Zoekresultaat: 29 artikelen

x
Article

Access_open Age Limits in Youth Justice: A Comparative and Conceptual Analysis

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden youth justice, age limits, minimum age of criminal responsibility, age of criminal majority, legal comparison
Auteurs Jantien Leenknecht, Johan Put en Katrijn Veeckmans
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In each youth justice system, several age limits exist that indicate what type of reaction can and may be connected to the degree of responsibility that a person can already bear. Civil liability, criminal responsibility and criminal majority are examples of concepts on which age limits are based, but whose definition and impact is not always clear. Especially as far as the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is concerned, confusion exists in legal doctrine. This is apparent from the fact that international comparison tables often show different MACRs for the same country. Moreover, the international literature often seems to define youth justice systems by means of a lower and upper limit, whereas such a dual distinction is too basic to comprehend the complex multilayer nature of the systems. This contribution therefore maps out and conceptually clarifies the different interpretations and consequences of the several age limits that exist within youth justice systems. To that extent, the age limits of six countries are analysed: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. This legal comparison ultimately leads to a proposal to establish a coherent conceptual framework on age limits in youth justice.


Jantien Leenknecht
Jantien Leenknecht is PhD Fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) at KU Leuven, Institute of Social Law and Leuven Institute of Criminology.

Johan Put
Johan Put is Full Professor at KU Leuven, Institute of Social Law and Leuven Institute of Criminology.

Katrijn Veeckmans
Katrijn Veeckmans is PhD Fellow at KU Leuven, Institute of Social Law and Leuven Institute of Criminology.

    Every mediator has to act independently and impartially. These are core values of mediation. However, what if a mediator tries to enrich himself? The aim of this contribution is to shed light on some correction mechanisms under the Belgian law of obligations, focusing on the latest developments in the case law of the Belgian Supreme Court.


Matthias Meirlaen
Matthias Meirlaen is Assistent aan de Universiteit Gent, Centrum voor Verbintenissenrecht.
Artikel

Restorative justice en normconform gedrag: een systematische review

Tijdschrift PROCES, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden Herstelrecht, Regelnaleving, normconform gedrag, restorative justice
Auteurs Dr Marieke Kluin en Dr Selma Albayrak
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Restorative justice has developed into a recognized sanction or intervention in several countries. Literature shows that restorative justice is experienced as a procedural just approach by participants. Furthermore, a strong rejection of the behavior of the violators would reinforce reintegrative shaming in the process. Finally, stopping crime (desistance) could be achieved if the restorative justice approach would include reconstructing the self-image of the participants. This systematic literature review examines to what extent restorative justice contributes to compliant behavior by individuals and corporations. Although direct effects of restorative justice on compliance and recidivism fail to appear, procedural justice and reintegrative shame are positively affected. The results offer practical implementations and challenges for further research.


Dr Marieke Kluin
Dr. Marieke Kluin is als universitair docent Criminologie verbonden aan het Instituut voor Strafrecht & Criminologie van de Universiteit Leiden.

Dr Selma Albayrak
Selma Albayrak studeert criminologie aan de Universiteit Leiden en de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

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 assistant professor at Erasmus University Law School in Rotterdam and editor of TMD. Several times he was rapporteur-general for the Council of Europe about ADR/mediation.
Artikel

Access_open Some thoughts about success fees for mediators

Variations on the theme: ‘The better it helps, the better it pays’ instead of ‘The longer it takes, the better it pays’.

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2019
Trefwoorden success fees, contingency fees, remuneration system, rules of ethics
Auteurs Patrick Van Leynseele
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Traditionally, it has been taught, or prohibited, for mediators to charge ‘success fees’ or ‘contingency fees’ as remuneration for the work they do. This article argues that such overall prohibition lacks nuances. Mediation rules and rules of ethics for mediators should not prevent the parties and the mediators from agreeing on some sort of higher remuneration in case of successful outcome of the mediation. There are limits. In particular, making the mediator’s remuneration a percentage of the settlement amount should remain prohibited.
    However, if the mediator’s interests are aligned with those of the parties, which shall frequently be the case, there should be no blank prohibition for the mediator to charge higher fees in case of successful outcome of the mediation process.
    There is a need for the mediator to be fully transparent about the system he proposes, which includes explaining to the parties and securing their understanding of the pros and cons of the remuneration system he suggests.


