Zoekresultaat: 142 artikelen

x
Artikel

Access_open Philosophy and Law in Ancient Rome

Traces of Stoic Syllogisms and Ontology of Language in Proculus’s Jurisprudence

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering Pre-publications 2019
Trefwoorden Stoicism, Roman law, theory of language, syllogisms, classical jurisprudence
Auteurs Pedro Savaget Nascimento
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper uses Stoic theory of language to gain more insight into Roman lawyer Proculus’s legal opinions on the meaning and understanding of ambiguous testaments, wills and dowries. After summarizing Stoic theory of language, the paper discusses its reception in Roman jurisprudence and situates Proculus in a Stoic legal/philosophical context. The meat of the article lies in the re-examination of Proculus’s legal opinions on ambiguities in light of Stoic theory of language, through: (1) the analysis of a case demonstrating that Proculus’s embeddedness in Stoic doctrine went beyond his technical competence in propositional syllogisms, going into the territory of Stoic physical materialism and, (2) the investigation of four cases that reveal how his approach to problems of ambiguity in unilateral legal acts converges with the Stoic conception of the parallelism between speech and thought.


Pedro Savaget Nascimento
Research Designer

    The Iasi Court of Appeal has held that a request for resignation completed and signed after various forms of pressure from the employee’s superiors does not represent a termination of an individual labour agreement on the initiative of the employee, but a constructive dismissal.


Andreea Suciu
Andreea Suciu is the managing partner at Suciu | The Employment Law Firm.
Law Review

2019/1 EELC’s review of the year 2018

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 1 2019
Auteurs Ruben Houweling, Catherine Barnard, Filip Dorssemont e.a.
Samenvatting

    For the second time, various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year. However, first, we start with some general remarks.


Ruben Houweling

Catherine Barnard

Filip Dorssemont

Jean-Philippe Lhernould

Francesca Maffei

Niklas Bruun

Anthony Kerr

Jan-Pieter Vos

Luca Ratti

Daiva Petrylaite

Andrej Poruban

Stein Evju
Artikel

De best mogelijke rechtspraak

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden Legal system, Effectiveness, Legal innovations, Dispute resolution, New technologies
Auteurs Prof.dr. Maurits Barendrecht
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article outlines the need in the Netherlands for socially effective justice that better resolves citizens’ problems. The author argues that new forms of dispute resolution should be integrated in the justice system. The author first describes various types of innovations. Then he outlines the obstacles to innovations. A major obstacle is that many stakeholders in the existing legal system are simultaneously the gatekeepers for the admission of innovations. It is necessary to create an infrastructure that welcomes, reinforces, tests, finances and imports new treatments for legal problems.


Prof.dr. Maurits Barendrecht
Prof. dr. M. Barendrecht is als research director verbonden aan The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL).

