Verfijn uw zoekresultaat

Zoekresultaat: 288 artikelen

x
Artikel

Access_open Addressing Problems Instead of Diagnoses

Reimagining Liberalism Regarding Disability and Public Health

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering Pre-publications 2021
Trefwoorden Vulerability Theory, Liberalism, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Public Health, Capabilities Approach
Auteurs Erwin Dijkstra
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The public health systems of liberal states systematically fail to meet the goals and obligations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which aims to facilitate full societal participation and independent life choices by all impaired persons, as well as the unburdening of their private caretakers. This failure does not stem from a lack of money or effort by governments and other societal institutions, but flaws in the anatomy of these systems. As these systems confine institutional assistance to the needs of persons with certain delineated disabilities, they neglect the needs of other persons, whose disabilities do not fit this mould. The responsibility for the latter group thus falls to their immediate social circle. These private caretakers are in turn seldom supported. To remedy this situation, I will present the alternative paradigm of vulnerability theory as the possible foundation for a more inclusive approach to public health.


Erwin Dijkstra
Erwin Dijkstra LLM MA is lecturer and researcher at the Department of Jurisprudence of the Leiden Law School of Leiden University.
Article

Access_open The Common Law Remedy of Habeas Corpus Through the Prism of a Twelve-Point Construct

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2021
Trefwoorden Habeas corpus, common law, detainee, Consitution, liberty
Auteurs Chuks Okpaluba en Anthony Nwafor
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Long before the coming of the Bill of Rights in written Constitutions, the common law has had the greatest regard for the personal liberty of the individual. In order to safeguard that liberty, the remedy of habeas corpus was always available to persons deprived of their liberty unlawfully. This ancient writ has been incorporated into the modern Constitution as a fundamental right and enforceable as other rights protected by virtue of their entrenchment in those Constitutions. This article aims to bring together the various understanding of habeas corpus at common law and the principles governing the writ in common law jurisdictions. The discussion is approached through a twelve-point construct thus providing a brief conspectus of the subject matter, such that one could have a better understanding of the subject as applied in most common law jurisdictions.


Chuks Okpaluba
Chuks Okpaluba, LLB LLM (London), PhD (West Indies), is a Research Fellow at the Free State Centre for Human Rights, University of the Free State, South Africa. Email: okpaluba@mweb.co.za.

Anthony Nwafor
Anthony O. Nwafor, LLB, LLM, (Nigeria), PhD (UniJos), BL, is Professor at the School of Law, University of Venda, South Africa. Email: Anthony.Nwafor@univen.ac.za.
Artikel

Vrijheidsontneming, penitentiaire beginselen en de eendentest

Over de aard van vreemdelingenbewaring

Tijdschrift Crimmigratie & Recht, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden vreemdelingenbewaring, vrijheidsontneming, penitentiair recht, Wet terugkeer en vreemdelingenbewaring, visitatie isoleercel
Auteurs Mr. drs. Frans-Willem Verbaas
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the Netherlands, immigration detention is classified under administrative law. More precisely: it is a form of administrative coercion. But immigration detention is also deprivation of liberty, or a habeas corpus measure. This makes it the most far-reaching form of administrative coercion you can think of. The regime and house rules of immigration detention differ just a little from those of criminal deprivation of liberty. The draft bill on the Return and Detention Act provides some improvements. For asylum seekers that cause nuisance, there is the Enforcement and Supervision Location, where the foreign national is given an area restriction and must remain within the municipal boundaries. Due to the liberty restrictions, immigration detention should always be the last resort.


Mr. drs. Frans-Willem Verbaas
Mr. drs. F.W. Verbaas is advocaat bij Collet Advocaten Alkmaar. Hij is mensenrechtenadvocaat en gespecialiseerd in penitentiair recht en vreemdelingenrecht, waaronder vreemdelingenbewaring.

Anna Gerbrandy
Prof. mr. dr. A. Gerbrandy is hoogleraar Mededingingsrecht aan de Universiteit Utrecht, non-governmental advisor bij de ACM en Kroonlid bij de SER.

