Zoekresultaat: 118 artikelen

x
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
Artikel

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Practice

A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Courts

Tijdschrift Handicap & Recht, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden CRPD, disabilities, discrimination, court, human rights
Auteurs Prof. Dr. L.B. Waddington en Dr. A.C. Broderick
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    On the 25th and 26th October 2018, the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University hosted a conference on The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Practice: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Courts. This article presents some of the key findings of the conference and summarises several of the speakers’ contributions to the conference.


Prof. Dr. L.B. Waddington
Prof. Dr. L.B. (Lisa) Waddington is European Disability Forum Chair in European Disability Law, Maastricht University.

Dr. A.C. Broderick
Dr. A.C. (Andrea) Broderick is Assistant Professor at Maastricht University.
Article

Access_open A changing paradigm of protection of vulnerable adults and its implications for the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Family & Law, februari 2019
Auteurs H.N. Stelma-Roorda LLM MSc, dr. C. Blankman en prof. dr. M.V. Antokolskaia
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The perception of how the interests of vulnerable adults should be protected has been changing over time. Under the influence of human and patient’s rights a profound shift of protection paradigms has taken place in the last decades. In the framework of this shift, in addition to traditional adult guardianship measures, new instruments have been developed allowing adults to play a greater role in the protection of their (future) interests. This has also been the case in the Netherlands, where adults in the course of the last decade have acquired the possibility to make a so-called living will, internationally better known as a continuing, enduring or lasting power of attorney. This article discusses this instrument, in comparison with the traditional adult guardianship measures currently in force in the Netherlands, from the perspective of the new protection paradigm based on a human rights approach.
    ---
    In de afgelopen decennia is de manier waarop naar de bescherming van kwetsbare meerderjarigen wordt gekeken, veranderd. Van een benadering waarbij de focus voornamelijk lag op bescherming is de nadruk steeds meer komen te liggen op het recht op autonomie en zelfbeschikking van de meerderjarige. De opkomst van mensen- en patiëntenrechten heeft geleid tot het ontstaan van een nieuw beschermingsparadigma. In dat kader zijn nieuwe instrumenten ontwikkeld, die meerderjarigen een grotere rol toekennen in de bescherming van hun (toekomstige) belangen. Dit is eveneens het geval in Nederland, waar meerderjarigen een levenstestament kunnen opstellen om voorzieningen te treffen voor een toekomstige periode van wilsonbekwaamheid. Dit artikel bespreekt het levenstestament, in samenhang met de traditionele rechterlijke beschermingsmaatregelen, vanuit het perspectief van het nieuwe beschermingsparadigma.


H.N. Stelma-Roorda LLM MSc
Rieneke Stelma-Roorda is PhD candidate at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

dr. C. Blankman
Kees Blankman is associate professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

prof. dr. M.V. Antokolskaia
Masha Antokolskaia is professor of family law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    If a religious organisation relies on an exception to the principle of equal treatment to draft rules that differ according to the religion of the employees, this must be subject to judicial review and will be acceptable only if the religion or belief constitutes a genuine and legitimate occupational requirement, justified by the ethos of the organisation concerned and the application of the exception is proportionate. If there are contrary provisions in national law, these must be disapplied.

Artikel

Het grondrecht op collectief onderhandelen van zelfstandigen versus het Europese mededingingsrecht

Tijdschrift Arbeidsrechtelijke Annotaties, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Mededingingsrecht, Zelfstandige, Cao-exceptie, Vrijheid van vakvereniging, Recht op collectief onderhandelen
Auteurs Mr. R.F. Hoekstra
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    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.


Mr. R.F. Hoekstra
Mr. R.F. (Robert) Hoekstra is werkzaam als onderzoeker bij de Wiardi Beckman Stichting Den Haag. Daarnaast is hij als promovendus verbonden aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. Zijn promotieonderzoek ziet op het snijvlak van cao’s en grondrechten.

