Zoekresultaat: 78 artikelen

x
Artikel

Access_open Juvenile Justice in the Caribbean Netherlands: Important considerations from a Children’s Rights Perspective

Tijdschrift Boom Strafblad, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden UNICEF Situation Analysis, Caribbean Netherlands, Children’s Rights, Juvenile Justice
Auteurs L. (La-Toya) Charles MSc.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Dutch Government intends to implement a Juvenile Justice Law for the Caribbean Netherlands. This article addresses this development and gives some important considerations from a children’s rights perspective; particularly, the rights of children while in the juvenile justice system and the Government’s obligation to prevent children from entering into the system. The discussion hinges on the findings of UNICEF The Netherlands’ recently published Situation Analysis on the Rights of Children and Adolescents in the Caribbean Netherlands, focusing on child vulnerabilities that may eventually lead to criminality and recommendations regarding necessary provisions, collaboration between ministries and public entities, and the availability of data to monitor the effectiveness of government policy.


L. (La-Toya) Charles MSc.
Children’s Rights Advocacy Specialist at UNICEF The Netherlands.
Article

Access_open Mercosur: Limits of Regional Integration

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2019
Trefwoorden Mercosur, European Union, regionalism, integration, international organisation
Auteurs Ricardo Caichiolo
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This study is focused on the evaluation of successes and failures of the Common Market of the South (Mercosur). This analysis of Mercosur’s integration seeks to identify the reasons why the bloc has stagnated in an incomplete customs union condition, although it was originally created to achieve a common market status. To understand the evolution of Mercosur, the study offers some thoughts about the role of the European Union (EU) as a model for regional integration. Although an EU-style integration has served as a model, it does not necessarily set the standards by which integration can be measured as we analyse other integration efforts. However, the case of Mercosur is emblematic: during its initial years, Mercosur specifically received EU technical assistance to promote integration according to EU-style integration. Its main original goal was to become a common market, but so far, almost thirty years after its creation, it remains an imperfect customs union.
    The article demonstrates the extent to which almost thirty years of integration in South America could be considered a failure, which would be one more in a list of previous attempts of integration in Latin America, since the 1960s. Whether it is a failure or not, it is impossible to envisage EU-style economic and political integration in South America in the foreseeable future. So far, member states, including Brazil, which could supposedly become the engine of economic and political integration in South America, have remained sceptical about the possibility of integrating further politically and economically. As member states suffer political and economic turmoil, they have concentrated on domestic recovery before being able to dedicate sufficient time and energy to being at the forefront of integration.


Ricardo Caichiolo
Ricardo Caichiolo, PhD (Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium) is legal and legislative adviser to the Brazilian Senate and professor and coordinator of the post graduate programs on Public Policy, Government Relations and Law at Ibmec (Instituto Brasileiro de Mercado de Capitais, Brazil).
Artikel

Manoeuvreren binnen smalle marges

Over de rol van wetgevingsjuristen bij de totstandkoming van wet- en regelgeving

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2019
Trefwoorden Legislation, Legislative drafting, Professionalism, Legal Ethics, Sociology of Law
Auteurs Dr. Nienke Doornbos en Mr. dr. Arnt Mein
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the past five years, the Council of State, the National Ombudsman and several academics have criticized the way in which new legislation has been made. In their view, principles of law and the rule of law are insufficiently uphold due to an instrumentalist view on law. This criticism urged the authors to conduct an empirical study into the question how legislative drafters deal with legislative plans which are problematic from a legal or rule of law point of view, and how they justify their role in the legislative process. This study is explorative and qualitative in nature. During the summer of 2018, 24 legislative lawyers from five different Dutch ministries have been interviewed. The results show that the role of legislative lawyers can best be characterized as constructively critical. As their tasks encompass much more than solely the actual drafting of legislation, they more and more resemble their colleagues from the policy department. The authors suggest that legislative lawyers should articulate their distinctive professional ethics in order to strengthen the checks and balances within the ministries.


