Zoekresultaat: 73 artikelen

x
Article

Access_open Migration and Time: Duration as an Instrument to Welcome or Restrict

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Migration, EU migration law, time
Auteurs Gerrie Lodder
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    States apply different material conditions to attract or restrict residence of certain types of migrants. But states can also make use of time as an instrument to design more welcoming or more restrictive policies. States can apply faster application procedures for desired migrants. Furthermore, time can be used in a more favourable way to attract desired migrants in regard to duration of residence, access to a form of permanent residence and protection against loss of residence. This contribution makes an analysis of how time is used as an instrument in shaping migration policy by the European Union (EU) legislator in the context of making migration more or less attractive. This analysis shows that two groups are treated more favourably in regard to the use of time in several aspects: EU citizens and economic- and knowledge-related third-country nationals. However, when it comes to the acquisition of permanent residence after a certain period of time, the welcoming policy towards economic- and knowledge-related migrants is no longer obvious.


Gerrie Lodder
Gerrie Lodder is lecturer and researcher at the Europa Institute of Leiden University.
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.
Article

Access_open 2020/27 Freedom of religion: a tale of two cities

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Religious discrimination
Auteurs Filip Dorssemont
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Are the outcomes of the CJEU judgments on religious discrimination essentially different from the outcome of similar cases dealing with restrictions on the freedom of religion ruled by the ECtHR?


Filip Dorssemont
Filip Dorssemont is a Professor of Labour Law at Université catholique de Louvain and Guest Professor at Free University of Brussels.
Article

Access_open Basel IV Postponed: A Chance to Regulate Shadow Banking?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Basel Accords, EU Law, shadow banking, financial stability, prudential regulation
Auteurs Katarzyna Parchimowicz en Ross Spence
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the aftermath of the 2007 global financial crisis, regulators have agreed a substantial tightening of prudential regulation for banks operating in the traditional banking sector (TBS). The TBS is stringently regulated under the Basel Accords to moderate financial stability and to minimise risk to government and taxpayers. While prudential regulation is important from a financial stability perspective, the flipside is that the Basel Accords only apply to the TBS, they do not regulate the shadow banking sector (SBS). While it is not disputed that the SBS provides numerous benefits given the net credit growth of the economy since the global financial crisis has come from the SBS rather than traditional banking channels, the SBS also poses many risks. Therefore, the fact that the SBS is not subject to prudential regulation is a cause of serious systemic concern. The introduction of Basel IV, which compliments Basel III, seeks to complete the Basel framework on prudential banking regulation. On the example of this set of standards and its potential negative consequences for the TBS, this paper aims to visualise the incentives for TBS institutions to move some of their activities into the SBS, and thus stress the need for more comprehensive regulation of the SBS. Current coronavirus crisis forced Basel Committee to postpone implementation of the Basel IV rules – this could be perceived as a chance to complete the financial regulatory framework and address the SBS as well.


Katarzyna Parchimowicz
Katarzyna Parchimowicz, LLM. Finance (Frankfurt), is PhD candidate at the University of Wrocław, Poland, and Young Researcher at the European Banking Institute, Frankfurt, Germany.

Ross Spence
Ross Spence, EURO-CEFG, is PhD Fellow at Leiden University Law School, and Young Researcher at the European Banking Institute and Research Associate at the Amsterdam Centre for Law and Economics.
Article

Access_open The Effectiveness Paradigm in Financial Legislation – Is Effectiveness Measurable?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden effectiveness, effectiveness measurement methodologies, financial legislation, legislative objective, product approval governance
Auteurs Jeroen Koomans
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    How can you determine if financial legislation is effective? This article seeks to identify three characteristics that make up the basis for an effectiveness review, being the determination what the legislative objective is, who is it aimed at and what approach is taken to achieve this objective. Determining the legislative objective may prove to be a challenging undertaking, and the uncertainties that come with that affect the other two characteristics as well. And even if a clear legislative objective can be established, how can you be sure that its achievement was in fact attributable to the legislation under review? What do you compare your results to absent a baseline measurement and how can the vast number of variables that affect the effectiveness of the legislation under review be accounted for, if at all? Is effectiveness in financial legislation at all measurable and, when measured, what is its value in practice?