    On 25 June 2018 the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) finalised two instruments on international commercial settlement agreements resulting from mediation.
    This article presents an insider’s view of this process, from the inception of the project to its completion in 2018. It will present the different stages of this process, from the discussions on the proposal to the actual discussions and negotiations and their different phases, including the agreed main features of the two instruments.


Norel Rosner
Norel Rosner works in the Directorate General Justice and Consumers of the European Commission. He was involved in the UNCITRAL project on the enforceability of international commercial settlement agreements as negotiator on behalf of the European Union.
Artikel

An Introduction to the Singapore Convention on Mediation – Perspectives from Singapore

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2018
Trefwoorden Singapore Convention, Dispute resolution, Uncitral, Enforcement
Auteurs Nadja Alexander en Shouyu Chong
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Following a retrospective of the road towards the Convention, incorporating some Singaporean inside views, the authors provide a detailed analysis of the envisaged grounds for refusal of mediated settlements. The authors also highlight various issues around the very concept, and proof, of mediation. These issues are fundamental, as only settlements ensuing from mediation are covered. Another significant aspect is the absence of any provisions pertaining to the status of agreements to mediate, the contract situated at the entry side of mediation.


Nadja Alexander
Nadja Alexander is Professor of Law (Practice) at Singapore Management University School of Law and Director of the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (‘SIDRA’). She may be contacted at nadjaa@smu.edu.sg.

Shouyu Chong
Shouyu Chong is a Researcher at SIDRA, and may be contacted at sychong.2013@smu.edu.sg.
Artikel

UNCITRAL and a New International Legislative Framework on Mediation

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2018
Trefwoorden Solving disputes, United Nations, Trade law, Uncitral
Auteurs Judith Knieper en Corinne Montineri
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    More than sixty years after the adoption of the New York Convention, UNCITRAL finalised at its annual session, in July 2018, an instrument akin to the New York Convention in the area of mediation: the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (‘the Singapore Convention on Mediation’ or ‘the Convention’), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 December 2018. In addition, UNCITRAL adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, (2018, amending the Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation (2002); ‘the revised Model Law’).
    This contribution gives an overview of these two texts and their drafting process, starting with an overview of the works done by UNCITRAL over the past decades in the field of international mediation.


Judith Knieper
Judith Knieper is legal officer at the International Trade Law Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, which also serves as the Secretariat of UNCITRAL.

Corinne Montineri
Corinne Montineri is legal officer at the International Trade Law Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, which also serves as the Secretariat of UNCITRAL. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Organization.
Article

Access_open Evidence-Based Regulation and the Translation from Empirical Data to Normative Choices: A Proportionality Test

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden evidence-based, regulation, proportionality, empirical law studies, law and society studies
Auteurs Rob van Gestel en Peter van Lochem
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Studies have shown that the effects of scientific research on law and policy making are often fairly limited. Different reasons can be given for this: scientists are better at falsifying hypothesis than at predicting the future, the outcomes of academic research and empirical evidence can be inconclusive or even contradictory, the timing of the legislative cycle and the production of research show mismatches, there can be clashes between the political rationality and the economic or scientific rationality in the law making process et cetera. There is one ‘wicked’ methodological problem, though, that affects all regulatory policy making, namely: the ‘jump’ from empirical facts (e.g. there are too few organ donors in the Netherlands and the voluntary registration system is not working) to normative recommendations of what the law should regulate (e.g. we need to change the default rule so that everybody in principle becomes an organ donor unless one opts out). We are interested in how this translation process takes place and whether it could make a difference if the empirical research on which legislative drafts are build is more quantitative type of research or more qualitative. That is why we have selected two cases in which either type of research played a role during the drafting phase. We use the lens of the proportionality principle in order to see how empirical data and scientific evidence are used by legislative drafters to justify normative choices in the design of new laws.


Rob van Gestel
Rob van Gestel is professor of theory and methods of regulation at Tilburg University.