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

Mr. dr. Arnt Mein
Arnt Mein is lector Legal Management aan de Hogeschool van Amsterdam, faculteit Maatschappij en Recht. Hij doet onderzoek naar onder meer de beroepshouding van juristen.
Article

Access_open Impact of International Law on the EU Customs Union

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2019
Trefwoorden European Union, customs union, international law, customs legislation, autonomous standards
Auteurs Achim Rogmann
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution examines the various international instruments, in both hard and soft law, that have been established by international organisations such as the WTO and WCO and scrutinises how they have been implemented into EU legislation governing the EU Customs Union, thus demonstrating the substantial influence of international instruments on the Customs Union. As the relevant international instruments affect not only the traditional elements of European customs law, but also the EU’s entire export control regime and the framework of the internal market, this contribution demonstrates, moreover, how the Customs Union functions in a globalised world.


Achim Rogmann
Achim Rogmann, LL.M is professor of law at the Brunswick European Law School at Ostfalia Hochschule fur angewandte Wissenschaften.
Artikel

The Imperfect International Sales Law

Time for a New Go or Better Keeping the Status Quo?

Tijdschrift Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht, Aflevering 9 2019
Trefwoorden CISG, imperfections of the current international sales law, reform, supplement, CISG 2.0
Auteurs Prof. mr. A.U. Janssen en N.G. Ahuja
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A series of imperfections in the CISG touching upon various areas are laid out thereby prompting the question of whether the Convention ought to be reformed. Two possibilities, namely supplementing the CISG with additional hard law instruments and drafting a new convention, i.e. CISG 2.0 are discussed and evaluated.


Prof. mr. A.U. Janssen
Prof. mr. A.U. Janssen is a Professor of Civil Law and European Private Law at the Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

N.G. Ahuja
N.G. Ahuja is a Doctorate Candidate in Law at City University of Hong Kong.
Article

Access_open Requirements upon Agreements in Favour of the NCC and the German Chambers – Clashing with the Brussels Ibis Regulation?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden international commercial courts, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC), Chambers for International Commercial Disputes (Kammern für internationale Handelssachen), Brussels Ibis Regulation, choice of court agreements, formal requirements
Auteurs Georgia Antonopoulou
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In recent years, the Netherlands and Germany have added themselves to the ever-growing number of countries opting for the creation of an international commercial court. The Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) and the German Chambers for International Commercial Disputes (Kammern für internationale Handelssachen, KfiH) will conduct proceedings entirely in English and follow their own, diverging rules of civil procedure. Aspiring to become the future venues of choice in international commercial disputes, the NCC law and the legislative proposal for the establishment of the KfiH allow parties to agree on their jurisdiction and entail detailed provisions regulating such agreements. In particular, the NCC requires the parties’ express and in writing agreement to litigate before it. In a similar vein, the KfiH legislative proposal requires in some instances an express and in writing agreement. Although such strict formal requirements are justified by the need to safeguard the procedural rights of weaker parties such as small enterprises and protect them from the peculiarities of the NCC and the KfiH, this article questions their compliance with the requirements upon choice of court agreements under Article 25 (1) Brussels Ibis Regulation. By qualifying agreements in favour of the NCC and the KfiH first as functional jurisdiction agreements and then as procedural or court language agreements this article concludes that the formal requirements set by the NCC law and the KfiH proposal undermine the effectiveness of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, complicate the establishment of these courts’ jurisdiction and may thus threaten their attractiveness as future litigation destinations.


Georgia Antonopoulou
PhD candidate at Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open Chambers for International Commercial Disputes in Germany: The State of Affairs

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden Justizinitiative Frankfurt, Law Made in Germany, International Commercial Disputes, Forum Selling, English Language Proceedings
Auteurs Burkhard Hess en Timon Boerner
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The prospect of attracting foreign commercial litigants to German courts in the wake of Brexit has led to a renaissance of English-language commercial litigation in Germany. Leading the way is the Frankfurt District Court, where – as part of the ‘Justizinitiative Frankfurt’ – a new specialised Chamber for International Commercial Disputes has been established. Frankfurt’s prominent position in the financial sector and its internationally oriented bar support this decision. Borrowing best practices from patent litigation and arbitration, the Chamber offers streamlined and litigant-focused proceedings, with English-language oral hearings, within the current legal framework of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).1xZivilprozessordnung (ZPO).
    However, to enable the complete litigation process – including the judgment – to proceed in English requires changes to the German Courts Constitution Act2xGerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG). (GVG). A legislative initiative in the Bundesrat aims to establish a suitable legal framework by abolishing the mandatory use of German as the language of proceedings. Whereas previous attempts at such comprehensive amendments achieved only limited success, support by several major federal states indicates that this time the proposal will succeed.
    With other English-language commercial court initiatives already established or planned in both other EU Member States and Germany, it is difficult to anticipate whether – and how soon – Frankfurt will succeed in attracting English-speaking foreign litigants. Finally, developments such as the 2018 Initiative for Expedited B2B Procedures of the European Parliament or the ELI–UNIDROIT project on Transnational Principles of Civil Procedure may also shape the long-term playing field.

