Zoekresultaat: 8 artikelen

x

    Alternative/amicable dispute resolution (ADR) is omnipresent these days. In line with global evolutions, the Belgian legislator embraced the use of these ADR mechanisms. Recent reforms of the law, first in 2013 with the act concerning the introduction of a Family and Juvenile Court and consecutively in 2018 with the act containing diverse provisions regarding civil law with a view to the promotion of alternative forms of conflict resolution, implemented more far-reaching measures to promote ADR than ever before. The ultimate goal seems to alter our society’s way of conflict resolution and make the court the ultimum remedium in case all other options failed.In that respect, the legislator took multiple initiatives to stimulate amicable dispute resolution. The reform of 2013 focused solely on family cases, the one in 2018 was broader and designed for all civil cases. The legal tools consist firstly of an information provision regarding ADR for the family judge’s clerk, lawyers and bailiffs. The judges can hear parties about prior initiatives they took to resolve their conflict amicably and assess whether amicable solutions can still be considered, as well as explain these types of solutions and adjourn the case for a short period to investigate the possibilities of amicable conflict resolution. A legal framework has been created for a new method, namely collaborative law and the law also regulates the link between a judicial procedure and the methods of mediation and collaborative law to facilitate the transition between these procedures. Finally, within the Family Courts, specific ‘Chambers of Amicable Settlement’ were created, which framework is investigated more closely in this article. All of these legal tools are further discussed and assessed on their strengths and weaknesses.
    ---
    Alternatieve of minnelijke conflictoplossing is alomtegenwoordig. De Belgische wetgever heeft het gebruik van deze minnelijke oplossingsmethodes omarmd, in navolging van wereldwijde evoluties. Recente wetshervormingen implementeerden maatregelen ter promotie van minnelijke conflictoplossing die verder reiken dan ooit tevoren. Het betreft vooreerst de hervorming in 2013 met de wet betreffende de invoering van een familie- en jeugdrechtbank en vervolgens kwam er in 2018 de wet houdende diverse bepalingen inzake burgerlijk recht en bepalingen met het oog op de bevordering van alternatieve vormen van geschillenoplossing. De ultieme doelstelling van deze hervormingen is een mentaliteitswijziging omtrent onze wijze van conflictoplossing teweegbrengen, waarbij de rechtbank het ultimum remedium dient te worden nadat alle overige opties faalden.De wetshervorming van 2013 focuste uitsluitend op familiale materies, de hervorming van 2018 was ruimer en had alle burgerlijke zaken voor ogen. De wettelijke mogelijkheden bestaan vooreerst uit een informatieverstrekking omtrent minnelijke conflictoplossing in hoofde van de griffier van de familierechtbank, advocaten en gerechtsdeurwaarders. Rechters kunnen partijen horen omtrent eerdere ondernomen initiatieven om hun conflict op een minnelijke manier op te lossen, zij beoordelen of minnelijke oplossingen alsnog kunnen worden overwogen, zij kunnen de diverse minnelijke mogelijkheden toelichten aan partijen alsook de zaak voor een korte periode uitstellen om partijen toe te laten de mogelijkheden aan minnelijke conflictoplossing te verkennen. Er werd voorts een wetgevend kader uitgewerkt voor een nieuwe oplossingsmethode, namelijk de collaboratieve onderhandeling. De wet creëert tevens een link tussen een gerechtelijke procedure en de methodes van bemiddeling en collaboratieve onderhandeling, om de overgang tussen deze procedures te vereenvoudigen. Tot slot werden er binnen de familierechtbanken specifieke kamers voor minnelijke schikking opgericht, waarvan het wetgevend kader in detail wordt bestudeerd in dit artikel. Al deze wettelijke opties worden nader besproken en beoordeeld aan de hand van hun sterktes en zwaktes.