Patrick Van Leynseele
Patrick Van Leynseele is attorney (Brussels and New York Bars), arbitrator, mediator and editor of this journal.
Article

Access_open The Brussels International Business Court: Initial Overview and Analysis

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden international jurisdiction, English, court language, Belgium, business court
Auteurs Erik Peetermans en Philippe Lambrecht
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In establishing the Brussels International Business Court (BIBC), Belgium is following an international trend to attract international business disputes to English-speaking state courts. The BIBC will be an autonomous business court with the competence to settle, in English, disputes between companies throughout Belgium. This article focuses on the BIBC’s constitutionality, composition, competence, proceedings and funding, providing a brief analysis and critical assessment of each of these points. At the time of writing, the Belgian Federal Parliament has not yet definitively passed the Bill establishing the BIBC, meaning that amendments are still possible.


Erik Peetermans
Erik Peetermans is a legal adviser at the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB).

Philippe Lambrecht
Philippe Lambrecht is the Director-Secretary General at the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB).
Case Reports

2019/20 How to interpret the Posting of Workers Directive in the cross-border road transport sector? Dutch Supreme Court asks the ECJ for guidance (NL)

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 2 2019
Trefwoorden Private International Law, Posting of Workers and Expatriates, Applicable Law
Auteurs Zef Even en Amber Zwanenburg
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this transnational road transport case, the Dutch Supreme Court had to elaborate on the ECJ Koelzsch and Schlecker cases and asks for guidance from the ECJ on the applicability and interpretation of the Posting of Workers Directive.


Zef Even
Zef Even is a lawyer with SteensmaEven, www.steensmaeven.com, and professor at the Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Amber Zwanenburg
Amber Zwanenburg is a lecturer and PhD Candidate at the Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    In 2016 the Dutch Government Commission of Reassessment of Parenthood (GCRP) proposed a wide array of legal changes to Family Law, e.g. with regard to legal multi-parenthood and legal multiple parental responsibility. Although the commission researched these matters thoroughly in its quest towards proposing new directions in the field of Family Law, multi-parents themselves were not interviewed by the commission. Therefore, this article aims to explore a possible gap between the social experiences of parents and the recommendations of the GCRP. Data was drawn from in depth-interviews with a sample of 25 parents in plus-two-parent constellations living in Belgium and the Netherlands. For the most part the social experiences of parents aligned with the ways in which the GCRP plans to legally accommodate the former. However, my data tentatively suggests that other (legal) recommendations of the GCRP need to be explored more in depth.
    ---
    In 2016 stelde de Nederlandse Staatscommissie Herijking ouderschap voor om een wettelijk kader te creëren voor meerouderschap en meeroudergezag. Ondanks de grondigheid van het gevoerde onderzoek ontbraken er gegevens omtrent de ervaringen van de meerouders zelf. Dit artikel levert een bijdrage in het vullen van deze leemte door inzage te geven in de (juridische) ervaringen van 25 ouders in meerouderschapsconstellaties in België en Nederland.


Nola Cammu MA
Nola Cammu is PhD Candidate at the Law Faculty of the University of Antwerp.
Law Review

2019/1 EELC’s review of the year 2018

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 1 2019
Auteurs Ruben Houweling, Catherine Barnard, Filip Dorssemont e.a.
Samenvatting

    For the second time, various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year. However, first, we start with some general remarks.


