Zoekresultaat: 96 artikelen

x
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.
Artikel

Gelijkebehandelingswetgeving en identiteitsgebonden benoemingsbeleid van orthodox-protestantse scholen

Onzekerheid over consistentie en het enkele feit

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Equal treatment / anti-discrimination, Orthodox-protestant schools, Religious norms, Semi-autonomous social fields, Uncertainty
Auteurs Mr. dr. Niels Rijke
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Within orthodox-protestant schools in The Netherlands there is growing diversity and uncertainty about internal religious, cultural and social norms. Though orthodox-protestant schools are among the strongest semi-autonomous social fields, where it is difficult for equal treatment law to pervade, this growing diversity and uncertainty about internal norms can make this pervasion possible. The uncertainty about the meaning of the exception clause in equal treatment legislation for the appointment policy of religious schools also affects this.
    Because of the uncertainty about the meaning of the exception clause the position of the school board was strengthened in comparison to the employee, even though the intention of the equal treatment law was the opposite. At a later stage the clarification of the anti-discrimination norm by changing the exception clause has strengthened the position of the employee. Though this is only possible when religious, cultural and social norms are changing. In that case orthodox-protestant schools, as semi-autonomous fields, are more open for the effects of this legal norm.
    Uncertainty about the meaning of the requirement of a consistent appointment policy has led both to tightening as well as relaxation of the policy. In the first place tightening or relaxation of policies depends on the development of religious, cultural and social norms within different school denominations. Thus, uncertainty about internal norms works both contrary as well as strengthening to uncertainty about equal treatment legislation.


Mr. dr. Niels Rijke
Niels Rijke was van 2015 tot 2019 als buitenpromovendus verbonden aan de Universiteit Utrecht en voerde hij onderzoek uit naar identiteitsgebonden benoemingsbeleid ten aanzien van personeel op orthodox-protestantse basis- en middelbare scholen in Nederland in relatie tot mensenrechten.
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.

    Een rechtsstaat is gebaseerd op zelfbinding van de overheid aan het recht. Deze zelfbinding moet verankerd zijn in regels die onder meer de onafhankelijkheid van de rechterlijke macht vastleggen. De ontwikkelingen in Polen en elders tonen echter aan dat juridische regels van zelfbinding geen blokkades maar verkeersdrempels zijn op de weg naar despotisch bestuur. Een rechtsstaat vereist vooral een cultuur van zelfbinding. De conceptualisering van deze rechtsstaatcultuur staat nog in de kinderschoenen.


Ronald Janse
Ronald Janse is hoogleraar Encyclopedie van de rechtswetenschap aan de Open Universiteit.
Artikel

Access_open Restraint as a Source of Judicial ‘Apoliticality’

A Functional Reconstruction

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Urgenda, Miller v. Secretary of State, Norm of judicial apoliticality, Ronald Dworkin, Judicial restraint
Auteurs Maurits Helmich
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Few legal theorists today would argue that the domain of law exists in isolation from other normative spheres governing society, notably from the domain of ‘politics’. Nevertheless, the implicit norm that judges should not act ‘politically’ remains influential and widespread in the debates surrounding controversial court cases. This article aims to square these two observations. Taking the Miller v. Secretary of State and Urgenda cases as illustrative case studies, the article demonstrates that what it means for judges to adjudicate cases ‘apolitically’ is itself a matter of controversy. In reflecting on their own constitutional role, courts are forced to take a stance on substantive questions of political philosophy. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the ‘norm of judicial apoliticality’ should therefore be rejected. The norm’s coherence lies in its intersocial function: its role in declaring certain modes of judicial interpretation and intervention legitimate (‘legal’/‘judicial’) or illegitimate (‘political’).


Maurits Helmich
Maurits Helmich is promovendus aan de afdeling Sociologie, Theorie en Methodologie van het Recht aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Het Wetsvoorstel burgerschapsopdracht

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden Burgerschapsopdracht, Onderwijs, democratische rechtsstaat, vrijheid van onderwijs, Waarden
Auteurs Mr. drs. Jaco van den Brink
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The proposed Act on Citizenship Education requires fundamental reflection from several angles. The article provides a perspective from remarks describing the current age and a possible list of values for a democratic state. Important is also the perspective from educational freedom, on which topic several publications from the Onderwijsraad were issued in December 2019. The proposed Act (with the different versions of its explanation by the Minister) are critically evaluated and confronted with an alternative proposal.