Sofie Raes
Sofie Raes is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Family Law of the University of Ghent, where she researches alternative dispute resolution, with a focus on the chambers of amicable settlement in Family Courts. She is also an accredited mediator in family cases.
Article

Access_open Privatising Law Enforcement in Social Networks: A Comparative Model Analysis

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden user generated content, public and private responsibilities, intermediary liability, hate speech and fake news, protection of fundamental rights
Auteurs Katharina Kaesling
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    These days, it appears to be common ground that what is illegal and punishable offline must also be treated as such in online formats. However, the enforcement of laws in the field of hate speech and fake news in social networks faces a number of challenges. Public policy makers increasingly rely on the regu-lation of user generated online content through private entities, i.e. through social networks as intermediaries. With this privat-ization of law enforcement, state actors hand the delicate bal-ancing of (fundamental) rights concerned off to private entities. Different strategies complementing traditional law enforcement mechanisms in Europe will be juxtaposed and analysed with particular regard to their respective incentive structures and consequential dangers for the exercise of fundamental rights. Propositions for a recommendable model honouring both pri-vate and public responsibilities will be presented.


Katharina Kaesling
Katharina Kaesling, LL.M. Eur., is research coordinator at the Center for Advanced Study ‘Law as Culture’, University of Bonn.
Article

Access_open Empirical Legal Research in Europe: Prevalence, Obstacles, and Interventions

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden empirical legal research, Europe, popularity, increase, journals
Auteurs Gijs van Dijck, Shahar Sverdlov en Gabriela Buck
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Empirical Legal research (ELR) has become well established in the United States, whereas its popularity in Europe is debatable. This article explores the popularity of ELR in Europe. The authors carried out an empirical analysis of 78 European-based law journals, encompassing issues from 2008-2017. The findings demonstrate that a supposed increase of ELR is questionable (at best).
    Moreover, additional findings highlight:

    • An increase for a few journals, with a small number of other journals showing a decrease over time;

    • A higher percentage of empirical articles for extra-legal journals than for legal journals (average proportion per journal is 4.6 percent for legal journals, 18.9 percent for extra-legal journals);

    • Criminal justice journals, environmental journals, and economically oriented journals being more likely to publish empirical articles than other journals;

    • More prestigious journals being more likely to publish empirical articles than less-prestigious journals;

    • Older journals being more likely to publish empirical work than younger journals, but not at an increasing rate;

    • Journals being legal/extra-legal, journals in a specific field, journal ranking, or the age of the journal not making it more (or less) likely that the journal will publish empirical articles at an increasing (or decreasing) rate.
      Considering the lack of convincing evidence indicating an increase of ELR, we identify reasons for why ELR is seemingly becoming more popular but not resulting in more empirical research in Europe. Additionally, we explore interventions for overcoming the obstacles ELR currently faces.


Gijs van Dijck
Professor of Private Law at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

Shahar Sverdlov
Law student at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Gabriela Buck
Law student at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Artikel

Access_open De Belgische evenwichtsoefening inzake de verplichte ADR-poging in het raam van een gerechtelijke procedure

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden mandatory mediation, access tot justice, Belgian Council of State, ADR legislation june 18 2018
Auteurs Eric Lancksweerdt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution examines how, when establishing the new Belgian legislation on the promotion of ADR, a delicate balance was sought between proponents and opponents of mandatory mediation. The Belgian government was in favour of compulsory mediation, but the Council of State, the High Council of Justice, members of parliament from the majority and the opposition, and representatives of professional organizations were opposed to it. A delicate compromise was found whereby the judge can impose a mediation, but if both sides are opposed to it, a mandatory mediation attempt is excluded.