    This article examines the hearing of children in Belgian and Dutch courts in return proceedings following an international child abduction. The analysis is based on the experience, insights and needs of both children who have experienced an abduction by one of their parents, and family judges. In this sensitive and often highly conflicted family context, hearing children in court is not self-evident. Challenges of both a judicial-institutional and communicative-relational nature can hinder the effective implementation of children’s right to be heard. This contribution seeks to answer the question of how to better support judges and children in addressing these challenges, with the aim of enabling children to fully and effectively participate in return procedures. Building on the interviews with children and judges, supplemented with findings from Belgian and Dutch case law and international literature, three key recommendations are formulated: 1) explore and evaluate opportunities for judges and children to experience support during the return procedure, for example via the figure of the guardian ad litem; 2) invest in training and opportunities for specialisation of judges with a view to strengthen their expertise in taking the best interests of the child into account; and 3) systematically pay attention to feedback to the children involved on how the final decision about their return is made – and this before, during and after the procedure.
    ---
    Dit artikel bestudeert het horen van kinderen in Belgische en Nederlandse rechtbanken in terugkeerprocedures volgend op een internationale kinderontvoering. De analyse vertrekt vanuit de beleving, ervaring, inzichten, noden en behoeften van zowel kinderen als van bevoegde familierechters. In deze gevoelige en vaak uiterst conflictueuze gezinscontext is het horen van kinderen door de rechter geen evidentie. Uitdagingen van zowel juridisch-institutionele als communicatieve-relationele aard kunnen een effectieve implementatie van het recht van kinderen om gehoord te worden in de weg staan. Dit artikel zoekt een antwoord op de vraag hoe rechters en kinderen beter kunnen worden ondersteund om deze uitdagingen aan te pakken, met als doel dat kinderen volwaardig kunnen participeren in de terugkeerprocedure. Voortbouwend op de interviews met kinderen en rechters, aangevuld met bevindingen uit Belgische en Nederlandse rechtspraak en internationale literatuur, worden drie sleutelaanbevelingen geformuleerd: 1) voorzie mogelijkheden voor rechters en kinderen om spanningsvelden weg te werken tijdens de terugkeerprocedure, bijvoorbeeld via de ondersteunende figuur van de bijzonder curator; 2) investeer in opleiding en groeiende specialisatiemogelijkheden bij rechters en 3) heb aandacht voor feedback en terugkoppeling naar de betrokken kinderen over hoe de eindbeslissing over hun terugkeer tot stand komt, en dit zowel voor, tijdens als na de procedure.


Sara Lembrechts LLM
Sara Lembrechts is researcher at University of Antwerp (Law and Development Research Group) and policy advisor at Children’s Rights Knowledge Centre (KeKi).

Marieke Putters LLM
Marieke Putters is researcher at the International Child Abduction Center (Centrum IKO).

Kim Van Hoorde
Kim Van Hoorde is Project & Prevention Manager at Child Focus.

dr. Thalia Kruger
Thalia Kruger, PhD, is Associate Professor at the University of Antwerp (Personal Rights and Property Rights Research Group) and Honorary Research Associate, University of Cape Town.

dr. Koen Ponnet
Koen Ponnet, PhD, is Professor at Imec-Mict-Ghent University (Faculty of Social Sciences).

dr. Wouter Vandenhole
Wouter Vandenhole, PhD, is Professor at the University of Antwerp (Law and Development Research Group).
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.
Article

Access_open The Conduit between Technological Change and Regulation

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden technology, socio-technological change, money, windmill, data
Auteurs Marta Katarzyna Kołacz en Alberto Quintavalla
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article discusses how the law has approached disparate socio-technological innovations over the centuries. Precisely, the primary concern of this paper is to investigate the timing of regulatory intervention. To do so, the article makes a selection of particular innovations connected with money, windmills and data storage devices, and analyses them from a historical perspective. The individual insights from the selected innovations should yield a more systematic view on regulation and technological innovations. The result is that technological changes may be less momentous, from a regulatory standpoint, than social changes.


Marta Katarzyna Kołacz
Marta Katarzyna Kołacz, Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Private Law, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Alberto Quintavalla
Alberto Quintavalla, LL.M., Ph.D. Candidate in the Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Article

Access_open Fostering Worker Cooperatives with Blockchain Technology: Lessons from the Colony Project

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden blockchain, collaborative economy, cooperative governance, decentralised governance, worker cooperatives
Auteurs Morshed Mannan
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In recent years, there has been growing policy support for expanding worker ownership of businesses in the European Union. Debates on stimulating worker ownership are a regular feature of discussions on the collaborative economy and the future of work, given anxieties regarding the reconfiguration of the nature of work and the decline of standardised employment contracts. Yet, worker ownership, in the form of labour-managed firms such as worker cooperatives, remains marginal. This article explains the appeal of worker cooperatives and examines the reasons why they continue to be relatively scarce. Taking its cue from Henry Hansmann’s hypothesis that organisational innovations can make worker ownership of firms viable in previously untenable circumstances, this article explores how organisational innovations, such as those embodied in the capital and governance structure of Decentralised (Autonomous) Organisations (D(A)Os), can potentially facilitate the growth of LMFs. It does so by undertaking a case study of a blockchain project, Colony, which seeks to create decentralised, self-organising companies where decision-making power derives from high-quality work. For worker cooperatives, seeking to connect globally dispersed workers through an online workplace, Colony’s proposed capital and governance structure, based on technological and game theoretic insight may offer useful lessons. Drawing from this pre-figurative structure, self-imposed institutional rules may be deployed by worker cooperatives in their by-laws to avoid some of the main pitfalls associated with labour management and thereby, potentially, vitalise the formation of the cooperative form.