Wolf Sauter
Prof. mr. dr. drs. W. Sauter is verbonden aan de ACM en deels gedetacheerd bij de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Discussie, Nieuws en Analyse

De strafbaarstelling van gebruikers

Een onderzoek naar de legitimiteit en rechtvaardigheid van strafbaarstelling van harddrugsgebruik

Tijdschrift Boom Strafblad, Aflevering 6 2020
Trefwoorden Drugsgebruik, Legitimiteit, Rechtvaardigheid, Criteria voor strafbaarstelling, Strafbaarstelling
Auteurs Mr. Y. (Yamit) Hamelzky
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In het kader van ontwrichtende criminaliteit ontstaat steeds meer aandacht voor de gebruikerskant. Zo ook voor de harddrugsgebruiker, die een ontwrichtende invloed op de samenleving heeft. Dit artikel beantwoordt daarom de vraag of strafbaarstelling van harddrugsgebruik legitiem en rechtvaardig is. Teneinde deze vraag te beantwoorden wordt getoetst aan de criteria voor strafbaarstelling en worden de argumenten die ten grondslag liggen aan de strafbaarstelling van de prostituant die misbruik maakt van prostituees die slachtoffer zijn van mensenhandel ter inspiratie gebruikt.


Mr. Y. (Yamit) Hamelzky
Yamit Hamelzky is docent straf(proces)recht aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Prof. dr. G.R. de Groot
Prof. dr. G.R. de Groot is emeritus hoogleraar rechtsvergelijking en internationaal privaatrecht aan de Universiteit Maastricht en hoogleraar privaatrecht aan de Universiteit van Aruba.
Article

Access_open Positive State Obligations under European Law: A Tool for Achieving Substantive Equality for Sexual Minorities in Europe

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Positive obligations, sexual minorities, sexual orientation, European law, human rights
Auteurs Alina Tryfonidou
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article seeks to examine the development of positive obligations under European law in the specific context of the rights of sexual minorities. It is clear that the law should respect and protect all sexualities and diverse intimate relationships without discrimination, and for this purpose it needs to ensure that sexual minorities can not only be free from state interference when expressing their sexuality in private, but that they should be given the right to express their sexuality in public and to have their intimate relationships legally recognised. In addition, sexual minorities should be protected from the actions of other individuals, when these violate their legal and fundamental human rights. Accordingly, in addition to negative obligations, European law must impose positive obligations towards sexual minorities in order to achieve substantive equality for them. The article explains that, to date, European law has imposed a number of such positive obligations; nonetheless, there is definitely scope for more. It is suggested that European law should not wait for hearts and minds to change before imposing additional positive obligations, especially since this gives the impression that the EU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are condoning or disregarding persistent discrimination against sexual minorities.


Alina Tryfonidou
Alina Tryfonidou is Professor of Law, University of Reading.
Article

Access_open How Far Should the State Go to Counter Prejudice?

A Positive State Obligation to Counter Dehumanisation

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

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


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

Access_open State Obligations to Counter Islamophobia: Comparing Fault Lines in the International Supervisory Practice of the HRC/ICCPR, the ECtHR and the AC/FCNM

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Human rights, positive state obligations, islamophobia, international supervisory mechanisms
Auteurs Kristin Henrard
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Islamophobia, like xenophobia, points to deep-seated, ingrained discrimination against a particular group, whose effective enjoyment of fundamental rights is impaired. This in turn triggers the human rights obligations of liberal democratic states, more particularly states’ positive obligations (informed by reasonability considerations) to ensure that fundamental rights are effectively enjoyed, and thus also respected in interpersonal relationships. This article identifies and compares the fault lines in the practice of three international human rights supervisory mechanisms in relation to Islamophobia, namely the Human Rights Committee (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the European Court of Human Rights (European Convention on Human Rights) and the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The supervisory practice is analysed in two steps: The analysis of each international supervisory mechanism’s jurisprudence, in itself, is followed by the comparison of the fault lines. The latter comparison is structured around the two main strands of strategies that states could adopt in order to counter intolerance: On the one hand, the active promotion of tolerance, inter alia through education, awareness-raising campaigns and the stimulation of intercultural dialogue; on the other, countering acts informed by intolerance, in terms of the prohibition of discrimination (and/or the effective enjoyment of substantive fundamental rights). Having regard to the respective strengths and weaknesses of the supervisory practice of these three international supervisory mechanisms, the article concludes with some overarching recommendations.