Noten

  • 1 Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO).

  • 2 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG).


Burkhard Hess
Burkhard Hess is the Executive Director of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law (MPI Luxembourg).

Timon Boerner
Timon Boerner is a Research Fellow at the MPI Luxembourg.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    On 20 December 2018, the Commission of UNCITRAL adopted the Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, 2018 (amending the Uncitral Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation, 2002). On 20 December 2018 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the ‘United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation’. Herman Verbist provides an overview of the Convention and the amended Model Law. This contribution ends with the complete Convention in Annex.


Herman Verbist
Herman Verbist is attorney at the Ghent and Brussels Bar, in Belgium (Everest Attorneys) and accredited mediator in civil and commercial matters by the Federal Mediation Commission in Belgium. He attends, since many years, the sessions of UNCITRAL Working Group II ‘Dispute Settlement’ (previously named ‘Arbitration and Conciliation’) as a member of the delegation of FICA (Forum for International Conciliation and Arbitration); he is also a Managing Director of FICA.
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.

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

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 Armed On-board Protection of Dutch Vessels: Not Allowed Yet But Probably Forthcoming

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2018
Trefwoorden vessel protection, private armed guards, state monopoly on force, masters position, state control
Auteurs Paul Mevis en Sari Eckhardt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article provides an overview of the developments about the armed on-board protection of Dutch vessels under Dutch law. The Dutch position has changed over the years. In 2011, the starting point was that private security companies (PSCs) are not to be allowed. It was expected that adequate protection of Dutch vessels could be provided by vessel protection detachments (VPDs). Although not considered as an absolute statutory bar, the state monopoly on force was considered the main argument against PSCs. After optimising the use of VPDs and given the development in other countries, the approach changed into a ‘VPS, unless …’-approach. Under the new Protection of Merchant Shipping Act that is expected to come into force in the second half of 2019, PSCs can be employed only if no VPS is available. This article gives an overview of the argumentation in this change of view over the years. It also explores the headlines, criteria and procedures of the new law and some other topics, including the position of the master under the upcoming law. In line with the other country reports, it enables the comparative study in the last article of this special issue.


Paul Mevis
Paul Mevis is professor of criminal law and criminal procedure at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Sari Eckhardt
Sari Eckhardt holds a master’s degree in criminal law and has worked as a student assistant at the Rotterdam Erasmus University’s Department of Criminal Law and is currently working at De Bont Advocaten.
Article

Access_open Armed On-board Protection of Italian Ships: From an Apparent Hybrid Model to a Regulated Rise of Private Contractors

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2018
Trefwoorden maritime security services, Italian hybrid system, military and private personnel, use of force, relation with the shipmaster
Auteurs Giorgia Bevilacqua
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The sharp increase of piracy attacks in the last two decades was followed by a parallel increase of demand in the maritime security sector. A plenty of flag States around the world have started to authorize the deployment of armed security guards, either military or private, aboard commercial ships. In 2011, Italy also introduced the possibility of embarking armed security services to protect Italian flagged ships sailing in dangerous international waters. Like the other flag States’ legal systems, the newly adopted Italian legislation aims to preserve the domestic shipping industry which was particularly disrupted by modern-day pirates. On the other hand, the doubling of approaches of the Italian legal and regulatory framework, initially privileging military personnel and then opting for the private solution, took the author to investigate the main relevant features of the Italian model of regulation and to analyze the recent developments of the domestic legal practice on counterpiracy armed security services, focusing on the role that customary and treaty obligations of international law played for the realization at national level of on-board armed protection of Italian ships. The use of lethal force at sea and the relationship between the shipmaster and the security guards will receive specific attention in this article.


