more general level, restorative oriented partnerships can be formed.

Climate litigation is an understudied phenomenon in criminology. In this article we will discuss the rise of climate change litigation and growing recognition of global environmental harms from a green criminological perspective. More specifically, we will discuss both the legal reasoning and the impact of the Urgenda case in the Netherlands in the context of environmental, ecological and climate justice. We will conclude with how this case contributes for the recognition of diverse climate victims and strengthening of climate justice in the near future.

The environmental crisis makes it clear that our current legal instruments and concepts are not sufficient to effectively combat, remedy and prevent widespread environmental harm. However, new concepts and approaches are being developed that try to reduce these legal imperfections. Our essay explores these developments, in particular the emergence of a legal duty of care for the environment, the rights of nature-movement, the campaign to make ecocide (mass damage and destruction of the environment) an international crime and the application of restorative justice to repair environmental harm. We also advocate a new multidisciplinary perspective launched by us: positive green criminology.

Crisis teams from waterauthorities want to have insight into the current risks for the area. The ‘Continuous insight’-method is used by them to monitor the risks of drought and high water and to draw up what-if scenarios for training and exercise. Various cases have now shown that Expert Judgement can be used to gain a clearer picture of the effectiveness of measures and to take a more balanced decision. The Expert Judgement method has been tested and applied by a group of international experts as part of the EU project DRIVER +. During an extreme situation, the crisis team may encounter dilemmas. The engaged group of experts follows a fixed procedure to provide advice to reduce flood risk evacuate to prevent loss of life.
Each expert makes his own assessment of the effect and impact of the measure envisaged. Each expert provides an explanation of the individual assessment. Then, under the guidance of a process supervisor, the experts discuss individual assessments and exchange arguments. This can lead to new insights. Each expert makes his own assessment again. The result is a probability distribution of estimates and an expected value. This expert assessment of the measure is taken to the crisis team, so that the chance of success and the assessment of the consequences of the proposed measure can be adjusted. The crisis team can take the decision immediately afterwards.
By following this procedure risk information is made visible. By linking expert knowledge with observations, a better substantiated expectation can be drawn up. According to the participants in the international meetings, the Expert Judgement method in combination with ‘Continuous insight’ helps to make better informed and faster choices. The method fits within the existing crisis management structure. The next step is to implement this method in the day-to-day affairs of crisis management.

This article states that the social and political context in which restorative justice is situated, needs more attention. The polarized rhetoric of populists with their plea for more state control and repression does not fit with the restorative approach with its emphasis on inclusion and social responsibility of active citizens. The author suggests that the paradigm of ‘positive security’ as coined by Marc Schuilenburg and others could function as a base for an alternative, more constructive and inclusive ‘big story’ on crime and security that is more akin to restorative justice. Aspects of current social protest movements as the MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter and climate demonstrations could be integrated in this ‘big story’, also to prevent that restorative justice is viewed only as a quick fix to soothe symptoms and not address political and social root causes of injustice. In this way, the international restorative justice movement could widen its scope.

The first part of this article presents three academic theories on radicalisation: Moghaddam’s staircase model of radicalisation, Galtung’s typology of violence (direct, structural and cultural violence), and Staub’s psycho-educative approach. The core of Staub’s approach is that in conflict periods, people can be psychologically manipulated through their own fears, insecurities and unresolved traumas. Therefore, psycho-education and the empowerment of people are highly necessary to stimulate citizens to function as active bystanders when they are confronted with wrongdoing. In the second part of this article some promising approaches are pres­en‍ted which might increase personal and social resilience. The role of narratives in understanding experiences and changing identities is discussed. Radio La Benevolencija in Rwanda uses the power of storytel­l‍ing to stimulate resilience among the population. In the concluding paragraph a two-pronged strategy on radicalization is presented. This positive criminological perspective aims to promote active bystandership, participation and resilience.

In dit artikel staat centraal dat de beperking van de door het Hof van Justitie geformuleerde ‘cao-exceptie’ op het Europese mededingingsrecht tot ‘werknemers’ en ‘schijnzelfstandigen’ zich moeilijk tot een grondrechtenbenadering lijkt te verhouden. Zelfstandigen met een zwakke arbeidsmarktpositie hebben namelijk evenzeer behoefte aan collectieve middelen om hun arbeidsvoorwaarden te verbeteren en vallen ook onder grondrechtenverdragen. Door een uitgebreide beschouwing van de relevante rechtsinstrumenten van de VN, de IAO en de Raad van Europa en de uitleg die de toezichtorganen hieraan geven blijkt dat het grondrecht op vrijheid van (vak)vereniging, collectief onderhandelen en collectieve actie evenzeer aan deze groep lijkt toe te komen, en een te rigoureuze inperking vanwege het mededingingsrecht niet gerechtvaardigd wordt geacht. De conclusie bevat enkele gedachten over hoe het Europese mededingingsrecht met een grondrechtenbenadering overeenstemming te brengen. Daarbij passeren zowel de recente ontwikkelingen rondom het zelfstandigenvraagstuk in Nederland als initiatieven op Europees niveau de revue.