Zoekresultaat: 471 artikelen

x
Artikel

Pracademia: a personal account of a mediation clinic and its development

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 3 2021
Trefwoorden mediation clinic, students, practicing, Circle of engagement, Susskind
Auteurs Charlie Irvine
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article tells the story of University of Strathclyde Mediation Clinic through the eyes of its founder. Taking its first case in 2012, by the start of 2021 it will be providing a free mediation service in 16 of Scotland’s 39 sheriff courts, covering more than half the country’s population. Yet it started with no plan, no budget and a few volunteers. The article makes the case that mediation clinics, like mediation itself, call for improvisation, coining the term ‘pracademia’ to describe how such clinics straddle the two worlds of practice and theory.


Charlie Irvine
Charlie Irvine has been working as a mediator since the early 1990s; he developed and runs the Mediation and Conflict Resolution masters programme at University of Strathclyde Law School, Glasgow. He is also Director of Strathclyde Mediation Clinic. His academic work is focused on mediation and justice, in particular the neglected justice reasoning of ordinary people.
Article

Access_open The Right to Claim Innocence in Poland

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden wrongful convictions, right to claim innocence, reopening of criminal proceedings, miscarriage of justice, revision of final judgment
Auteurs Wojciech Jasiński Ph.D., habilitation en Karolina Kremens Ph.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice, their reasons and effects, only rarely become the subject of academic debate in Poland. This article aims at filling this gap and providing a discussion on the current challenges of mechanisms available in Polish law focused on the verification of final judgments based on innocence claims. While there are two procedures designed to move such judgment: cassation and the reopening of criminal proceedings, only the latter aims at the verification of new facts and evidence, and this work remains focused exactly on that issue. The article begins with a case study of the famous Komenda case, which resulted in a successful innocence claim, serving as a good, though rare, example of reopening a case and acquitting the convict immediately and allows for discussing the reasons that commonly stand behind wrongful convictions in Poland. Furthermore, the article examines the innocence claim grounds as regulated in the Polish criminal procedure and their interpretation under the current case law. It also presents the procedure concerning the revision of the case. The work additionally provides the analysis of the use of innocence claim in practice, feeding on the statistical data and explaining tendencies in application for revision of a case. It also presents the efforts of the Polish Ombudsman and NGOs to raise public awareness in that field. The final conclusions address the main challenges that the Polish system faces concerning innocence claims and indicates the direction in which the system should go.


Wojciech Jasiński Ph.D., habilitation
Wojciech Jasiński is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Procedure of the University of Wroclaw, Poland. orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-1474

Karolina Kremens Ph.D.
Karolina Kremens is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Procedure of the University of Wroclaw, Poland. orcid.org/0000-0002-2132-2645
Artikel

Access_open ‘Ik verblijf in een gevangenis, daar is niets moreels aan.’ Ervaren procedurele rechtvaardigheid bij binnenkomst in vreemdelingenbewaring.

Tijdschrift Crimmigratie & Recht, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden procedurele rechtvaardigheid, legitimiteit, vreemdelingenbewaring, binnenkomstprocedure, vreemdelingen
Auteurs Nicolien de Gier MSc, Mieke Kox MA, Prof. mr. dr. Miranda Boone e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Qualitative research in an immigration detention center in the Netherlands shows that detained unauthorized migrants consider the entry procedure in Immigration Centre Rotterdam procedurally just. These migrants are generally positive on the fairness of the entry procedure as their safety and welfare are guaranteed and existing procedural justice criteria are respected. However, they believe that immigration detention in itself is illegitimate and that they do not deserve to be detained. This shows that the focus on procedures and interactions is insufficient to understand the perceived legitimacy of immigration detention if shared values and consent with the legal basis of immigration detention are lacking.


Nicolien de Gier MSc
C.N. de Gier MSc is docent Criminologie bij de Universiteit Leiden.

Mieke Kox MA
M.H. Kox MA is postdoc Sociale Geografie bij de Universiteit Utrecht.

Prof. mr. dr. Miranda Boone
Prof. mr. dr. M.M. Boone is hoogleraar Criminologie en Vergelijkende Penologie bij de Universiteit Leiden.

