The role that Paul Scholten assigns to conscience in his legal methodology still leads to heated discussions in literature after almost 100 years. Recognizing that in case law the conscience of the judge can be of decisive importance is apparently problematic. It would facilitate political court rulings, make judicial judgment uncontrollable and could be arbitrary for the parties to the legal dispute. Not only Scholten’s view on the role of conscience in judicial decision making is “a stumbling block”. At least as great is the fuss about his representation of conscience. Only Christian lawyers could identify with this. This article attempts to shed new light on the above points of criticism by drawing attention to the following aspects of Scholten’s legal methodology: the role of the facts in establishing the law, the nature of the legal judgment and finally the grounds on which conscience may be determined.

The lifeblood of contemporary consumer capitalism is ever-growing and accelerating human needs for new consumer goods and services. Needs that remain unsatisfied on the one hand but defy the carrying capacity of planet Earth on the other. Anything but a win-win situation. Although excess harms, the infrastructure of consumption pays full service to perpetuate and cultivate the ‘more and faster’ orientation of today’s consumers. It is believed that we can cope with excess by taking efficiency measures and paying attention to recycling and refurbishing. This article, however, points out that there is need to rethink consumption and reconsider prevalent orientations dedicated to excess consumption more fundamentally.

De Vereeniging voor Wijsbegeerte des Rechts (VWR) is opgericht op 28 december 1918. Zij had tot doel de studie van de rechtsfilosofie en het maatschappelijk leven. Deze studie moest tevens relevant zijn voor de rechtspraktijk. Vanaf haar oprichting kende de VWR een sterke internationale oriëntatie, aanvankelijk gericht op Duitsland, later vooral op het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de VS. In de jaren zeventig en tachtig van de vorige eeuw beleefde de VWR wat betreft belangstelling en ledenaantal haar hoogtepunt. In 2016 besloot zij – na een gestage neergang – de band met de Nederlandstalige (praktijk)jurist weer aan te halen.

Hoe was het met de Nederlandse rechtsfilosofie gesteld in de eerste jaren na de bevrijding? In die periode lag binnen de Vereniging voor Wijsbegeerte des Rechts (VWR) het accent op de verhouding tussen recht en gerechtigheid in het licht van het recente verleden. Dit artikel bespreekt interventies van drie actieve VWR-leden in de jaren 1946-1949: C.M.O. van Nispen tot Sevenaer, I. Kisch en G.E. Langemeijer. Gelet op het sterke accent op de relatie tussen recht en moraal in deze periode, is het niet verwonderlijk dat de rechtsfilosofie van Gustav Radbruch destijds binnen de VWR veel bijval kreeg. Wat was Radbruchs invloed op deze drie rechtsfilosofen? Het artikel besluit met een bespreking van de herdenkingsrede die VWR-voorzitter M.P. Vrij in 1949 uitsprak bij het dertigjarig bestaan. Deze rede markeert het eindpunt van vier jaar van intensieve aandacht voor de rechtsfilosofische implicaties van de ervaring van juridisch onrecht.

This article explores the boundary conditions an organization has to take to make the workplace, where all kind of people work together, a safe place. Employers are responsible for a safe working environment according to the Arbowet. The confidential councilor is an important part of the infrastructure against workplace harassment. Next to commitment from the top of the organization, a code of conduct based on the support of the employees, a complaints procedure with access to an independent complains committee, the confidential councilor is key to discover and act on workplace harassment. Not all confidential councilors are trained and aware of the pitfalls of the job. Organizations have to set boundary conditions. For example legal privilege within the organization and some sort of protection against retaliation. The confidential councilor follows the lead of the complainant and can put down the responsibility of solving the issue of harassment at the proper authority within the organization.