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

Access_open Kroniek jeugdstraf(proces)recht: the good, the bad & the ugly

Tijdschrift Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, Aflevering 5 2020
Trefwoorden jeugdstrafrecht, jeugdstrafprocesrecht, IVRK, rechtsbijstand, tenuitvoerlegging
Auteurs Mr. drs. M. (Marije) Jeltes
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In deze bijdrage worden de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen vanaf juni 2019 met betrekking tot het jeugdstraf(proces)recht uit de doeken gedaan. Zo worden de wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering na implementatie van Richtlijn 2016/800/EU en de Wet USB besproken. Daarnaast zal inzicht worden gegeven in beleid over onder meer DNA-afname, verblijf in politiecellen en de reprimande. Ook een nieuw General Comment van het VN-Kinderrechtencomité en een mondiaal onderzoek naar vrijheidsbeneming komen aan de orde. Vervolgens worden wetsvoorstellen besproken, gevolgd door een korte reflectie op deze ontwikkelingen in het licht van het Internationale Verdrag inzake de Rechten van het Kind.


Mr. drs. M. (Marije) Jeltes
Mr. drs. Marije Jeltes is docent en onderzoeker bij de afdeling Jeugdrecht van de faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit Leiden. Daarvoor was zij 13 jaar werkzaam als (jeugd)strafrechtadvocaat. Zij is tevens (kinder)rechter-plaatsvervanger bij de rechtbank Amsterdam en rechtbank Rotterdam en lid van de afdeling Advisering van de Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming (RSJ).
Article

Access_open South African Mandatory Offers Regime: Assessing Minorities’ Leverage to Seek Recourse and Equal Treatment in Takeover Bids

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden company takeovers, mandatory offers, minority shareholders, equal treatment, acquisition procedure
Auteurs Paul Nkoane
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A firm intention announcement must be made when the offeror is able and willing to acquire securities, and when a mandatory offer must be made. When the firm intention announcement is implemented, some sort of a contract is created. This rule has helped to determine the particular time the offeror should be liable to minorities. The question of when the offeror should bear the obligation to implement mandatory offers in aborted takeovers is thus no more problematic. Previously, the courts wrestled with this issue, but delivered what appears to be unsatisfactory decisions. This article will discuss the effect of a firm intention announcement and the responsibility that attends the making of that announcement. It intends to illustrate the extent of liability the offeror must bear in the event of a lapsed takeover, before and after the making of the firm intention announcement. The article examines the manner in which takeover rules can be enforced, and whether the current measures afford minorities proper protection. This brings to light the issue of equal treatment in takeovers and the fallacy thereof. A minor appraisal of the takeover rules in two jurisdictions in Europe (the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) is conducted to assess how equal treatment for minorities is promoted. Due to the difficulty minorities may experience in enforcing equal treatment in company takeovers, the article advocates for the alteration of the current South African takeover procedure for the promotion of minorities’ interests and for establishing rules that provide the offeror adequate information.


Paul Nkoane
Paul Nkoane is lecturer at the College of Law of the University of South Africa in Pretoria.
Artikel

Access_open Moet de strafrechter ook de scheidsrechter zijn van het publieke debat?

De scheiding der machten in het licht van de vrijheid van meningsuiting voor volksvertegenwoordigers

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Freedom of speech, Separation of powers, Criminal law, Hate speech, Legal certainty
Auteurs Jip Stam
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article contains a critical review of the provisions in the Dutch penal code regarding group defamation and hate speech. It is argued that not only these provisions themselves but also their application by the Dutch supreme court, constitutes a problem for the legitimacy and functioning of representative democracy. This is due to the tendency of the supreme court to employ special constraints for offensive, hateful or discriminatory speech by politicians. Because such a special constraint is not provided or even implied by the legislator, the jurisprudence of the supreme court is likely to end up in judicial overreach and therefore constitutes a potential – if not actual – breach in the separation of powers. In order to forestall these consequences, the protection of particularly political speech should be improved, primarily by a revision of the articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch penal code or the extension of parliamentary immunity.