Peter van Lochem
Dr. Peter van Lochem is jurist and sociologist and former director of the Academy for Legislation.
Landmark ruling

ECJ 17 April 2018, C-414/16 (Egenberger), Religious discrimination

Vera Egenberger – v – Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV, German case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden Religious discrimination
Samenvatting

    It is ultimately for the courts to verify whether religious organisations can legitimately invoke occupational requirements as a reason for unequal treatment.

    Despite enjoying distinct and privileged constitutional statuses, the Indigenous minorities of Malaysia, namely, the natives of Sabah, natives of Sarawak and the Peninsular Malaysia Orang Asli continue to endure dispossession from their customary lands, territories and resources. In response, these groups have resorted to seeking justice in the domestic courts to some degree of success. Over the last two decades, the Malaysian judiciary has applied the constitutional provisions and developed the common law to recognise and protect Indigenous land and resource rights beyond the literal confines of the written law. This article focuses on the effectiveness of the Malaysian courts in delivering the preferred remedy of Indigenous communities for land and resource issues, specifically, the restitution or return of traditional areas to these communities. Despite the Courts’ recognition and to a limited extent, return of Indigenous lands and resources beyond that conferred upon by the executive and legislative arms of government, it is contended that the utilisation of the judicial process is a potentially slow, costly, incongruous and unpredictable process that may also not necessarily be free from the influence of the domestic political and policy debates surrounding the return of Indigenous lands, territories and resources.


Yogeswaran Subramaniam Ph.D.
Yogeswaran Subramaniam is an Advocate and Solicitor in Malaysia and holds a PhD from the University of New South Wales for his research on Orang Asli land rights. In addition to publishing extensively on Orang Asli land and resource rights, he has acted as legal counsel in a number of landmark indigenous land rights decisions in Malaysia.

Colin Nicholas
Colin Nicholas is the founder and coordinator of the Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC). He received a PhD from the University of Malaya on the topic of Orang Asli: Politics, Development and Identity, and has authored several academic articles and books on Orang Asli issues. He has provided expert evidence in a number of leading Orang Asli cases. The law stated in this article is current as on 1 October 2017.

    This paper examines three Inter-American Court (IACtHR) cases on behalf of the Enxet-Sur and Sanapana claims for communal territory in Paraguay. I argue that while the adjudication of the cases was successful, the aftereffects of adjudication have produced new legal geographies that threaten to undermine the advances made by adjudication. Structured in five parts, the paper begins with an overview of the opportunities and challenges to Indigenous rights in Paraguay followed by a detailed discussion of the adjudication of the Yakye Axa, Sawhoyamaxa, and Xákmok Kásek cases. Next, I draw from extensive ethnographic research investigating these cases in Paraguay to consider how implementation actually takes place and with what effects on the three claimant communities. The paper encourages a discussion between geographers and legal scholars, suggesting that adjudication only leads to greater social justice if it is coupled with effective and meaningful implementation.


Joel E. Correia Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Arizona.
Article

Access_open The Questionable Legitimacy of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden base erosion and profit shifting, OECD, G20, legitimacy, international tax reform
Auteurs Sissie Fung
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The global financial crisis of 2008 and the following public uproar over offshore tax evasion and corporate aggressive tax planning scandals gave rise to unprecedented international cooperation on tax information exchange and coordination on corporate tax reforms. At the behest of the G20, the OECD developed a comprehensive package of ‘consensus-based’ policy reform measures aimed to curb base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinationals and to restore fairness and coherence to the international tax system. The legitimacy of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project, however, has been widely challenged. This paper explores the validity of the legitimacy concerns raised by the various stakeholders regarding the OECD/G20 BEPS Project.


