Zoekresultaat: 45 artikelen

x
Article

Access_open The Role of the Vienna Rules in the Interpretation of the ECHR

A Normative Basis or a Source of Inspiration?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2021
Trefwoorden European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, techniques of interpretation, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Auteurs Eszter Polgári
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The interpretive techniques applied by the European Court of Human Rights are instrumental in filling the vaguely formulated rights-provisions with progressive content, and their use provoked widespread criticism. The article argues that despite the scarcity of explicit references to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, all the ECtHR’s methods and doctrines of interpretation have basis in the VCLT, and the ECtHR has not developed a competing framework. The Vienna rules are flexible enough to accommodate the interpretive rules developed in the ECHR jurisprudence, although effectiveness and evolutive interpretation is favoured – due to the unique nature of Convention – over the more traditional means of interpretation, such as textualism. Applying the VCLT as a normative framework offers unique ways of reconceptualising some of the much-contested means of interpretation in order to increase the legitimacy of the ECtHR.


Eszter Polgári
Eszter Polgári, PhD, is assistant professor at the Department of Legal Studies of the Central European University in Austria.
Article

Access_open The Child’s Contact with Grandparents

Tijdschrift Family & Law, september 2021
Trefwoorden Family life, Best interest of the child, Contact rights, Grandchildren, Grandparents
Auteurs prof. M. Holdgaard
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Grandparents hand down their experiences, knowledge, traditions and values to their grandchildren. As a high level of grandparental involvement may play an important role in a child’s well-being, legal protection of that family relation may be in the best interest of a given child. There is a continuing interaction between family law, cultural and social norms of what constitutes a family and how family life should be, and actual family practices and structures. Due to changing family patterns combined with an increasing number of divorces and cohabiting couples with children splitting up grandparents now play an increasing role in their grandchildren’s lives. Children become members within other types of family structures, e.g. single parents (raising half-siblings), families with yours and/or mine (and joint) children etc. When a child’s family includes a step-parent with children and step-grandparents – as well as the biological parents and grandparents – a potential risk of conflict among the family members is high. Grandparents, therefore, risk losing contact or having less contact than they had previously. At first glance, there might appear to be little reason for society to regulate the practices of grandparents as providers of non-formalized childcare or to protect the rights of children in these relationships. However, due to the changing family practices and social norms, one could argue that the legal protection of contact between grandparents and grandchildren is an important legal topic in domestic law and in academic discussions in the coming years. This article articulates these issues by framing three articles that together create a thematic map in this journal on Spanish and Catalan law, and Scandinavian law as well as the grandparents’ right to maintain contact with their grandchildren under the European Convention on Human Rights seen in a context of the best interest of the child.


prof. M. Holdgaard
Marianne Holdgaard is Professor in family and inheritance law at the School of Law, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Aalborg
Artikel

Access_open Enhanced Contact Rights for Grandparents? A Critical View from Spanish and Catalan Laws

Tijdschrift Family & Law, september 2021
Trefwoorden Contact with grandchildren, Best interest of the child, Parental responsibilities
Auteurs prof. dr. J. Ribot Igualada
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article examines how Spanish and Catalan laws deal with claims of grandparents who seek contact with their grandchildren against the will of one or both parents, and the scope given to their rights. It starts by explaining the content and the goals of the legal reforms enacted in Spain at the beginning of the 21st century to promote grandparents’ interests. Then, it presents the case law developed in the interpretation of the relevant legal rules. The resulting state of the law is assessed, taking into account the interests of all the parties involved (parents, grandparents, and grandchildren). The experience of more than twenty years of application of the specific provisions concerning grandparents’ contact rights sheds light on the impact of giving grandparents stronger legal rights. However, it also prompts the question of whether this legislative choice might have brought about useless and potentially harmful litigation.


prof. dr. J. Ribot Igualada
Jordi Ribot Igualada is Professor of Civil Law at the Institute of European and Comparative Law and Director of the Institute of European and Comparative Private Law (University of Girona).
Artikel

Access_open Professional Ethics for Judges – Lessons Learned from the Past. Dialogue as Didactics to Develop Moral Leadership for Judges

Special Issue on Education in (Professional) Legal Ethics, ­Emanuel van Dongen & Jet Tigchelaar (eds.)