Jip Stam
Jip Stam is onderzoeker en docent bij de afdeling Encyclopedie van de rechtswetenschap aan de Leidse rechtenfaculteit.
Pending Cases

Case C-220/20, Miscellaneous

XX – v – OO, reference lodged by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano (Italy) on 28 May 2020

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Miscellaneous
Article

Access_open Age Limits in Youth Justice: A Comparative and Conceptual Analysis

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden youth justice, age limits, minimum age of criminal responsibility, age of criminal majority, legal comparison
Auteurs Jantien Leenknecht, Johan Put en Katrijn Veeckmans
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In each youth justice system, several age limits exist that indicate what type of reaction can and may be connected to the degree of responsibility that a person can already bear. Civil liability, criminal responsibility and criminal majority are examples of concepts on which age limits are based, but whose definition and impact is not always clear. Especially as far as the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is concerned, confusion exists in legal doctrine. This is apparent from the fact that international comparison tables often show different MACRs for the same country. Moreover, the international literature often seems to define youth justice systems by means of a lower and upper limit, whereas such a dual distinction is too basic to comprehend the complex multilayer nature of the systems. This contribution therefore maps out and conceptually clarifies the different interpretations and consequences of the several age limits that exist within youth justice systems. To that extent, the age limits of six countries are analysed: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. This legal comparison ultimately leads to a proposal to establish a coherent conceptual framework on age limits in youth justice.


Jantien Leenknecht
Jantien Leenknecht is PhD Fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) at KU Leuven, Institute of Social Law and Leuven Institute of Criminology.

Johan Put
Johan Put is Full Professor at KU Leuven, Institute of Social Law and Leuven Institute of Criminology.

Katrijn Veeckmans
Katrijn Veeckmans is PhD Fellow at KU Leuven, Institute of Social Law and Leuven Institute of Criminology.
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.
Article

Access_open Safeguarding the Dynamic Legal Position of Children: A Matter of Age Limits?

Reflections on the Fundamental Principles and Practical Application of Age Limits in Light of International Children’s Rights Law

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden age limits, dynamic legal position, children’s rights, maturity, evolving capacities
Auteurs Stephanie Rap, Eva Schmidt en Ton Liefaard
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article a critical reflection upon age limits applied in the law is provided, in light of the tension that exists in international children’s rights law between the protection of children and the recognition of their evolving autonomy. The main research question that will be addressed is to what extent the use of (certain) age limits is justified under international children’s rights law. The complexity of applying open norms and theoretically underdeveloped concepts as laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, related to the development and evolving capacities of children as rights holders, will be demonstrated. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child struggles to provide comprehensive guidance to states regarding the manner in which the dynamic legal position of children should be applied in practice. The inconsistent application of age limits that govern the involvement of children in judicial procedures provides states leeway in granting children autonomy, potentially leading to the establishment of age limits based on inappropriate – practically, politically or ideologically motivated – grounds.


Stephanie Rap
Stephanie Rap is assistant professor in children’s rights at the Department of Child Law, Leiden Law School, the Netherlands.

Eva Schmidt
Eva Schmidt is PhD candidate at the Department of Child Law, Leiden Law School, the Netherlands.

Ton Liefaard
Ton Liefaard is Vice-Dean of Leiden Law School and holds the UNICEF Chair in Children’s Rights at Leiden University, Leiden Law School, the Netherlands.
Article

Access_open Too Immature to Vote?

A Philosophical and Psychological Argument to Lower the Voting Age

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden voting age, children’s rights, youth enfranchisement, democracy, votes at 16
Auteurs Tommy Peto
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article argues in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. First, it outlines a respect-based account of democracy where the right to vote is grounded in a respect for citizens’ autonomous capacities. It then outlines a normative account of autonomy, modelled on Rawls’s two moral powers, saying what criteria must be met for an individual to possess a (pro tanto) moral right to vote. Second, it engages with empirical psychology to show that by the age of 16 (if not earlier) individuals have developed all of the cognitive components of autonomy. Therefore, since 16- and 17-year-olds (and quite probably those a little younger) possess the natural features required for autonomy, then, to the extent that respect for autonomy requires granting political rights including the right to vote – and barring some special circumstances that apply only to them – 16- and 17-year-olds should be granted the right to vote.