Eric Lancksweerdt
Eric Lancksweerdt is hoofddocent aan de UHasselt en praktijkassistent aan de UAntwerpen. Zijn onderzoeksdomeinen zijn alternatieve conflictoplossing, burgerparticipatie, rechtspraktijk en ethiek, menselijke kwaliteiten in een juridische context.
Article

Access_open Administering Justice and Serving the People

The Tension between the Objective of Judicial Efficiency and Informal Justice in Canadian Access to Justice Initiatives

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden access to justice, procedural law, courts, civil justice reform, comparative law
Auteurs Catherine Piché
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Canada has a complex system of courts that seek to serve Canadians in view of the traditional objectives of civil justice – principally accessibility, efficiency, fairness, efficacy, proportionality and equality. The Canadian court system is generally considered by its users to work well and to have legitimacy. Yet, researchers have found that ‘there is a tendency for people involved in a civil case to become disillusioned about the ability of the system to effect a fair and timely resolution to a civil justice problem’. This article will discuss the ways in which reforms of procedural law and civil justice have originated and continue to be made throughout Canada, both nationally and provincially, as well as the trends and influences in making these reforms. With hundreds of contemporary procedural reforms having been discussed, proposed and/or completed since the first days of Canadian colonisation on a national basis and in the Canadian provinces and territory, providing a detailed analysis will prove challenging. This article will nonetheless provide a review of civil justice and procedural reform issues in Canada, focusing principally, at the provincial level, on the systems of Ontario and Quebec. Importantly, I will seek to reconcile the increasing willingness to have an economically efficient civil justice and the increased power of judges in managing cases, with our court system’s invasion of ADR and its prioritisation of informal modes of adjudication.


Catherine Piché
Dr. Prof. Catherine Piché, Université de Montreal.

Elisabetta Silvestri
Elisabetta Silvestri is Associate Professor of Italian Civil Procedure and Comparative Civil Procedure; Scientific Director of the postgraduate program on Mediation and ADR, Department of Law, University of Pavia. Co-Director of the annual seminar ‘Public and Private Justice’, Inter-University Centre, Dubrovnik, Croatia; member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Almo Collegio Borromeo, Pavia. She graduated from the University of Pavia and received a LL.M. degree from Cornell Law School. She is a member of the European Law Institute and the International Association of Procedural Law. She has written on Italian civil procedure and a variety of topics in the field of comparative procedure. She has lectured extensively in Italy and abroad; she is a member of one of the Working Groups established by the European Law Institute and UNIDROIT for the development of the project ‘From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure’.
Artikel

Mediation case law in Germany – an overview

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2017
Trefwoorden Case law, Germany, Voluntariness, Confidentiality, Neutrality
Auteurs Ulla Gläßer
Auteursinformatie

Ulla Gläßer
Prof. Dr. Ulla Gläßer, LL.M., holds a full professorship of mediation, conflict management and procedural theory at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder)/Germany. She is academic director of the Institute for Conflict Management and the postgraduate, interdisciplinary Master’s Program on Mediation at the European University. Ms Gläßer is teaching mediation, negotiation and conflict management skills at various universities and numerous other institutions in Germany and abroad. She has published broadly on mediation methodology, the legal framework of mediation, quality assurance of mediation and other ADR procedures and the establishment of mediation and ADR procedures in different realms of society. She also is editor of two Publication Series on Mediation and Conflict Management and a comprehensive commentary on the German Mediation Act and corresponding relevant regulation. As a practical mediator and facilitator, Ms Gläßer supports dispute resolution and decision making processes within or between organisations/corporations.
Artikel

Mediation on trial: Dutch court judgments on mediation

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2017
Trefwoorden Case law, The Netherlands, Voluntariness, Confidentiality
Auteurs Annie de Roo en Rob Jagtenberg
Auteursinformatie

Annie de Roo
Annie de Roo is associate professor of ADR and comparative law at Erasmus University Law School in Rotterdam, editor-in-chief of TMD, and vice chair of the exams committee of the Mediators Federation of the Netherlands MFN. She has published extensively on mediation and has inter alia been a Rapporteur three times for the European Commission on the use of mediation in employment disputes.

Rob Jagtenberg
Rob Jagtenberg is senior research fellow at Erasmus University and has published frequently on the relationship between public and private justice. He has been involved in research commissioned by the Worldbank, the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary, and various Dutch Ministries including the MoJ funded national project on court-connected mediation.
Interface Showing Amount
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.