Dr. Gabry Vanderveen
Dr. G.N.G. Vanderveen is universitair docent Erasmus School of Law bij de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Het effect van een pro Justitia-rapportage op de bewijsbeslissing: een empirische verkenning

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Pro Justitia, Guilt, Conviction, Forensic mental health report
Auteurs Roosmarijn van Es MSc., Dr. Janne van Doorn, Prof. dr. Jan de Keijser e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A forensic mental health report is requested in about 30% of more serious cases presented to the criminal court. These reports can be used at sentencing and advise the judge on criminal responsibility, recidivism risk, and possible treatment measures, but is not a formal factor in decisions about guilt. The current study focuses on the (unwarranted) effect of forensic mental health information on conviction decisions. Using an experimental vignette study among 155 criminology students, results show that when a mental disorder is present, conviction rates are higher than when such information is absent. In line with the story model of judicial decision-making, additional analyses showed that this effect was mediated by the evaluation of guilt rather than by the evaluation of other physical evidence. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.


Roosmarijn van Es MSc.
Roosmarijn van Es is promovenda bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden. Haar onderzoek richt zich op de rol van informatie in pro Justitia-rapportages in rechterlijke beslissingen over bewijs en straf.

Dr. Janne van Doorn
Janne van Doorn is universitair docent bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.

Prof. dr. Jan de Keijser
Jan de Keijser is hoogleraar Criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.

Prof. dr. mr. Maarten Kunst
Maarten Kunst is hoogleraar Criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.
Discussie

‘Let op! Hier wordt gehandhaafd’

Handhavingsonderzoek in vier decennia Recht der Werkelijkheid

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Auteurs Marc Hertogh
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    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.


Marc Hertogh
Marc Hertogh is hoogleraar Rechtssociologie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Hij was eerder redactiesecretaris en redactielid van Recht der Werkelijkheid en is sinds 2020 voorzitter van de redactieraad.
Discussie

Van big five naar high five?

Plaats en invloed van de rechtssociologische hoogleraren aan de Nederlandse juridische faculteiten

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Rechtssociologie, Juridische opleidingen, Eén inleiding voor studenten, Samenwerking tussen hoogleraren, Sociaal wetenschappelijk onderzoek
Auteurs Prof. Mr Nick Huls
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In From big five to high five the author analyzes the developments of sociology of law at the law faculties in the Netherlands since the 1970ies until today. Focusing on the professors (‘chairs’) he argues that after a strong start with five prominent scholars the discipline is now placed in the periphery of the law curriculum. Sociology of law is ‘intellectually strong, but institutionally weak’.
    The author encourages the present generation professors (‘chairs’) to cooperate more. He claims that writing one modern Dutch Introduction to Sociology of law is crucial to win the hearts and minds of the law students. Furthermore, he suggests that collaborative research projects contributes to the visibility of sociology of law in policy arenas and public debates.


Prof. Mr Nick Huls
Nick Huls is emeritus hoogleraar rechtssociologie aan de Erasmus Universiteit en de Universiteit Leiden. Van 2001 tot 2006 was hij lid van de redactie van Recht der Werkelijkheid. Zijn huidige onderzoeksbelangstellingen zijn de schuldenproblematiek tijdens corona, vechtscheidingen en probleemoplossende rechtspraak.

Dr. Nienke Doornbos
Nienke Doornbos is universitair docent Rechtssociologie aan de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Haar onderzoek richt zich onder meer op beroepsethische kwesties bij juridische beroepen.

Dr. Paulien de Winter
Paulien de Winter is universitair docent Empirisch Juridisch Onderzoek bij de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid aan de Rijksuniversiteit in Groningen. Zij doet onderzoek naar hoe uitvoerende medewerkers omgaan met regels.

    From day one of the journal Recht der Werkelijkheid (Journal of Living Law) the Legal Anthropology was welcomed. What once started as the jurisprudential study on Folk Law on the one hand and the cultural anthropological study of law on the other hand, evolved into an intensive collaboration among the researchers. Even more intensive under the subject Legal Pluralism. The legal anthropological studies extended over the years to subjects closer to the First World legal practices, i.e. the studies of social groups like the one on migrants. Under the concept of semi autonomous social fields many contributions on cultural versus legal norms were published. Later on, the legal anthropological expertise that sustained the comparative studies for international and supranational law was welcomed. The article thus shows that the journal provided room for the socio legal studies of law practices in other continents, expanded to those of other continents in the home continent as well as to those in all continents.