Tommy Peto
University of Oxford.
Artikel

Access_open Your children are (not) your children

Het recht op respect op gezinsleven als beperking van het recht op gezinshereniging

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Jeugdrecht, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden gezinshereniging, Gezinsherenigingsrichtlijn, recht op familie- en gezinsleven (artikel 8 van het EVRM), kinderrechten / IVRK, Handvest van de Grondrechten van de EU
Auteurs Mr. J. Werner
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Kritische analyse van jurisprudentie van de Raad van State over gezinshereniging van vaders met kinderen, in het licht van de Gezinsherenigingsrichtlijn en de toepasselijke mensen- en kinderrechten.


Mr. J. Werner
Mr. J. Werner is advocaat bij Hagg & Van Koesveld Advocaten en docent bij OSR Juridische Opleidingen.
Artikel

Access_open What does it mean to be ‘illiberal’?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering Pre-publications 2020
Trefwoorden Liberalism, Illiberalism, Illiberal practices, Extremism, Discrimination
Auteurs Bouke de Vries
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    ‘Illiberal’ is an adjective that is commonly used by scholars. For example, they might speak of ‘illiberal cultures’, ‘illiberal groups’, ‘illiberal states’, ‘illiberal democracies’, ‘illiberal beliefs’, and ‘illiberal practices’. Yet despite its widespread usage, no in-depth discussions exist of exactly what it means for someone or something to be illiberal, or might mean. This article fills this lacuna by providing a conceptual analysis of the term ‘illiberal practices’, which I argue is basic in that other bearers of the property of being illiberal can be understood by reference to it. Specifically, I identify five ways in which a practice can be illiberal based on the different ways in which this term is employed within both scholarly and political discourses. The main value of this disaggregation lies in the fact that it helps to prevent confusions that arise when people use the adjective ‘illiberal’ in different ways, as is not uncommon.


Bouke de Vries
Bouke de Vries is a postdoctoral research fellow at Umeå University and the KU Leuven.
General Comment

General Comment No. 24: een weerspiegeling van een decennium aan ontwikkelingen

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Jeugdrecht, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden jeugdstrafrecht, herziening, VN-Kinderrechtenverdrag, vrijheidsontneming, MACR
Auteurs Mr. A. Popescu
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Deze bijdrage beoogt de belangrijkste thema’s van de nieuwe General Comment No. 24 (2019) uit te lichten die door het VN-Kinderrechtencomité zijn aangevuld of in hun geheel nieuw zijn toegevoegd. De wijzigingen zijn doorgevoerd in reactie op het veranderende beeld van kinderen in jeugdstrafrechtstelsels, dat van invloed is geweest op een drietal thema’s waaromtrent het Comité positieve en negatieve trends heeft gesignaleerd. Zo uit het Comité bijvoorbeeld zijn zorgen over het aanhoudende gebruik van vrijheidsbeneming ten aanzien van kinderen en benadrukt het nogmaals de noodzaak voor buitengerechtelijke interventies als alternatief voor vrijheidsbeneming. Het Comité hanteert daarentegen een optimistische toon wanneer het komt te spreken over de nieuwe absolute minimumleeftijd voor strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid, die is verhoogd van 12 naar 14 jaar, en het prijst de lidstaten die verder reiken dan dat minimum. Met de onderhavige General Comment tracht het Comité zijn standpunten omtrent bestaande en nieuwe thema’s te herbevestigen of geheel nieuw toe te voegen en daarmee aan lidstaten een richtsnoer te bieden voor het creëren van een jeugdstrafrechtstelsel dat volledig in lijn is met het VN-Kinderrechtenverdrag.


Mr. A. Popescu
Mr. A. Popescu is medewerker Verwerken & Behandelen bij het Parket Centrale Verwerking Openbaar Ministerie (CVOM) en alumnus straf- en jeugdrecht van de Universiteit Leiden.
Toont 1 - 20 van 288 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 15
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.