Sissie Fung
Ph.D. Candidate at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and independent tax policy consultant to international organisations, including the Asian Development Bank.
Article

Access_open The Peer Review Process of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes

A Critical Assessment on Authority and Legitimacy

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information, exercise of regulatory authority, due process requirements, peer review reports, legitimacy
Auteurs Leo E.C. Neve
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Global Forum on transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes has undertaken peer reviews on the implementation of the global standard of exchange of information on request, both from the perspective of formalities available and from the perspective of actual implementation. In the review reports Global Forum advises jurisdictions on required amendments of regulations and practices. With these advices, the Global Forum exercises regulatory authority. The article assesses the legitimacy of the exercise of such authority by the Global Forum and concludes that the exercise of such authority is not legitimate for the reason that the rule of law is abused by preventing jurisdictions to adhere to due process rules.


Leo E.C. Neve
Leo Neve is a doctoral student at the Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Dworkin’s Rights Conception of the Rule of Law in Criminal Law

Should Criminal Law be Extensively Interpreted in Order to Protect Victims’ Rights?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Klaas Rozemond, Ronald M. Dworkin, Legality in criminal law, Rights conception of the rule of law, Legal certainty
Auteurs Briain Jansen LLM.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The extensive interpretation of criminal law to the detriment of the defendant in criminal law is often problematized in doctrinal theory. Extensive interpretation is then argued to be problematic in the light of important ideals such as democracy and legal certainty in criminal law. In the Dutch discussion of this issue, Klaas Rozemond has argued that sometimes extensive interpretation is mandated by the rule of law in order to protect the rights of victims. Rozemond grounds his argument on a reading of Dworkin’s distinction between the rule-book and the rights conception of the rule of law. In this article, I argue that Dworkin’s rights conception, properly considered, does not necessarily mandate the imposition of criminal law or its extensive interpretation in court in order to protect victims’ rights.


Briain Jansen LLM.
Briain Jansen is als promovendus rechtstheorie verbonden aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

    This paper discusses three approaches that can be helpful in the area of comparative rights jurisprudence, oriented in reference to three different kinds of studies that are possible in that area. To a large extent the methods for a comparative legal research depend on the research question and the goal of the researcher. First, a comparative law study may focus on the sociocultural context that led to the elaboration of differences or similarities in the protection of rights. Second, a comparative law approach can be a normative enterprise. It can focus on engaging in a philosophical analysis enlightened by the differences or similarities in the regulation of rights, in order to propose concrete solutions for the regulation of a right. Third, a comparative law approach can combine both elements of the two previously mentioned approaches. The paper discusses the challenges that the researcher faces in her attempt to use these methodologies and how these challenges can be overcome. The law as a normative discipline has its own constraints of justifiability. If what motivates a comparative law study is the search for principles of justice the researcher needs to persuade that her methodological approach serves her aim.


Ioanna Tourkochoriti
School of Law, NUI Galway, Ireland.
Artikel

Het besluitvormingsproces van civiele rechters in procedures over de gevolgen van een (echt)scheiding met een beschuldiging van seksueel kindermisbruik

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Family law, Child sexual abuse, Divorce, Custody and access
Auteurs Anne Smit MSc., Prof. dr. mr. Catrien Bijleveld en Prof. dr. mr. Masha Antokolskaia
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This study aims to provide insight into allegations of child sexual abuse in the context of divorce, and related, proceedings by analyzing the decision-making process of civil judges. To this aim, interviews with 13 judges and 11 lawyers were conducted and a focus group was organized with different specialists. It is concluded that in the eyes of the judges, allegations of child sexual abuse in this context are not rare, and some of the professionals signal an increase of allegations in the last decade. The presence of an allegation poses a dual issue: it points out problems within the family, as well as causes problems for the child. This dual nature makes it even more complex for judges to make decisions, especially concerning contact between father and child. The validity of the allegation becomes less important than its presence when judges consider the children’s best interests. The judges’ aim to create conditions for the family within which the child’s safety is best protected, can as an unwanted consequence delay the process, which in itself can be damaging for the child.