Jeroen Koomans
Jeroen Koomans is affiliated to the University of Amsterdam FEB Academy for Banking and Insurance and employed by ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
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.
Artikel

De Omgevingswet: wetgeving als symbool of communicatieve wetgeving?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2019
Trefwoorden Symboolwerking van wetgeving, Omgevingswet, Crisis- en herstelwet, Communicatieve wetgeving, Wetgevingsevaluatie
Auteurs Dr. Friso Johannes Jansen MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Crisis and Recovery Act and the Environmental Planning Act are analysed in this article as a form of communicative legislation. This approach to socio-legal analysis draws attention to the need to understand the symbolic effects of legislation as independent drivers of compliance. The modest legal effects of the Crisis and Recovery Act are contrasted with the more sizeable symbolic effects of this legalisation. In addition, the ex-ante evaluation of the Environmental Planning Act shows that the proposed legal changes can only provide a small impetus to the desired culture change, nonetheless there is potential for areas of this law to have symbolic effects as well. These could potentially contribute independently to its success.


Dr. Friso Johannes Jansen MSc
Friso J. Jansen is Senior Lecturer in Law at Birmingham City University.
Introduction

Access_open Towards Responsible Business Conduct in Global Value Chains: Relevant Legal Developments in the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2019
Trefwoorden responsible business conduct, business and human rights, corporate social responsibility, sustainable development, the Netherlands
Auteurs Liesbeth Enneking en Jeroen Veldman
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The past few decades have seen an increasing scrutiny of the impacts – both positive and negative – that companies have on the societies in which they operate. The search for adequate responses to such scrutiny is reflected in developments in the societal, political and academic debate on three separate but interrelated concepts: corporate social responsibility, business and human rights and responsible business conduct. The focus in this Special Issue will be on law and policy relating to responsible business conduct in global value chains. The contributions in this Special Issue identify relevant developments and institutions in the Netherlands, including rules and regulations related to trade, investment and corporate governance as well as cases related to corporate and consumer responsibilities, and assess their role in relation to the potential to provide a positive response to the concern about the human and environmental impacts of business activities. Together, they provide a multi-perspective view of relevant gaps and/or best practices with regard to regulatory governance in the Netherlands while at the same time enabling a comparative debate on the extent to which these diverse developments and institutions are in line with stated policy goals in this context both at national and EU levels. In doing so, this Special Issue aims to contribute to further coherence between national and EU policies with regard to RBC in global value chains and sustainable development.


Liesbeth Enneking
Liesbeth Enneking is Professor of Legal Aspects of International Corporate Social Responsibility at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Jeroen Veldman
Jeroen Veldman is Visiting Professor at the Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation at Mines ParisTech in Paris, France and Honorary Senior Visiting Fellow at Cass Business School in London, UK.
Article

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

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

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


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

Access_open Matchmaking International Commercial Courts and Lawyers’ Preferences in Europe

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden choice of court, commercial court, lawyers’ preferences, survey on lawyers, international court
Auteurs Erlis Themeli
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands have taken concrete steps to design and develop international commercial courts. Most of the projects claim to be building courts that match the preferences of court users. They also try to challenge England and Wales, which evidence suggests is the most attractive jurisdiction in the EU. For the success of these projects, it is important that their proposed courts corresponds with the expectations of the parties, but also manages to attract some of the litigants that go to London. This article argues that lawyers are the most important group of choice makers, and that their preferences are not sufficiently matched by the new courts. Lawyers have certain litigation service and court perception preferences. And while the new courts improve their litigation service, they do not sufficiently addressed these court perception preferences.


Erlis Themeli
Postdoc, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Objets trouvés

Leidt terugtred van de wetgever tot een opmars van rechterlijke rechtsvorming en afbraak van democratische waarden?

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 3 2019
Trefwoorden Terugtred, Rechtsvorming, Tegendemocratie, Deparlementarisering, Primaat
Auteurs Prof. dr. R.A.J. van Gestel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Recentelijk heeft de Raad van State gewaarschuwd dat het primaat van de wetgever wordt uitgehold door het regeren bij akkoord, gebruik van kaderwetgeving, experimentwetgeving en private regelgeving. Dat zou leiden tot een opmars van rechtsvorming door de rechter waardoor het primaat van de wetgever nog verder wordt aangetast. In deze bijdrage wordt echter verdedigd dat herstel van het primaat van de wetgever waarschijnlijk onmogelijk is en dat een grotere nadruk op rechterlijke rechtsvorming in het licht van de democratietheorie van Rosanvallon evengoed kan worden gezien als een zegen voor de democratie.