Morshed Mannan
Morshed Mannan, LLM (Adv.), PhD Candidate, Company Law Department, Institute of Private Law, Universiteit Leiden.
Article

Access_open Making Sense of the Law and Society Movement

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden law and society, sociology of law, sociolegal, empirical legal studies
Auteurs Daniel Blocq en Maartje van der Woude
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article aims to deepen scholarly understanding of the Law and Society Movement (L&S) and thereby strengthen debates about the relation between Empirical Legal Studies (ELS) and L&S. The article departs from the observation that ELS, understood as an initiative that emerged in American law schools in the early 2000s, has been quite successful in generating more attention to the empirical study of law and legal institutions in law schools, both in- and outside the US. In the early years of its existence, L&S – another important site for the empirical study of law and legal institutions – also had its center of gravity inside the law schools. But over time, it shifted towards the social sciences. This article discusses how that happened, and more in general explains how L&S became ever more diverse in terms of substance, theory and methods.


Daniel Blocq
Daniel Blocq is assistant professor at Leiden Law School.

Maartje van der Woude
Maartje van der Woude is professor at Leiden Law School.
Artikel

De constitutionele advisering door de Venice Commission

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 4 2018
Auteurs Prof. mr. drs. B.P. Vermeulen en Mr. dr. A. Jasiak
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    De Venice Commission heeft zich sinds 1990 ontwikkeld tot een gezaghebbende constitutioneel raadgever met betrekking tot de verenigbaarheid van (grond)wetgeving met de beginselen van de rule of law, mensenrechten en democratie voor de lidstaten van de Raad van Europa. Besproken wordt wat de Commissie is, wat zij doet en hoe zij dat doet. Vervolgens wordt ingegaan op de maatstaven die zij hanteert, en de specifieke uitdagingen die haar internationale positie, mede gezien het opkomend populisme en het spanningsveld tussen democratie en rechtsstaat, met zich brengen voor de mate van terughoudendheid in haar oordeelsvorming. Daarbij wordt specifiek ingegaan op de ‘casus Polen’.


Prof. mr. drs. B.P. Vermeulen
Prof. mr. drs. B.P. (Ben) Vermeulen is lid van de Raad van State en lid van de Venice Commission (2007-2011 substituut-lid).

Mr. dr. A. Jasiak
Mr. dr. A. (Anna) Jasiak is sectorhoofd (sectie III) in de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State; in 2014 was zij gedetacheerd bij het secretariaat van de Venice Commission.

Jan Ritzen
Jan Ritzen is a graduate law student from the University of Leuven, principally focusing on corporate law and alternative dispute resolution. Currently, he is studying philosophy at the same University and he is a board member of LCM SA to further establish the extra-curricular formation for students in mediation and negotiation techniques.
Artikel

Promoting Conciliation and Mediation in Collective Labour Conflicts in Europe

Celebrating 50 years of Federal Mediation Services in Belgium

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden Mediation, conciliation, collective labour conflict, strikes
Auteurs Ana Belén García, Erica Pender, Francisco J. Medina e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    On 23 April 2018, the Belgian Ministry of Labour, together with a consortium of 12 European research institutes, held a symposium on the current state of the art and best practices for conciliation and mediation in collective labour conflicts within the European Union, and particularly in Belgium. The symposium was organized for two occasions. First, the 50st anniversary of the Belgium law, providing mediation services by the Ministry of Labour to prevent and mediate in collective labour conflicts. Second, the presentation of the results of an EU (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) sponsored project in 12 EU member states.
    The management of collective labour conflicts is in all countries regulated differently. The study shows that also practices of third party intervention differ largely. Most countries differentiate conciliation (a relative informal process of facilitated negotiation), mediation (usually defined as a strong involvement of the third party, who gives recommendations to the parties), and arbitration. Mediators typically are not trained, certified or registered as mediators in most countries. In all countries there is a large potential for conciliation, particularly in early stages of conflict (preventive mediation), as well as in rebuilding of trust after conflict episodes. More details in open access book: Mediation in collective labor conflicts (Springer, 2018).