Anne Smit MSc.
Anne Smit is promovenda bij het NSCR waar zij werkt aan haar proefschrift ‘Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Children in Divorce Procedures: Towards Evidence-Based Guidelines’.

Prof. dr. mr. Catrien Bijleveld
Catrien Bijleveld is directeur van het Nederlands Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving.

Prof. dr. mr. Masha Antokolskaia
Masha Antokolskaia is hoogleraar privaatrecht, in het bijzonder personen- en familierecht aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam.
Artikel

Naar een regierecht voor de burger in het sociale domein?

Het recht op een familiegroepsplan als legal transplant

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Family group conference, Legal transplant, Care professionals, Family life, Big Society
Auteurs Dr. Annie de Roo en Dr. Rob Jagtenberg
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The concept of family group conferences (FGCs) originated in New Zealand in 1989 as a tool and statutory right for extended family networks to arrange for the welfare and safety of a child that is neglected or abused by his/her own parents. Through successful FGCs, state intervention can be avoided while the resourcefulness of the larger community is mobilized. The concept has proliferated to many countries and therefore lends itself for analysis as a ‘legal transplant’. This contribution investigates the FGC as a transplant, focussing on how the concept has been adapted and incorporated in the legal systems of England and the Netherlands. In these two countries the ‘Big Society’ and austerity measures in the social domain are high on the policy agenda. How are such policy priorities blended – if at all – with the emancipatory ideal of granting family networks autonomy next to, or even over, publicly funded professionals? It appears that the FGC concept has been compromised in both England and the Netherlands, but in different ways.


Dr. Annie de Roo
Annie de Roo is associate professor aan de Erasmus Law School te Rotterdam.

Dr. Rob Jagtenberg
Rob Jagtenberg is senior fellow aan de Erasmus Law School te Rotterdam.

    The nexus between religion and law is an important subject of comparative law. This paper, however, finds that the majority of comparative theorists rely on the immanent frame; that legal legitimacy can and should be separated from any objective truth or moral norm. But the fact of the matter is many constitutional systems were founded based on a complicated mixture between the transcendent and immanent frame. Whereas in the immanent frame, human actions are considered self-constituting, in the transcendent frame, human actions were judged in light of their correspondence to higher, divine laws and purposes.
    This article argues that it is not sufficient for comparative theorists to offer a perspective from the immanent frame. Comparative theorists in law and religion should understand at least basic religious doctrines and know how to systematize those doctrines. In other words, comparative theorist of law and religion should work within the transcendent frame. By using a transcendent frame, comparative theorists will be able to excavate the underlying structure of religion, and so they will understand better how theological ideas influence law. Furthermore, this paper will also present a thought experiment in applying the transcendent frame in comparative constitutional studies.


Stefanus Hendrianto
Stefanus Hendrianto is a scholar at Boston College, School of Theology and Ministry. In recent years, he has been a visiting professor at Santa Clara University School of Law (2013-2015) and a guest scholar at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame (2015-2016). He holds a Ph.D. degree from the School of Law, University of Washington, Seattle and LLM degree from Utrecht University, Netherlands, in addition to his LLB degree from Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia.

    Comparative methodology is an important and a widely used method in the legal literature. This method is important inter alia to search for alternative national rules and acquire a deeper understanding of a country’s law. According to a survey of over 500 Dutch legal scholars, 61 per cent conducts comparative research (in some form). However, the methodological application of comparative research generally leaves much to be desired. This is particularly true when it comes to case selection. This applies in particular to conceptual and dogmatic research questions, possibly also allowing causal explanations for differences between countries. This article suggests that the use of an interdisciplinary research design could be helpful, and Hofstede’s cultural-psychological dimensions can offer a solution to improve the methodology of selection criteria.


Dave van Toor
D.A.G. van Toor, PhD LLM BSc works as a researcher and lecturer in Criminal (Procedural) Law and Criminology at the Universität Bielefeld.
Toont 1 - 20 van 118 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6
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.