Agnes Schreiner
Agnes Schreiner was tot de AOW-gerechtigde leeftijd universitair docent en wetenschappelijk onderzoeker bij de Afdeling Algemene rechtsleer, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Tegenwoordig is ze als gastonderzoeker aan dezelfde afdeling en faculteit verbonden. Ze was van 1985-1999 redactielid en van 1989-1995 tevens redactiesecretaris van Recht der Werkelijkheid. In 2007 trad ze toe tot de redactieraad van RdW.
Discussie

Rechtspleging in Recht der Werkelijkheid

Popper is niet blij, maar het is feest

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Auteurs Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The paper highlights the contributions on judges and courts published in Recht der Werkelijkheid from 1980-2020. It addresses three general themes, namely communication in court, the consumers of the law and the professionals of the law, in view of the objective of the journal.
    The authors of the contributions, newcomers as well as well-known experienced researchers, come from different kind of branches like anthropology, psychology, sociology and history, utilizing quite different approaches, methodologies and theories. They elaborate on each other’s work, methods, empirical findings and theoretical insights, in order to develop new research questions or to conduct research in different contexts. Although the critical-rational ideas of Popper has no many followers among the authors, lessons can be learned for policy makers, judges, lawyers and academics. By bringing the authors together, the journal has made an invaluable contribution to the debate among socio-legal researchers in the Netherlands.


Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen
Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen is emeritus hoogleraar Rechtspleging en sinds 1995 verbonden aan de Radboud Universiteit te Nijmegen. Zij was eerder redactiesecretaris en redactielid van Recht der Werkelijkheid en tot medio 2020 voorzitter van de redactieraad.
Artikel

Kwantificering van de voor- en nadelen van duurzaamheidsafspraken onder artikel 6 lid 3 Mededingingswet

Tijdschrift Markt & Mededinging, Aflevering 4-5 2020
Trefwoorden duurzaamheid, afspraken, KBA, WZA, capaciteitenbenadering
Auteurs Eva van der Zee
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Deze bijdrage richt zich op de mogelijkheden en beperkingen om voor- en nadelen van een duurzaamheidsafspraak te kwantificeren onder artikel 6 lid 3 Mededingingswet gebaseerd op de kosten-batenanalyse, de welzijnsanalyse en de capaciteitenbenadering.


Eva van der Zee
Dr. E. van der Zee LL.M. is universitair docent aan het Instituut Recht en Economie van de Universiteit van Hamburg.
Article

Access_open The Challenges for England’s Post-Conviction Review BodyDeference to Juries, the Principle of Finality and the Court of Appeal

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden wrongful conviction, criminal justice, Criminal Cases Review Commission, Court of Appeal, discretion.
Auteurs Carolyn Hoyle
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since 1997, the Criminal Cases Review Commission of England, Wales and Northern Ireland has served as a state-funded post-conviction body to consider claims of wrongful conviction for those who have exhausted their rights to appeal. A meticulous organisation that has over its lifetime referred over 700 cases back to the Court of Appeal, resulting in over 60% of those applicants having their convictions quashed, it is nonetheless restricted in its response to cases by its own legislation. This shapes its decision-making in reviewing cases, causing it to be somewhat deferential to the original jury, to the principle of finality and, most importantly, to the Court of Appeal, the only institution that can overturn a wrongful conviction. In mandating such deference, the legislation causes the Commission to have one eye on the Court’s evolving jurisprudence but leaves room for institutional and individual discretion, evidenced in some variability in responses across the Commission. While considerable variability would be difficult to defend, some inconsistency raises the prospects for a shift towards a less deferential referral culture. This article draws on original research by the author to consider the impact of institutional deference on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and argues for a slightly bolder approach in its work


Carolyn Hoyle
Carolyn Hoyle is Professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, UK.
Article

Access_open Mechanisms for Correcting Judicial Errors in Germany

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden criminal proceedings, retrial in favour of the convicted, retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant, Germany, judicial errors
Auteurs Michael Lindemann en Fabienne Lienau
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The article presents the status quo of the law of retrial in Germany and gives an overview of the law and practice of the latter in favour of the convicted and to the disadvantage of the defendant. Particularly, the formal and material prerequisites for a successful petition to retry the criminal case are subject to a detailed presentation and evaluation. Because no official statistics are kept regarding successful retrial processes in Germany, the actual number of judicial errors is primarily the subject of more or less well-founded estimates by legal practitioners and journalists. However, there are a few newer empirical studies devoted to different facets of the subject. These studies will be discussed in this article in order to outline the state of empirical research on the legal reality of the retrial procedure. Against this background, the article will ultimately highlight currently discussed reforms and subject these to a critical evaluation as well. The aim of the recent reform efforts is to add a ground for retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant for cases in which new facts or evidence indicate that the acquitted person was guilty. After detailed discussion, the proposal in question is rejected, inter alia for constitutional reasons.