Tijdschrift Law and Method, juli 2021
Trefwoorden professional ethics, ethical dilemmas, judiciary, independence
Auteurs Alex Brenninkmeijer en Didel Bish
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    There is an intimate link between good conduct by judges and the rule of law. The quintessence of their role is that judges shape a trustworthy and fair legal system from case to case. Ethical trading is not carved in granite, and judges must determine their course on different levels. First, it concerns personal conduct and requires integrity and reliability. On the second level, the challenge is to achieve proper adjudication by conducting a fair trial in accordance with professional standards. Third, judges exercise discretion, in which normative considerations run the risk of becoming political. They should act independently as one of the players in the trias politica. A triptych of past cases illustrate moral dilemmas judges may encounter in their profession. Calibrating the ethical compass is not an abstract or academic exercise. A dialogue at the micro (internal), meso (deliberation in chambers) and macro levels (court in constitutional framework) could be incorporated in the legal reasoning as a didactic framework to make future judges aware of their ethical challenges.


Alex Brenninkmeijer
A.F.M. Brenninkmeijer, PhD is Member of the European Court of Auditors, Luxembourg. Professor of Institutional Aspects of the Rule of Law at Utrecht University.

Didel Bish
D.A. Bish, LLM is a trainee at the European Court of Auditors, Luxembourg.
Artikel

Dispute settlement among the Nigerian Igbo in Antwerp

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2021
Trefwoorden Legal pluralism, Dispute settlement, Igbo, Antwerp
Auteurs Filip Reyntjens
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This is a case study in ‘new legal pluralism’ which is interested in the operation of plural legal orders in countries of the global North. It considers the way in which the Nigerian Igbo living in Antwerp, Belgium settle their disputes. It first presents the Antwerp Igbo’s organisation in a Union possessing a constitution with precise legal stipulations. It then finds that the Igbo take the law with them from their home region into a diasporic community. Next it looks into the concrete organisation of dispute settlement and presents five cases as exemplars. It then discusses the advantages and drawbacks of applying Igbo law and justice, the issue of women’s rights, and the plurality and flexibility of the system. The conclusion underscores the fact that legal pluralism is a universal empirical reality.


Filip Reyntjens
Filip Reyntjens is Emeritus hoogleraar bij het Instituut voor Ontwikkelingsbeleid aan de Universiteit Antwerpen.
Kroniek

Plattelandscriminologie

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden Rural criminology, Policing, Critical criminology, Cultural criminology, Environmental crime
Auteurs Toine Spapens
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Criminology has traditionally focused on urban areas where crime visibly concentrates. However, since the 1990s, attention for ‘rural criminology’ has steadily increased. First, rural areas are confronted with partly different and less visible crime problems, such as environmental crimes. Second, public actors such as enforcement and other agencies are less present and ‘available’ in rural areas, and people on average trust the government less to provide support when necessary. This chronicle presents an overview of international and Dutch research in the context of rural criminology. The paper addresses cultural differences between urban and rural areas, high-volume crimes, gender-related violence, alcohol and drug abuse, environmental crime, and enforcement in rural areas.


Toine Spapens
Prof. dr. A.C.M. Spapens is hoogleraar criminologie aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.
Artikel

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

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 3 2020
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 Giving Children a Voice in Court?

Age Boundaries for Involvement of Children in Civil Proceedings and the Relevance of Neuropsychological Insights

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden age boundaries, right to be heard, child’s autonomy, civil proceedings, neuropsychology
Auteurs Mariëlle Bruning en Jiska Peper
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the last decade neuropsychological insights have gained influence with regard to age boundaries in legal procedures, however, in Dutch civil law no such influence can be distinguished. Recently, voices have been raised to improve children’s legal position in civil law: to reflect upon the minimum age limit of twelve years for children to be invited to be heard in court and the need for children to have a stronger procedural position.
    In this article, first the current legal position of children in Dutch law and practice will be analysed. Second, development of psychological constructs relevant for family law will be discussed in relation to underlying brain developmental processes and contextual effects. These constructs encompass cognitive capacity, autonomy, stress responsiveness and (peer) pressure.
    From the first part it becomes clear that in Dutch family law, there is a tortuous jungle of age limits, exceptions and limitations regarding children’s procedural rights. Until recently, the Dutch government has been reluctant to improve the child’s procedural position in family law. Over the last two years, however, there has been an inclination towards further reflecting on improvements to the child’s procedural rights, which, from a children’s rights perspective, is an important step forward. Relevant neuropsychological insights support improvements for a better realisation of the child’s right to be heard, such as hearing children younger than twelve years of age in civil court proceedings.