Giorgia Bevilacqua
Researcher at the Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli.
Artikel

Access_open Migrant smuggling in the Mediterranean

An excludable act under article 1F(b) Refugee Convention?

Tijdschrift Crimmigratie & Recht, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden article 1F, Refugee Convention, exclusion clauses, migrant smuggling, serious non-political crimes
Auteurs Anne Aagten LLL.M.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In 2015, deadly incidents of migrant smuggling in the Mediterranean were daily covered by everyday newspapers. Empirical research has shown that migrants themselves may be involved in these smuggling operations. If they apply for refugee protection, they may be excluded from refugee status under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention. Article 1F(b) excludes asylum seekers from international protection if serious reasons exist to consider that they have committed serious non-political crimes. This contribution discusses whether migrant smuggling can be considered as such and whether various forms of participation in smuggling operations give rise to individual responsibility and trigger application of article 1F(b).


Anne Aagten LLL.M.
A.E.M. Aagten LLL.M. is onderwijs- en onderzoeksmedewerker bij het Instituut voor Immigratierecht (Universiteit Leiden).

Peter Mascini
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law. Corresponding author. Sanders building, 7 West, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pmascini@gmail.com.

Wibo van Rossum
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law.
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.
Artikel

Gidsen voor het wetgeven in de Benelux en Latijns Europa – een poging tot een rechtsculturele benadering

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 1-2 2018
Trefwoorden Aanwijzingen voor de regelgeving, wetgevingsgids België, wetgevingsgids Luxemburg, wetgevingsgids Frankrijk, wetgevingsgids Italië, wetgevingsgids Spanje
Auteurs Prof. mr. W. Konijnenbelt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    De 25 jaar oude Aanwijzingen voor de regelgeving (Ar) gaan terug op een VAR-rapport uit 1948. Ze zijn grotendeels overgenomen in Suriname, Aruba, Curaçao en Sint Maarten. De Belgische ‘Beginselen van de wetgevingstechniek’, opgesteld door de Raad van State, zijn doorgaans veel gedetailleerder dan de Ar en bevatten vaak uitleggende beschouwingen. Ze betreffen uitsluitend de wetgevingstechniek en de keus tussen de vele typen wettelijke regelingen die het land kent. Luxemburg heeft geen officiële gids voor het regelgeven, maar wel een ‘traité’ van de hand van de secretaris-generaal van de Raad van State met praktische en overzichtelijke regelgevingstechnische aanwijzingen, geïnspireerd door de Belgische ‘Beginselen’ en de Franse wetgevingspraktijk. Frankrijk heeft een gids voor de legistiek in de vorm van een omvangrijke digitale ‘kaartenbak’, samengesteld door de Raad van State en het secretariaat-generaal van de regering. Het gaat over zaken als verstandig regelgeven, de keus voor een bepaald type regeling en wetgevingstechniek. Veel zaken zijn hier, evenals in België, een stuk ingewikkelder dan in Nederland. Italië heeft een heel beknopte set van 37 wetgevingstechnische regels, vastgesteld door de kanselarij en overgenomen door beide Kamers, die een heel andere wetgevingscultuur verraden dan wij gewend zijn. Spanje ten slotte kent ongeveer honderd richtlijnen voor de wetgevingstechniek, vastgesteld door de regering, aangenaam duidelijk en beknopt. Een Spaanse wettelijke regeling is in beginsel strak gestructureerd, maar kent vaak diverse ‘loshangende’ slotbepalingen. Er is veel aandacht voor eenvoudige en duidelijke taal. Afgesloten wordt met enkele rechtsculturele indrukken en enige aan de besproken buitenlandse gidsen ontleende suggesties voor verdere verbetering van de Ar.


Prof. mr. W. Konijnenbelt
Prof. mr. W. (Willem) Konijnenbelt is wetgevingsadviseur bij Konijnenbeltwetgeving.nl. Hij is emeritus hoogleraar staats- en bestuursrecht aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, oud-staatsraad en oud-lid van de redactie van RegelMaat.
Toont 1 - 20 van 78 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4
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.