Mr. drs. Jaco van den Brink
Mr. drs. J. van den Brink is sinds 2013 advocaat onderwijsrecht bij BVD advocaten, studeerde eerder onder meer rechtsfilosofie in Leiden en houdt zich bezig met vraagstukken op het snijvlak van recht en religie.
Brexit

Access_open Wightman en het soevereine recht om lid van de EU te blijven

Tijdschrift Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, Aflevering 7-8 2019
Trefwoorden Brexit, artikel 50 VEU, soevereiniteit, 4 intrekking kennisgeving, uittreding
Auteurs Mr. dr. A. Cuyvers
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Wightman bevestigt het unilaterale, soevereine recht van een lidstaat om een kennisgeving van uittreding in te trekken. Deze bijdrage bespreekt zowel dit recht op intrekking als de eventuele grenzen aan dit recht, waaronder wellicht misbruik van recht.
    HvJ 10 december 2018, zaak C-621/18, Wightman, ECLI:EU:C:2018:999.


Mr. dr. A. Cuyvers
Mr. dr. A. (Armin) Cuyvers is universitair hoofddocent Europees Recht aan het Europa Instituut Leiden Law School.
Energie

Vergeet de effectbeoordeling niet: het beginsel van energiesolidariteit en leveringszekerheid

Tijdschrift Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, Aflevering 7-8 2019
Trefwoorden energiesolidariteit, solidariteitsbeginsel, artikel 194 VWEU, Nord Stream, Gasrichtlijn
Auteurs Dr. L.S. Reins
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Op 10 september 2019 heeft het Gerecht van de Europese Unie arrest gewezen in zaak T-883/16, Polen/Commissie. Dit artikel bespreekt de belangrijkste elementen van het arrest, met name in het kader van het energiesolidariteitsbeginsel en de daaruit, aldus het Gerecht, voortvloeiende verplichting om een effectbeoordeling met betrekking tot de energieleveringszekerheid van andere lidstaten uit te voeren in het geval van vrijstellingsbesluiten op grond van de Derde Gasrichtlijn. Hierbij wordt onder meer besproken of het Gerecht met zijn interpretatie van dit beginsel de uitvoerende macht, dat wil zeggen de nationale regelgevende instantie en de Commissie, tot meer concrete actie heeft willen doen bewegen.
    Gerecht 10 september 2019, zaak T-883/16, Polen/Commissie, ECLI:EU:T:2019:567


Dr. L.S. Reins
Dr. L.S. (Leonie) Reins is universitair docent aan het Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society, Tilburg University.
Article

Access_open The New Dutch Model Investment Agreement: On the Road to Sustainability or Keeping up Appearances?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2019
Trefwoorden Dutch model BIT, foreign direct investment, bilateral investment treaties, investor-to-state dispute settlement, sustainable development goals
Auteurs Alessandra Arcuri en Bart-Jaap Verbeek
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In 2019, the Dutch government presented a New Model Investment Agreement that seeks to contribute to the sustainability and inclusivity of future Dutch trade and investment policy. This article offers a critical analysis of the most relevant parts of the revised model text in order to appraise to what extent it could promote sustainability and inclusivity. It starts by providing an overview of the Dutch BIT (Bilateral Investment Treaty) programme, where the role of the Netherlands as a favourite conduit country for global FDI is highlighted. In the article, we identify the reasons why the Netherlands became a preferred jurisdiction for foreign investors and the negative implications for governments and their policy space to advance sustainable development. The 2019 model text is expressly set out to achieve a fairer system and to protect ‘sustainable investment in the interest of development’. While displaying a welcome engagement with key values of sustainable development, this article identifies a number of weaknesses of the 2019 model text. Some of the most criticised substantive and procedural provisions are being reproduced in the model text, including the reiteration of investors’ legitimate expectation as an enforceable right, the inclusion of an umbrella clause, and the unaltered broad coverage of investments. Most notably, the model text continues to marginalise the interests of investment-affected communities and stakeholders, while bestowing exclusive rights and privileges on foreign investors. The article concludes by hinting at possible reforms to better align existing and future Dutch investment treaties with the sustainable development goals.


Alessandra Arcuri
Alessandra Arcuri is Professor of Inclusive Global Law and Governance, Erasmus School of Law (ESL), Erasmus Initiative Dynamics of Inclusive Prosperity, Erasmus University Rotterdam, arcuri@law.eur.nl.

Bart-Jaap Verbeek
Bart-Jaap Verbeek is Researcher at Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen (SOMO) and PhD Candidate Political Science at the Radboud University.

    In dit artikel wordt de waarde van het instituut parlement verkend. Daartoe analyseert de auteur eerst een lezing die de Nederlandse staatsrechtsgeleerde C.W. van der Pot in 1925 over dit thema hield bij de VWR. Vervolgens wordt Van der Pots opvatting gecontrasteerd met de diametraal tegengestelde benadering van Carl Schmitt, die zich, rond dezelfde tijd, over dit vraagstuk boog in Duitsland. Tot slot schetst de auteur, via een alternatieve, wellicht excentrieke, interpretatie van Schmitt waar een belangrijke waarde van het moderne parlement zou kunnen liggen.