Michael Lindemann
Michael Lindemann is Professor for Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Criminology at the Faculty of Law of Bielefeld University, Germany.

Fabienne Lienau
Fabienne Lienau is Research Assistant at the Chair held by Michael Lindemann.
Article

Access_open Can Non-discrimination Law Change Hearts and Minds?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden law and society, social change, discrimination, non-discrimination law, positive action
Auteurs Anita Böcker
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    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.


Anita Böcker
Anita Böcker is associate professor of Sociology of Law at Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Article

Access_open How Far Should the State Go to Counter Prejudice?

A Positive State Obligation to Counter Dehumanisation

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden prejudice, soft paternalism, empathy, liberalism, employment discrimination, access to goods and services
Auteurs Ioanna Tourkochoriti
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article argues that it is legitimate for the state to practice soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds in order to prevent behaviour that is discriminatory. Liberals accept that it is not legitimate for the state to intervene in order to change how people think because ideas and beliefs are wrong in themselves. It is legitimate for the state to intervene with the actions of a person only when there is a risk of harm to others and when there is a threat to social coexistence. Preventive action of the state is legitimate if we consider the immaterial and material harm that discrimination causes. It causes harm to the social standing of the person, psychological harm, economic and existential harm. All these harms threaten peaceful social coexistence. This article traces a theory of permissible government action. Research in the areas of behavioural psychology, neuroscience and social psychology indicates that it is possible to bring about a change in hearts and minds. Encouraging a person to adopt the perspective of the person who has experienced discrimination can lead to empathetic understanding. This, can lead a person to critically evaluate her prejudice. The paper argues that soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds is legitimate in order to prevent harm to others. It attempts to legitimise state coercion in order to eliminate prejudice and broader social patterns of inequality and marginalisation. And it distinguishes between appropriate and non-appropriate avenues the state could pursue in order to eliminate prejudice. Policies towards eliminating prejudice should address the rational and the emotional faculties of a person. They should aim at using methods and techniques that focus on persuasion and reduce coercion. They should raise awareness of what prejudice is and how it works in order to facilitate well-informed voluntary decisions. The version of soft paternalism towards changing minds and attitudes defended in this article makes it consistent with liberalism.


Ioanna Tourkochoriti
Ioanna Tourkochoriti is Lecturer Above the Bar, NUI Galway School of Law.

    The entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) pushed state obligations to counter prejudice and stereotypes concerning people with disabilities to the forefront of international human rights law. The CRPD is underpinned by a model of inclusive equality, which views disability as a social construct that results from the interaction between persons with impairments and barriers, including attitudinal barriers, that hinder their participation in society. The recognition dimension of inclusive equality, together with the CRPD’s provisions on awareness raising, mandates that states parties target prejudice and stereotypes about the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities to society. Certain human rights treaty bodies, including the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and, to a much lesser extent, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, require states to eradicate harmful stereotypes and prejudice about people with disabilities in various forms of interpersonal relationships. This trend is also reflected, to a certain extent, in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This article assesses the extent to which the aforementioned human rights bodies have elaborated positive obligations requiring states to endeavour to change ‘hearts and minds’ about the inherent capabilities and contributions of people with disabilities. It analyses whether these bodies have struck the right balance in elaborating positive obligations to eliminate prejudice and stereotypes in interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, it highlights the convergences or divergences that are evident in the bodies’ approaches to those obligations.


Andrea Broderick
Andrea Broderick is Assistant Professor at the Universiteit Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Kristin Henrard
Kristin Henrard is Professor International Human Rights and Minorities, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Article

Access_open The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000: Proposals for Legislative Reform to Promote Equality through Schools and the Education System

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Transformative pedagogy, equality legislation, promotion of equality, law reform, using law to change hearts and minds
Auteurs Anton Kok, Lwando Xaso, Annalize Steenekamp e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article, we focus on how the education system can be used to promote equality in the context of changing people’s hearts and minds – values, morals and mindsets. The duties contained in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (‘Equality Act’) bind private and public schools, educators, learners, governing bodies and the state. The Equality Act calls on the state and all persons to promote substantive equality, but the relevant sections in the Equality Act have not been given effect yet, and are therefore currently not enforceable. We set out how the duty to promote equality should be concretised in the Equality Act to inter alia use the education system to promote equality in schools; in other words, how should an enforceable duty to promote equality in schools be fashioned in terms of the Equality Act. Should the relevant sections relating to the promotion of equality come into effect in their current form, enforcement of the promotion of equality will take the form of obliging schools to draft action plans and submit these to the South African Human Rights Commission. We deem this approach inadequate and therefore propose certain amendments to the Equality Act to allow for a more sensible monitoring of schools’ duty to promote equality. We explain how the duty to promote equality should then play out practically in the classroom to facilitate a change in learners’ hearts and minds.