Ana Belén García
Ana Belén García is senior researcher at the University of Seville and KU Leuven, working in the departments of work and organizational psychology. She was coordinator of several EU funded research programs on social dialogue in organisations. The most recent project was on mediation in collective labor conflicts in 12 EU member states. Ana’s interest is on conflict management and mediation in organizations. She was editor of two handbooks in the Springer Series ‘Industrial relations and conflict management’. Ana holds a PhD in Psychology and HRM from the University of Seville and KU Leuven. She is also a registered mediator.

Erica Pender
Erica Pender is a mediator and senior researcher at the University of Seville and KU Leuven in the department of Work and Organizational Psychology. She holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of Seville and KU Leuven focusing on trust and trustworthiness in organizations. After studying psychology at the University of Seville, she obtained her MSc at Maastricht University. She has coordinated two large-scale projects for the European Commission, and was co-editor of two handbooks in the Springer Series ‘Industrial relations and conflict management’.

Francisco J. Medina
Fransisco J. Medina is professor in social and organizational psychology, and Dean of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational sciences, at the University of Seville, Spain. His interests are conflict management, mediation and organizational development. He is engaged for many years in the development of labor mediation in Spain, providing training for mediators. He is also an experienced consultant and mediator. Francisco published both internationally and in Spanish extensively on conflict management and mediation.

Martin Euwema
Martin Euwema is professor in organizational psychology, and chair of the research group Organizational and Occupational Psychology and Professional Learning at KU Leuven, Belgium. He is also co-director of the Leuven Center for Collaborative Management and visiting professor at University of Copenhagen, IESEG-Paris, Sevilla, and Tsinghua (Beijing). He has extensive experience as consultant and mediator for both profit and non-profit organizations. His fields of expertise are conflict management, mediation, leadership, and organizational and team development.

    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.


Dr 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.

    In May 2017, the Ogiek indigenous community of Kenya successfully challenged the denial of their land and associated rights before the African Court of Human and Peoples Rights (‘the Court’). In the first indigenous peoples’ rights case considered the Court, and by far the largest ever case it has had to consider, the Court found violations of Articles 1, 2, 8, 14, 17 (2) and (3), 21 and 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘the African Charter’). It therefore created a major legal precedent. In addition, the litigation itself and Ogiek’s participation in the various stages of the legal process provided a model for community engagement, through which the Ogiek were empowered to better understand and advocate for their rights. This article will first explain the history of the case and the Court’s findings, and then move on to examine in further detail methods employed to build the Ogiek’s capacity throughout, and even beyond, the litigation.


Lucy Claridge
Legal Director, Minority Rights Group International.

    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.
Law Review

Access_open 2018/1 EELC’s review of the year 2017

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 1 2018
Auteurs Ruben Houweling, Catherine Barnard, Zef Even e.a.
Samenvatting

    This is the first time we have produced a review of employment law cases from the previous year, based on analysis by various of our academic board members. But before looking at their findings, we would first like to make some general remarks.


Ruben Houweling

Catherine Barnard

Zef Even

Amber Zwanenburg

Daiva Petrylaitė

Petr Hůrka

Jean-Philippe Lhernould

Erika Kovács

Jan-Pieter Vos

Andrej Poruban

Luca Ratti

Niklas Bruun

Francesca Maffei

    Legal doctrinal scholarship engages with the problems of legal practice: it systematizes, comments on, evaluates and debates what goes on in law. These activities do not occur in a vacuum: they are embedded in scholarly traditions and theories. This paper discusses the role of the theoretical frameworks used in legal research and has two related aims. First, it aims to provide some practical conceptualizations and guidelines regarding theoretical and normative frameworks that are useful to understand and conduct legal research. Second, it aims to investigate the relationships between different kinds of normative frameworks and their relationship to empirical work. In the second part, an argument is made for a pragmatist understanding of the interplay between normative theorizing and empirical study. How do these work together in judgments about the state of the law?