Mariëlle Bruning
Mariëlle Bruning is Professor of Child Law at Leiden Law Faculty, Leiden University.

Jiska Peper
Jiska Peper is Assistant professor in the Developmental and Educational Psychology unit of the Institute of Psychology at Leiden University.
Editorial

Access_open International Business Courts in Europe and Beyond: A Global Competition for Justice?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden international business courts, justice innovation, justice competition, global commercial litigation, private international law
Auteurs Xandra Kramer en John Sorabji
Auteursinformatie

Xandra Kramer
Xandra Kramer, Professor of Private Law at Erasmus University Rotterdam, and of Private International Law, Utrecht University.

John Sorabji
John Sorabji, Senior Teaching Fellow, UCL, London/Principal Legal Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls.

    This research aims to contribute to the development of an adequate handling of the complex, conflictual family situation that occurs during a parental abduction. The following research question is answered: to what extent can the methods of conflict resolution – in the Belgian context – be optimized so that the interests of the child are guaranteed, in the light of the theoretical insights provided by Glasl’s conflict theory? Attention is paid to the limited effectiveness of legal procedures on the one hand and the mediation on the other. The method of de-escalation, developed by Glasl, offers a useful diagnostic tool for the conflict counsellor. In addition, the metaphor of the ladder he uses is extremely valuable as a tool for gaining insight into the mechanisms of conflict-escalation. A clear theoretical framework for the judiciary in the interpretation of an escalated conflict can lead to a better understanding of the possibilities and limits of cooperation between ex-partners, which benefits the best interests of the child.


Elise Blondeel
Elise Blondeel is doctoraatsstudent aan de Universiteit Gent in het domein van Strafrecht en Kinderrechten. Master in de Criminologie en gestart aan een doctoraat in de Rechten op 1 oktober 2018. Het doctoraat handelt over de wisselwerking tussen burgerlijk recht en strafrecht in zaken van internationale parentale ontvoering. Het doctoraat vindt plaats onder de supervisie van Prof. Dr. Wendy De Bondt.

    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.
Artikel

Empiricism as an ethical enterprise. On the work of Erhard Blankenburg

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Empiricism, Erhard Blankenburg, mobilization of law, legal instruments, problems and disputes
Auteurs Prof. dr. Pieter Ippel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article gives an interpretation of the empirical work of the well-known sociologist of law Erhard Blankenburg, who passed away in the Spring of 2018. He conducted interesting and intelligent research on the process of ‘mobilization of law’. The thesis of this article is that Blankenburg’s empirical approach is actually guided and stimulated by normative considerations. A complete and coherent picture of the concrete utilization of legal instruments shows that ‘alternative’ ways of dealing with problems and disputes are often morally preferable as they are inspired by a realistic assessment of persons-in-a-social-context.


Prof. dr. Pieter Ippel
Pieter Ippel is professor of law at University College Roosevelt (Middelburg) and Utrecht University. He studied philosophy, criminology and Dutch Law. From 1981-1987 he worked as an assistant with Erhard Blankenburg and finished his PhD in 1989. From 1989-1995 he worked as a civil servant in The Hague and from 1995-2005 he was professor of jurisprudence in Utrecht.
Artikel

Interventions in High-conflict Divorce Cases: The Parenting Examination

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2018
Trefwoorden Parenting examination, high-conflict divorce, child custody, child access, forensic expert
Auteurs Esther Kluwer en Cees van Leuven
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Parenting examination (in Dutch: ouderschapsonderzoek) is a method that is used in high-conflict divorces in the Netherlands since 2008, whereby the court appoints a forensic expert who uses mediation and coaching techniques to support the parents to find a solution for their dispute. When parents fail to reach agreement, the forensic expert reports to the judge who can use this information to make a decision. This article discusses the results of two studies that have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the Parenting examination in practice.


Esther Kluwer
Esther Kluwer is professor of Sustainable Relationships and Wellbeing at Radboud University (Nijmegen) and associate professor at the Department of Social Health & Organisational Psychology at Utrecht University.

Cees van Leuven
Cees van Leuven is a judge at the Court of Appeal (‘s-Hertogenbosch) and a lecturer at the Netherlands Training and Study Centre for the Judiciary. He recently published the book ‘Rechter worden, rechter zijn’ (Becoming a judge, being a judge), January 2019.