Ruben Houweling

Catherine Barnard

Filip Dorssemont

Jean-Philippe Lhernould

Francesca Maffei

Niklas Bruun

Anthony Kerr

Jan-Pieter Vos

Luca Ratti

Daiva Petrylaite

Andrej Poruban

Stein Evju

    This article examines the hearing of children in Belgian and Dutch courts in return proceedings following an international child abduction. The analysis is based on the experience, insights and needs of both children who have experienced an abduction by one of their parents, and family judges. In this sensitive and often highly conflicted family context, hearing children in court is not self-evident. Challenges of both a judicial-institutional and communicative-relational nature can hinder the effective implementation of children’s right to be heard. This contribution seeks to answer the question of how to better support judges and children in addressing these challenges, with the aim of enabling children to fully and effectively participate in return procedures. Building on the interviews with children and judges, supplemented with findings from Belgian and Dutch case law and international literature, three key recommendations are formulated: 1) explore and evaluate opportunities for judges and children to experience support during the return procedure, for example via the figure of the guardian ad litem; 2) invest in training and opportunities for specialisation of judges with a view to strengthen their expertise in taking the best interests of the child into account; and 3) systematically pay attention to feedback to the children involved on how the final decision about their return is made – and this before, during and after the procedure.
    ---
    Dit artikel bestudeert het horen van kinderen in Belgische en Nederlandse rechtbanken in terugkeerprocedures volgend op een internationale kinderontvoering. De analyse vertrekt vanuit de beleving, ervaring, inzichten, noden en behoeften van zowel kinderen als van bevoegde familierechters. In deze gevoelige en vaak uiterst conflictueuze gezinscontext is het horen van kinderen door de rechter geen evidentie. Uitdagingen van zowel juridisch-institutionele als communicatieve-relationele aard kunnen een effectieve implementatie van het recht van kinderen om gehoord te worden in de weg staan. Dit artikel zoekt een antwoord op de vraag hoe rechters en kinderen beter kunnen worden ondersteund om deze uitdagingen aan te pakken, met als doel dat kinderen volwaardig kunnen participeren in de terugkeerprocedure. Voortbouwend op de interviews met kinderen en rechters, aangevuld met bevindingen uit Belgische en Nederlandse rechtspraak en internationale literatuur, worden drie sleutelaanbevelingen geformuleerd: 1) voorzie mogelijkheden voor rechters en kinderen om spanningsvelden weg te werken tijdens de terugkeerprocedure, bijvoorbeeld via de ondersteunende figuur van de bijzonder curator; 2) investeer in opleiding en groeiende specialisatiemogelijkheden bij rechters en 3) heb aandacht voor feedback en terugkoppeling naar de betrokken kinderen over hoe de eindbeslissing over hun terugkeer tot stand komt, en dit zowel voor, tijdens als na de procedure.


Sara Lembrechts LLM
Sara Lembrechts is researcher at University of Antwerp (Law and Development Research Group) and policy advisor at Children’s Rights Knowledge Centre (KeKi).

Marieke Putters LLM
Marieke Putters is researcher at the International Child Abduction Center (Centrum IKO).

Kim Van Hoorde
Kim Van Hoorde is Project & Prevention Manager at Child Focus.

dr. Thalia Kruger
Thalia Kruger, PhD, is Associate Professor at the University of Antwerp (Personal Rights and Property Rights Research Group) and Honorary Research Associate, University of Cape Town.

dr. Koen Ponnet
Koen Ponnet, PhD, is Professor at Imec-Mict-Ghent University (Faculty of Social Sciences).

dr. Wouter Vandenhole
Wouter Vandenhole, PhD, is Professor at the University of Antwerp (Law and Development Research Group).

    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.

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.
Artikel

Promoting Conciliation and Mediation in Collective Labour Conflicts in Europe

Celebrating 50 years of Federal Mediation Services in Belgium

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden Mediation, conciliation, collective labour conflict, strikes
Auteurs Ana Belén García, Erica Pender, Francisco J. Medina e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    On 23 April 2018, the Belgian Ministry of Labour, together with a consortium of 12 European research institutes, held a symposium on the current state of the art and best practices for conciliation and mediation in collective labour conflicts within the European Union, and particularly in Belgium. The symposium was organized for two occasions. First, the 50st anniversary of the Belgium law, providing mediation services by the Ministry of Labour to prevent and mediate in collective labour conflicts. Second, the presentation of the results of an EU (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) sponsored project in 12 EU member states.
    The management of collective labour conflicts is in all countries regulated differently. The study shows that also practices of third party intervention differ largely. Most countries differentiate conciliation (a relative informal process of facilitated negotiation), mediation (usually defined as a strong involvement of the third party, who gives recommendations to the parties), and arbitration. Mediators typically are not trained, certified or registered as mediators in most countries. In all countries there is a large potential for conciliation, particularly in early stages of conflict (preventive mediation), as well as in rebuilding of trust after conflict episodes. More details in open access book: Mediation in collective labor conflicts (Springer, 2018).


Ana Belén García
Ana Belén García is senior researcher at the University of Seville and KU Leuven, working in the departments of work and organizational psychology. She was coordinator of several EU funded research programs on social dialogue in organisations. The most recent project was on mediation in collective labor conflicts in 12 EU member states. Ana’s interest is on conflict management and mediation in organizations. She was editor of two handbooks in the Springer Series ‘Industrial relations and conflict management’. Ana holds a PhD in Psychology and HRM from the University of Seville and KU Leuven. She is also a registered mediator.

Erica Pender
Erica Pender is a mediator and senior researcher at the University of Seville and KU Leuven in the department of Work and Organizational Psychology. She holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of Seville and KU Leuven focusing on trust and trustworthiness in organizations. After studying psychology at the University of Seville, she obtained her MSc at Maastricht University. She has coordinated two large-scale projects for the European Commission, and was co-editor of two handbooks in the Springer Series ‘Industrial relations and conflict management’.