Sanne Taekema
Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam; taekema@law.eur.nl.

    Medical and societal developments have led to a new family form involving more than two persons who make the conscious decision to have and raise a child together. Before the conception of the child, co-parenting arrangements are made covering the role of each parent in the child’s life and the division of care and financial obligations. These intentional multi-parent families pose new challenges to family law. Both in Belgium and the Netherlands, as in most other legal systems, the number of legal parents vested with custody of the child is limited to two. This two-parent model does not protect the relationship between the child and each of its parents in a multi-parent family. The question arises whether the law should be adjusted to accommodate multi-parent families, and if so, how. The Belgian Senate recently accepted that this question should be subjected to parliamentary debate. In 2014 the Netherlands tasked the Government Committee on the Reassessment of Parenthood with evaluating whether the law should allow more than two persons to be a child's legal parents and share parental responsibilities. In its recently published report, the Government Committee advises legal multi-parenthood be statutorily regulated, subject to certain conditions.The present contribution addresses two questions. The first one concerns the legal position of persons who have entered into multi-parenting arrangements. We answer this question by examining the Belgian rules on legal parentage and parental responsibilities. Second, we explore how family law might accommodate intentional multi-parent families. For this question, we focus on the recommendations the Dutch Government Committee formulated on legal multi-parenthood.
    ---
    Medische en maatschappelijke ontwikkelingen hebben geleid tot het ontstaan van een nieuwe gezinsvorm, waarbij meer dan twee personen bewust ervoor kiezen om samen een kind te krijgen en het op te voeden. Voor de verwekking maken ze afspraken over de rol van elk van hen in het leven van het kind en over de verdeling van zorgtaken en financiële verplichtingen. Deze intentionele meeroudergezinnen vormen een nieuwe uitdaging voor het familierecht. Zoals in de meeste rechtsstelsels, is in België en Nederland het aantal juridische ouders beperkt tot twee. Dit twee-oudermodel verleent geen bescherming aan de relatie tussen het kind en elk van zijn ouders in een meeroudergezin. De vraag rijst of het familierecht deze nieuwe gezinsvorm tegemoet moet komen, en zo ja, hoe. De Belgische Senaat heeft eind 2015 aanvaard dat deze vraag het voorwerp moet uitmaken van toekomstig parlementair debat. De Nederlands regering gaf in 2014 aan de “Staatscommissie Herijking Ouderschap” de opdracht te onderzoeken of de wet het mogelijk moet maken dat meer dan twee personen de juridische ouders kunnen zijn van een kind en het ouderlijk gezag kunnen delen. In haar recent gepubliceerde rapport beveelt deze commissie aan om juridisch meerouderschap wettelijk te regelen.  Deze bijdrage onderzoekt twee vragen. De eerste vraag is wat de rechtspositie is van de personen die betrokken zijn in meerouderschapsafspraken. We beantwoorden deze vraag aan de hand van de Belgische regels over afstamming en ouderlijk gezag. De tweede vraag is hoe het recht aan intentionele meeroudergezinnen kan tegemoetkomen. De aanbevelingen van de Nederlandse Staatscommissie Herijking Ouderschap staan hierbij centraal.


Prof. dr. Ingrid Boone
Ingrid Boone is an associate professor of Family Law at KU Leuven. She is a member of the Scientific Research Network of the Research Foundation Flanders (2015-2020) RETHINKIN - Rethinking legal kinship and family studies in the Low Countries.
Article

Access_open The Questionable Legitimacy of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project

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

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


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

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

A Critical Assessment on Authority and Legitimacy

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

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


Leo E.C. Neve
Leo Neve is a doctoral student at the Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Toont 1 - 20 van 142 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8
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.