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.
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.

    In deze bijdrage wordt een reactie gegeven op de publicatie van Van Montfoort (2018), ‘Beschuldigingen van kindermishandeling en echtscheidingsconflicten. Reactie op De Ruiter & Van Pol (2017)’. Van Montfoort richt zich in zijn reactie exclusief op onze vraag over de prevalentie van valse beschuldigingen van kindermishandeling in onze websurvey bij meer dan 800 juridische en sociale professionals in Nederland die in hun werk met conflictscheidingen te maken hebben. Wij delen zijn standpunten niet en betogen dat het voor juridische en sociale professionals noodzakelijk is om kennis te hebben van prevalentieschattingen om tunnelvisie te vermijden. Daarnaast geven wij aan dat verbetering van het feitenonderzoek in omgangszaken noodzakelijk is.
    ---
    This contribution is a response to Van Montfoort (2018), ‘Allegations of child abuse in conflictual divorce cases. Response to De Ruiter & Van Pol (2017)’ . Van Montfoort focusses his response exclusively on the question concerning the prevalence of false allegations of child abuse from our websurvey among more than 800 legal and social professionals in the Netherlands who are dealing with high conflict divorce cases in their work. We do not share his viewpoints and argue that both legal and social professionals need to have knowledge of prevalence estimations (‘base rates’) in order to avoid tunnel vision. We also emphasize the need for improvements in fact finding in child custody cases in our country and provide examples of recent initiatives to this end.


Prof. dr. Corine de Ruiter
Prof. dr. Corine de Ruiter is a licensed clinical psychologist (BIG) in The Netherlands. She serves as professor of Forensic Psychology at Maastricht University. She also has a private practice. Her research focuses on the interface between psychopathology and crime. She has a special interest in the prevention of child abuse and intimate partner violence because they are both very common and often overlooked in practice.

    De Ruiter en Van Pol (2017) presenteren als vaststaand feit dat slechts 10% of minder van alle beschuldigingen van kindermishandeling in echtscheidingsconflicten vals is. Sociale en juridische professionals die in een enquête een hoger percentage invulden, hebben volgens de auteurs te weinig kennis. De zekerheid die De Ruiter en Van Pol suggereren bestaat niet. Ten eerste verzuimen zij om de kernbegrippen ‘vals’, ‘beschuldiging’, ‘kindermishandeling’ en ‘echtscheidingsconflicten’ te definiëren. Ten tweede kan het onderzoek waar De Ruiter en Van Pol naar verwijzen hun conclusies niet dragen. Canadese maatschappelijk werkers registreerden slechts in een klein aantal gevallen dat een beschuldiging opzettelijk vals was. De Canadese auteurs wijzen expliciet op het subjectieve karakter van de bron van onderzoek. In meer dan de helft van alle onderzochte zaken was het onzeker gebleven of de beschuldiging op waarheid berust. Ten derde gaat het om onderzoeken naar de praktijk van de kinderbescherming in Canada en Australië van 20 jaar geleden. Dat wil zeggen: een andere tijd in andere landen, met een ander systeem dan vandaag in Nederland. Sociale en juridische professionals moeten werken met een aanzienlijke marge van onzekerheid, ook wanneer er grondig onderzoek naar de feiten gedaan is. Door deze onzekerheid te negeren mist de kritiek van De Ruiter en Van Pol op grote groepen professionals onderbouwing.
    ---
    De Ruiter & Van Pol (2017) present as a fact, that only 10% or less of all allegations of child abuse and neglect in divorce disputes is false. They state that social workers and lawyers who in a survey estimated a higher percentage have a lack of knowledge. With this position De Ruiter & Van Pol claim a grade of certainty that does not exist in child protection practice. First, the authors fail to define the key concepts ‘false’, ‘allegation’, ‘child abuse’ and ‘divorce disputes’. Second, the research De Ruiter & Van Pol refer to does not carry the conclusions they draw. The Canadian researchers report that child protection workers had classified a small percentage of cases as ‘intentionally fabricated’. However, the researchers make reservations about this finding since the source is the clinical judgment of the social workers. Moreover the researches emphasize that custody disputes is a context in which there is a high rate of unsubstantiated allegations. In fact, over 50% of all cases were not substantiated.
    Third, the three publications De Ruiter & Van Pol point at describe the practice in Australia and Canada twenty years ago. That is a different time in different countries with different systems compared to The Netherlands today. Social workers and judicial professionals work in a context of uncertainty about allegations and facts in many cases, even after thorough investigation in a particular case. In overlooking this uncertainty De Ruiter & Van Pol unfairly criticize large groups of professionals.