Francisco J. Medina
Fransisco J. Medina is professor in social and organizational psychology, and Dean of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational sciences, at the University of Seville, Spain. His interests are conflict management, mediation and organizational development. He is engaged for many years in the development of labor mediation in Spain, providing training for mediators. He is also an experienced consultant and mediator. Francisco published both internationally and in Spanish extensively on conflict management and mediation.

Martin Euwema
Martin Euwema is professor in organizational psychology, and chair of the research group Organizational and Occupational Psychology and Professional Learning at KU Leuven, Belgium. He is also co-director of the Leuven Center for Collaborative Management and visiting professor at University of Copenhagen, IESEG-Paris, Sevilla, and Tsinghua (Beijing). He has extensive experience as consultant and mediator for both profit and non-profit organizations. His fields of expertise are conflict management, mediation, leadership, and organizational and team development.
Artikel

Enforceability of mediation clauses in Belgium and the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Enforceability, Mediation clauses, contracts
Auteurs Ellen van Beukering-Rosmuller en Patrick Van Leynseele
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article authors discuss (possible) legal means and methods aimed at making mediation clauses effective and/or enforceable. In particular Belgian and Dutch law are examined. In part attention is also paid to English, French and Italian law. Against the background of recent EU-legislation the validity of mediation clauses is discussed as well, with a focus on consumer related disputes. By reviewing US case law with regard to the duty to participate in good faith in the mediation process, the authors also outline the limits of this concept for the effectiveness of mediation clauses. The central theme of the enforceability of mediation clauses has been looked at both from a procedural as from a financial angle. Substantial differences can be noted between the Belgian and the Dutch approach towards what courts should do when dealing with a dispute in which parties have previously agreed to mediation. Belgian law provides in art. 1725 § 2 Judicial Code that the court, if so requested by the defendant, is in principle obliged to suspend the examination of the case until the mediation has taken place. According to current case law, the situation in the Netherlands is that mediation clauses are in principle not enforceable (Supreme Court 2006). Following the most recent legislative proposal regarding mediation (July 2016) the court should examine whether mediation can still have an added value in case one party refuses to take part in a mediation as provided for in a clause invoked by the other party, prior to (possibly) proposing mediation. Based on the plans repeatedly announced by the Belgian Minister of Justice, it is likely that there will soon be an amendment to the mediation provisions in the Judicial Code that will allow courts to ‘force’ mediation upon the parties, even in the absence of a mediation clause. If this becomes the rule, judges would be well advised to exercise this power with due care. In the authors’ opinion the Dutch approach (as suggested in the most recent legislative proposal) in connection with mediation clauses, consisting in having the court examine whether mediation may (still) have an added value for the parties, could serve as a good guideline for the Belgian judges to use.


Ellen van Beukering-Rosmuller
Ellen J.M. van Beukering-Rosmuller is Universitair Docent Burgerlijk Procesrecht, Universiteit Leiden, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid.

Patrick Van Leynseele
Patrick H. Van Leynseele is lid van de balies van Brussel en New York en partner in het Brussels advocatenkantoor DALDEWOLF, een referentie inzake ADR. Met als achtergrond het ondernemingsrecht werkt hij als litigator en arbiter in internationale zaken. Hij schreef verschillende artikels inzake mediation en Med-Arb in vooraanstaande juridische tijdschriften.
Artikel

Peer_reviewedAccess_open The way to mediation in Belgian administrative procedural law

Tijdschrift Netherlands Administrative Law Library, februari 2016
Auteurs Lise Vandenhende, Brecht Warnez en Prof.dr. Ludo Veny
Samenvatting

    Given the rise of mediation in other legal disciplines and the influence of the EU, the call for mediation is increasing in Belgian administrative practice. Several years ago, the legislature took the first steps towards mediation in the judicial administrative procedure. This contribution is a study of the existing forms of mediation with its limitations and possibilities. Taking these findings into account, a possible mediation framework, applicable in the Belgian legal system, is proposed.


Lise Vandenhende

Brecht Warnez

Prof.dr. Ludo Veny

Xandra Kramer
Xandra Kramer is a professor at Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and Deputy Judge at the District Court of Rotterdam.