Prof. dr. R.A.J. van Gestel
Prof. dr. R.A.J. (Rob) van Gestel is hoogleraar Regulering en Juridische methoden en technieken aan de Tilburg Law School.
Artikel

Het grondrecht op collectief onderhandelen van zelfstandigen versus het Europese mededingingsrecht

Tijdschrift Arbeidsrechtelijke Annotaties, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Mededingingsrecht, Zelfstandige, Cao-exceptie, Vrijheid van vakvereniging, Recht op collectief onderhandelen
Auteurs Mr. R.F. Hoekstra
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In dit artikel staat centraal dat de beperking van de door het Hof van Justitie geformuleerde ‘cao-exceptie’ op het Europese mededingingsrecht tot ‘werknemers’ en ‘schijnzelfstandigen’ zich moeilijk tot een grondrechtenbenadering lijkt te verhouden. Zelfstandigen met een zwakke arbeidsmarktpositie hebben namelijk evenzeer behoefte aan collectieve middelen om hun arbeidsvoorwaarden te verbeteren en vallen ook onder grondrechtenverdragen. Door een uitgebreide beschouwing van de relevante rechtsinstrumenten van de VN, de IAO en de Raad van Europa en de uitleg die de toezichtorganen hieraan geven blijkt dat het grondrecht op vrijheid van (vak)vereniging, collectief onderhandelen en collectieve actie evenzeer aan deze groep lijkt toe te komen, en een te rigoureuze inperking vanwege het mededingingsrecht niet gerechtvaardigd wordt geacht. De conclusie bevat enkele gedachten over hoe het Europese mededingingsrecht met een grondrechtenbenadering overeenstemming te brengen. Daarbij passeren zowel de recente ontwikkelingen rondom het zelfstandigenvraagstuk in Nederland als initiatieven op Europees niveau de revue.


Mr. R.F. Hoekstra
Mr. R.F. (Robert) Hoekstra is werkzaam als onderzoeker bij de Wiardi Beckman Stichting Den Haag. Daarnaast is hij als promovendus verbonden aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. Zijn promotieonderzoek ziet op het snijvlak van cao’s en grondrechten.
Annotatie

Annotatie bij de zaak Woodley

Annotatie bij Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba 15 juni 2017, ECLI:NL:OGEABES:2017:14

Tijdschrift Caribisch Juristenblad, Aflevering 4 2018
Trefwoorden civiele rechter
Auteurs Prof. mr. L.J.J. Rogier
Auteursinformatie

Prof. mr. L.J.J. Rogier
Prof. mr. L.J.J. Rogier is hoogleraar staats- en bestuursrecht aan de University of Curaçao en tevens voorzitter en redactielid van het Caribisch Juristenblad.
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.
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

    The German federal court for labour law matters, the Bundesarbeitsgericht (the ‘BAG’), has held that evidence cannot be used in a dismissal lawsuit if the employer has obtained it from long-term surveillance using keylogger-software. Employers must not keep their employees under constant surveillance and must therefore expect their legal position to be weak if they try to dismiss an employee based on findings from such monitoring. The court ruling preceded the ECtHR Barbulescu ruling of 5 September 2017 (featured in EELC 2017/4) in a similar case.


Paul Schreiner
Paul Schreiner is an attorney at law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.

    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.
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.

    This paper discusses three approaches that can be helpful in the area of comparative rights jurisprudence, oriented in reference to three different kinds of studies that are possible in that area. To a large extent the methods for a comparative legal research depend on the research question and the goal of the researcher. First, a comparative law study may focus on the sociocultural context that led to the elaboration of differences or similarities in the protection of rights. Second, a comparative law approach can be a normative enterprise. It can focus on engaging in a philosophical analysis enlightened by the differences or similarities in the regulation of rights, in order to propose concrete solutions for the regulation of a right. Third, a comparative law approach can combine both elements of the two previously mentioned approaches. The paper discusses the challenges that the researcher faces in her attempt to use these methodologies and how these challenges can be overcome. The law as a normative discipline has its own constraints of justifiability. If what motivates a comparative law study is the search for principles of justice the researcher needs to persuade that her methodological approach serves her aim.


Ioanna Tourkochoriti
School of Law, NUI Galway, Ireland.
Toont 1 - 20 van 73 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.