Mr. dr. Adri van Montfoort
Adri van Montfoort is jurist en pedagoog. Hij werkte in de jeugdzorg als hulpverlener, onderzoeker en leidinggevende. Hij promoveerde op een proefschrift over de aanpak van kindermishandeling in ons land. Hij heeft ruime ervaring in advisering en in het ontwerpen en leiden van projecten. Adri publiceerde sinds 1983 artikelen en boeken over kinderbescherming, aanpak van kindermishandeling, jeugdzorg en jeugdbeleid alsook over de veranderende verhoudingen tussen burgers, markt, gesubsidieerde instellingen en overheid. Hij was van 2007 tot 2015 lector Jeugdzorg en Jeugdbeleid bij Hogeschool Leiden. Sinds 1997 is Adri raadsheer plaatsvervanger in de familiekamer van het gerechtshof in Den Haag.
Article

Access_open The Right to Same-Sex Marriage: Assessing the European Court of Human Rights’ Consensus-Based Analysis in Recent Judgments Concerning Equal Marriage Rights

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden same-sex marriage, gay marriage, European consensus, margin of appreciation, consensus-based analysis by the ECtHR
Auteurs Masuma Shahid
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution assesses the consensus-based analysis and reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in recent judgments concerning equal marriage rights and compares it to the Court’s past jurisprudence on European consensus and the margin of appreciation awarded to Member States regarding the issue of equal marriage rights. The contribution aims to analyse whether there is a parallel to be seen between the rapid global trend of legalisation of same-sex marriage and the development or evolution of the case law of the ECtHR on the same topic. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Court’s consensus-based analysis is problematic for several reasons and provides possible alternative approaches to the balancing of the Court between, on the one hand, protecting rights of minorities (in this case same-sex couples invoking equal marriage rights) under the European Convention on Human Rights and, on the other hand, maintaining its credibility, authority and legitimacy towards Member States that might disapprove of the evolving case law in the context of same-sex relationships. It also offers insights as to the future of European consensus in the context of equal marriage rights and ends with some concluding remarks.


Masuma Shahid
Lecturer, Department of International and European Union Law, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.

Elisabetta Silvestri
Elisabetta Silvestri is Associate Professor of Italian Civil Procedure and Comparative Civil Procedure; Scientific Director of the postgraduate program on Mediation and ADR, Department of Law, University of Pavia. Co-Director of the annual seminar ‘Public and Private Justice’, Inter-University Centre, Dubrovnik, Croatia; member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Almo Collegio Borromeo, Pavia. She graduated from the University of Pavia and received a LL.M. degree from Cornell Law School. She is a member of the European Law Institute and the International Association of Procedural Law. She has written on Italian civil procedure and a variety of topics in the field of comparative procedure. She has lectured extensively in Italy and abroad; she is a member of one of the Working Groups established by the European Law Institute and UNIDROIT for the development of the project ‘From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure’.
Artikel

Mediation case law in Germany – an overview

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2017
Trefwoorden Case law, Germany, Voluntariness, Confidentiality, Neutrality
Auteurs Ulla Gläßer
Auteursinformatie

Ulla Gläßer
Prof. Dr. Ulla Gläßer, LL.M., holds a full professorship of mediation, conflict management and procedural theory at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder)/Germany. She is academic director of the Institute for Conflict Management and the postgraduate, interdisciplinary Master’s Program on Mediation at the European University. Ms Gläßer is teaching mediation, negotiation and conflict management skills at various universities and numerous other institutions in Germany and abroad. She has published broadly on mediation methodology, the legal framework of mediation, quality assurance of mediation and other ADR procedures and the establishment of mediation and ADR procedures in different realms of society. She also is editor of two Publication Series on Mediation and Conflict Management and a comprehensive commentary on the German Mediation Act and corresponding relevant regulation. As a practical mediator and facilitator, Ms Gläßer supports dispute resolution and decision making processes within or between organisations/corporations.
Toont 1 - 20 van 45 gevonden teksten
« 1 3
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.