Shusuke Kakiuchi
Shusuke Kakiuchi is a professor at the University of Tokyo.
Article

Access_open Relief in Small and Simple Matters in Belgium

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2015
Trefwoorden Belgium, small matters, simple matters, recovery of unchallenged claims, summary order for payment
Auteurs Stefaan Voet
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article is based on a national report that was written for the XVth World Congress of the International Association of Procedural Law that was held in Istanbul in May 2015 and that focused on Effective Judicial Relief and Remedies in an Age of Austerity. It first of all sketches the general judicial context in Belgium and some of its relevant features: the judicial organisation, the goals of the civil justice system, the course of an ordinary civil lawsuit, the role of the court, and the litigation costs. Next, a detailed and critical overview of the current and future procedures that offer relief in small and simple matters is given. The current summary order for payment procedure, which was introduced in 1967, did not meet its goals. The article concludes that a new trend is emerging in Belgium, namely keeping small and unchallenged claims outside the judiciary and providing for cheaper and more efficient alternatives.


Stefaan Voet
Stefaan Voet is an Associate Professor of Law at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and a Visiting Professor at the Universiteit Hasselt.
Artikel

The Belgian Law on Mediation, in light of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation and of the UNCITRAL Project on Enforceability of Settlement Agreements

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 1 2015
Trefwoorden UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation, Belgian Mediation Act, U.S. proposal made to UNCITRAL to elaborate international convention for enforcement of mediated settlement agreements
Auteurs Judith Knieper en Corinne Montineri
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution sets out the work done so far by UNCITRAL in the field of conciliation/mediation, but also examines whether the Belgian Mediation Act is compatible with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation of 2002. Finally, it gives an introduction to the proposal made by the U.S. delegation to the UNCITRAL Commission to elaborate an international convention on the enforcement of mediated settlement agreements.


Judith Knieper
Judith Knieper is Legal Officer in the International Trade Law Division of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations, Vienna.

Corinne Montineri
Corinne Montineri is Legal Officer in the International Trade Law Division of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations, Vienna, and Secretary of UNCITRAL Working Group II on Arbitration and Conciliation.
Article

Access_open Global Citizens and Family Relations

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden global governance, family relations, nationality, habitual residence, party autonomy
Auteurs Professor Yuko Nishitani Ph.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    As globalisation progresses, cross-border movements of people are becoming dynamic and multilateral. The existence of different groups and minorities within the community renders the society multiethnic and multicultural. As individuals acquire new affiliation and belonging, the conventional conflict of laws methods may no longer be viable and should be subject to a thorough re-examination. Against this background, this paper analyses appropriate conflicts rules in international family relations to reflect an individual’s identity. Furthermore, in light of the contemporary law fragmentation, this study also analyses interactions between state law and non-state cultural, religious or customary norms.


Professor Yuko Nishitani Ph.D.
Professor at Kyushu University Faculty of Law, Japan. This work was supported by the JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (Grant Number 26380063). The author sincerely thanks Professor Carol Lawson (Nagoya University) and Ms. Nettie Dekker for their devoted editing work.

    The Versailles Treaty (Art. 227) called for the prosecution of Wilhelm II, the German ex-Kaiser. Because of the refusal of the Dutch Government to surrender Wilhelm, a trial never took place. This paper tries to elaborate some questions concerning this possible trial. What was the background of the said Treaty paragraph? What would have happened when Wilhelm had been surrendered? Based on a report of a special committee to the peace conference, the possible indictment is discussed. The authors try to elaborate some thoughts for answering the question about Wilhelm’s criminal responsibility, especially as author of the war (‘ius ad bellum’) by starting an aggressive war and/or by violating the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. Wilhelm’s possible responsibility for violations of the ‘ius in bello’ (laws and customs of war) in Belgium, France, and Poland and/or by ordering an unlimited submarine war is discussed as well. It is concluded that it would have been very difficult for the tribunal to have Wilhelm find criminal responsible for the indictment, except for the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. But then, the tribunal would have been obliged to answer fundamental questions about the command responsibility of Wilhelm. From a point of view of international criminal law, it is rather unfortunate that the unique opportunity for a ‘Prologue to Nuremberg’ was not realised, although a trial would not have made history take a different turn than it did in the twentieth century after the ‘Great War’.


Paul Mevis
P.A.M. Mevis is professor of criminal law at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. Prof. Mevis wrote before ‘De berechting van Wilhelm II’, in J. Dohmen, T. Draaisma & E. Stamhuis (ed.), Een kwestie van grensoverschrijding. Liber amicorum P.E.L. Janssen (2009), at 197-231.

Jan M. Reijntjes
J.M. Reijntjes is professor of (international) criminal law at the University of Curaçao.
Toont 1 - 20 van 29 gevonden teksten
« 1
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.