Bastiaan Rijpkema
Bastiaan Rijpkema is universitair docent aan de afdeling Encyclopedie van de Rechtswetenschap van de Universiteit Leiden.
Artikel

De orthodoxe kerken en de mensenrechten in de 21ste eeuw

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden Theologie, mensenrechten, menselijke waardigheid, oosters christendom
Auteurs Prof. dr. Alfons Brüning
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The article examines and explains the relation of current Eastern Orthodox Theology to the concept of Human Rights. Putting the controversies into a larger historical and theological context, it seeks to highlight the conditions of a variety of Orthodox theological positions. Such positions, with their common features and strong differences, concern issues such as church and state, universalism or theological anthropology and human dignity. Considerations end with arguing, that much of the treasures of the Orthodox tradition still needs to be unearthed – to the benefit of Human Rights, and of all participants in current debates worldwide.


Prof. dr. Alfons Brüning
Prof. dr. A. Brüning werkt sinds 2007 als wetenschappelijk medewerker bij het Instituut voor Oosters Christendom (IvOC) aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. In 2012 werd hij benoemd tot bijzonder hoogleraar Orthodoxie, mensenrechten, vredesopbouw in Europa, onder andere aan de Protestantse Theologische Universiteit Amsterdam (PThU). Zwaartepunten van zijn onderzoek zijn de vroege moderne tijd in Oost-Europa (Polen, Litouwen, Oekraïne, Wit-Rusland, Rusland), religie in de Sovjet-Unie, religie en kerk in Oekraïne, orthodoxe theologie en mensenrechten.
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

Access_open The substance of citizenship: is it rights all the way down?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden Citizenship, Political Membership, Citizenship Rights
Auteurs Chiara Raucea
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper examines how the distribution of social goods within a political community relates to decisions on membership boundaries. The author challenges two renowned accounts of such a relation: firstly, Walzer’s account according to which decisions on membership boundaries necessarily precede decisions on distribution; secondly, Benhabib’s account, according to which membership boundaries can be called into question on the basis of universalist claims. Departing from both accounts, the author concludes that actual changes in the pool of participants in practices of creation and exchange of social goods pressure a political community to redefine its distributive patterns and, accordingly, the boundaries of its formal political membership. This claim will be supported by the analysis of threshold cases decided by the EU Court of Justice, in which EU citizenship is invoked with the atypical purpose of granting rights to a specific group of non-formal members.


Chiara Raucea
Chiara Raucea is lecturer at Tilburg Law School. A longer version of her article is included in her doctoral dissertation Citizenship Inverted: From Rights To Status?, defended in December 2017 at Tilburg University.

    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.
Artikel

Access_open Geloof in de liberale democratie

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Godsdienstvrijheid, Constitutionalisme, Democratie, Mensvisie, liberale democratie
Auteurs Mr. dr. Hans-Martien ten Napel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The liberal stance regarding religious freedom starts from a particular anthropology, which holds that in order to become fully human citizens must be able to build their lives on the foundations of their religious convictions. This starting point leads to distinctive conceptions of constitutionalism and democracy that make it possible for citizens to keep faith in liberal democracy. The so-called new critics of religious freedom, to the contrary, run the risk of eventually eroding trust in government by putting their substantial ideas of liberal democracy first and demanding of citizens and their organizations to act in conformity with these ideas.


Mr. dr. Hans-Martien ten Napel
Mr. dr. H.-M.Th.D. ten Napel is universitair hoofddocent Staats- en Bestuursrecht in Leiden. In 2014 ontving hij een Research Fellowship van het Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton. Hierdoor kon hij aldaar een jaar deelnemen aan het onderzoeksproject ‘Law and Religious Freedom’. h.m.t.d.tennapel@law.leidenuniv.nl

    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.

    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.

    In the last few decades, we have witnessed the renaissance of Comparative Constitutional law as field of research. Despite such a flourishing, the methodological foundations and the ultimate ratio of Constitutional comparative law are still debated among scholars. This article starts from the definition of comparative constitutional law given by one of the most prominent comparative constitutional law scholars in Italy, prof. Bognetti, who defined comparative constitutional law as the main joining ring between the historical knowledge of the modern law and the history of the humankind in general and of its various civil realizations. Comparative constitutional law is in other words a kind of mirror of the “competing vision of who we are and who we wish to be as a political community” (Hirschl), reflecting the structural tension between universalism and particularism, globalization and tradition.
    The article aims at addressing the main contemporary methodological challenges faced by the studies of the field. The article argues that contemporary comparative constitutional studies should address these challenges integrating the classical “horizontal” comparative method with a vertical one - regarding the international and supranational influences on constitutional settings - and fostering an interdisciplinary approach, taking into account the perspective of the social sciences.


Antonia Baraggia
Emile Noël Fellow, Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice, NYU School of Law and Post-doc Fellow in Constitutional Law, University of Milan. For helpful comments on an earlier draft I am grateful to Luca Pietro Vanoni, Sofia Ranchordas and two anonymous reviewers.
Toont 1 - 20 van 96 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5
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.