Anton Kok
Anton Kok is Professor of Jurisprudence at the Faculty of Law of the University of Pretoria.

Lwando Xaso
Lwando Xaso is an independent lawyer, writer and historian.

Annalize Steenekamp
Annalize Steenekamp, LLM, is a Multidisciplinary Human Rights graduate from the University of Pretoria.

Michelle Oelofse
Michelle Oelofse is an Academic associate and LLM candidate at the University of Pretoria.
Artikel

Access_open Teaching Comparative Law, Pragmatically (Not Practically)

Special Issue on Pragmatism and Legal Education, Sanne Taekema & Thomas Riesthuis (eds.)

Tijdschrift Law and Method, oktober 2020
Trefwoorden comparative legal studies, legal education, pragmatism
Auteurs Alexandra Mercescu
Auteursinformatie

Alexandra Mercescu
Alexandra Mercescu, Ph.D is lecturer at the Department of Public Law, University of Timisoara, Romania.
Article

Access_open The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden empirical legal studies, legal research methods, doctrinal legal research, new legal realism, critical legal studies, law and policy
Auteurs Gareth Davies
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article considers how empirical legal studies (ELS) and doctrinal legal research (DLR) interact. Rather than seeing them as competitors that are methodologically independent and static, it suggests that they are interdependent activities, which may each be changed by interaction with the other, and that this change brings both opportunities and threats. For ELS, the article argues that DLR should properly be understood as part of its theoretical framework, yet in practice little attention is given to doctrine in empirical work. Paying more attention to DLR and legal frames generally would help ELS meet the common criticism that it is under-theorised and excessively policy oriented. On the other hand, an embrace of legal thinking, particularly of critical legal thinking, might lead to loss of status for ELS in policy circles and mainstream social science. For DLR, ELS offers a chance for it to escape the threat of insular sterility and irrelevance and to participate in a founded commentary on the world. The risk, however, is that in tailoring legal analysis to what can be empirically researched legal scholars become less analytically ambitious and more safe, and their traditionally important role as a source of socially relevant critique is weakened. Inevitably, in offering different ways of moving to normative conclusions about the law, ELS and DLR pose challenges to each other, and meeting those challenges will require sometimes uncomfortable self-reflection.


Gareth Davies
Gareth Davies is Professor of European Law at the Faculty of Law of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open Basel IV Postponed: A Chance to Regulate Shadow Banking?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Basel Accords, EU Law, shadow banking, financial stability, prudential regulation
Auteurs Katarzyna Parchimowicz en Ross Spence
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the aftermath of the 2007 global financial crisis, regulators have agreed a substantial tightening of prudential regulation for banks operating in the traditional banking sector (TBS). The TBS is stringently regulated under the Basel Accords to moderate financial stability and to minimise risk to government and taxpayers. While prudential regulation is important from a financial stability perspective, the flipside is that the Basel Accords only apply to the TBS, they do not regulate the shadow banking sector (SBS). While it is not disputed that the SBS provides numerous benefits given the net credit growth of the economy since the global financial crisis has come from the SBS rather than traditional banking channels, the SBS also poses many risks. Therefore, the fact that the SBS is not subject to prudential regulation is a cause of serious systemic concern. The introduction of Basel IV, which compliments Basel III, seeks to complete the Basel framework on prudential banking regulation. On the example of this set of standards and its potential negative consequences for the TBS, this paper aims to visualise the incentives for TBS institutions to move some of their activities into the SBS, and thus stress the need for more comprehensive regulation of the SBS. Current coronavirus crisis forced Basel Committee to postpone implementation of the Basel IV rules – this could be perceived as a chance to complete the financial regulatory framework and address the SBS as well.


Katarzyna Parchimowicz
Katarzyna Parchimowicz, LLM. Finance (Frankfurt), is PhD candidate at the University of Wrocław, Poland, and Young Researcher at the European Banking Institute, Frankfurt, Germany.

Ross Spence
Ross Spence, EURO-CEFG, is PhD Fellow at Leiden University Law School, and Young Researcher at the European Banking Institute and Research Associate at the Amsterdam Centre for Law and Economics.
Toont 1 - 20 van 471 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 23 24
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.