Zoekresultaat: 346 artikelen

x

    La présente contribution vise à analyser les développements jurisprudentiels de la Commission européenne des droits de l’homme et de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme en matière d’interruption de grossesse. Nous formulons une réponse à la question suivante: vu de l’évolution de la jurisprudence, quelles conclusions pouvons-nous tirer sur la position actuelle de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme sur la question du droit et de l’accès à l’avortement? À travers une analyse des décisions et arrêts rendus par la Commission et la Cour, nous étudions la façon dont les différents intérêts et droits s’articulent, à savoir ceux de la femme enceinte, du père potentiel, de l’enfant à naître et de la société. Au terme de cette étude, nous déterminons la marge d’appréciation dont jouissent les états membres en la matière, ainsi que la manière dont la Cour réalise une balance des différents intérêts en présence.
    This contribution aims to analyze the case-law developments of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights in matters of termination of pregnancy. We formulate an answer to the following question: regarding the case-law developments, what can we conclude on the European Court of Human Rights’ current position on the right and access to abortion? Through an analysis of the Commission and the Court’s decisions and judgments, we study how the different interests and rights are articulated, namely those of the pregnant woman, the potential father, the unborn child, and the society. At the end of this study, we determine the member states’ margin of appreciation regarding abortion and how the Court finds a balance between the various concerned interests.


A. Cassiers
Aurélie Cassiers is doctoral assistent at UHasselt. L’auteure souhaite remercier la relecture attentive et les remarques pertinentes de sa promotrice et sa co-promotrice, prof. dr. Charlotte Declerck (UHasselt) et prof. dr. Géraldine Mathieu (UNamur).
Article

Access_open The Right to Claim Innocence in Poland

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden wrongful convictions, right to claim innocence, reopening of criminal proceedings, miscarriage of justice, revision of final judgment
Auteurs Wojciech Jasiński Ph.D., habilitation en Karolina Kremens Ph.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice, their reasons and effects, only rarely become the subject of academic debate in Poland. This article aims at filling this gap and providing a discussion on the current challenges of mechanisms available in Polish law focused on the verification of final judgments based on innocence claims. While there are two procedures designed to move such judgment: cassation and the reopening of criminal proceedings, only the latter aims at the verification of new facts and evidence, and this work remains focused exactly on that issue. The article begins with a case study of the famous Komenda case, which resulted in a successful innocence claim, serving as a good, though rare, example of reopening a case and acquitting the convict immediately and allows for discussing the reasons that commonly stand behind wrongful convictions in Poland. Furthermore, the article examines the innocence claim grounds as regulated in the Polish criminal procedure and their interpretation under the current case law. It also presents the procedure concerning the revision of the case. The work additionally provides the analysis of the use of innocence claim in practice, feeding on the statistical data and explaining tendencies in application for revision of a case. It also presents the efforts of the Polish Ombudsman and NGOs to raise public awareness in that field. The final conclusions address the main challenges that the Polish system faces concerning innocence claims and indicates the direction in which the system should go.


Wojciech Jasiński Ph.D., habilitation
Wojciech Jasiński is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Procedure of the University of Wroclaw, Poland. orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-1474

Karolina Kremens Ph.D.
Karolina Kremens is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Procedure of the University of Wroclaw, Poland. orcid.org/0000-0002-2132-2645
Artikel

Access_open De duistere wereld van hondengevechten

Tijdschrift PROCES, Aflevering 6 2020
Trefwoorden hondengevechten, statushonden, milieuzaken
Auteurs Dr. mr. Anton van Wijk, Dr. Nienke Endenburg, Dr. Daan van Uhm e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Organizing dog fights is prohibited in the Netherlands. In such fights, two dogs have to fight each other, sometimes to the death. The animal suffering behind this is enormous. Little is known in the Netherlands about the phenomenon of dog fighting, both from a scientific point of view and through criminal cases. In this contribution, we outline the world behind dog fights by describing how dog fights work, who are part of the entourage and within which criminal infrastructure the dog fights take place. Finally, the problem is discussed and the current approach by the appropriate authorities is discussed and which gaps can be discovered.


Dr. mr. Anton van Wijk
Dr. mr. Anton van Wijk is criminoloog en directeur van Bureau Beke.

Dr. Nienke Endenburg
Dr. Nienke Endenburg is psycholoog en werkzaam bij de faculteit Diergeneeskunde Universiteit Utrecht.

Dr. Daan van Uhm
Dr. Daan van Uhm is als criminoloog verbonden aan het Willem Pompe Instituut.

Prof. dr. Dina Siegel
Prof. dr. Dina Siegel is hoogleraar Criminologie aan het Willem Pompe Instituut.

    This article focuses on the posting of workers in the aviation industry. The main problem is that it is not clear in which situations the Posting of Workers Directive should be applied to aircrew (i.e. cabin crew and pilots). The aviation sector is characterised by a very mobile workforce in which it is possible for employees to provide services from different countries in a very short timeframe. This makes it, to a certain extent, easier for employers to choose the applicable social legislation, which can lead to detrimental working conditions for their aircrew. This article looks into how the Posting of Workers Directive can prevent some air carriers from unilaterally determining the applicable social legislation and makes some suggestions to end unfair social competition in the sector. This article is based on a research report which the authors drafted in 2019 with funding from the European Commission (hereafter the ‘Report’)


Gautier Busschaert
Gautier Busschaert (PhD) is senior associate at the Brussels law firm Van Olmen & Wynant.

Pieter Pecinovsky
Pieter Pecinovsky (PhD) is counsel at the Brussels law firm Van Olmen & Wynant.
Article

Access_open Mechanisms for Correcting Judicial Errors in Germany

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden criminal proceedings, retrial in favour of the convicted, retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant, Germany, judicial errors
Auteurs Michael Lindemann en Fabienne Lienau
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The article presents the status quo of the law of retrial in Germany and gives an overview of the law and practice of the latter in favour of the convicted and to the disadvantage of the defendant. Particularly, the formal and material prerequisites for a successful petition to retry the criminal case are subject to a detailed presentation and evaluation. Because no official statistics are kept regarding successful retrial processes in Germany, the actual number of judicial errors is primarily the subject of more or less well-founded estimates by legal practitioners and journalists. However, there are a few newer empirical studies devoted to different facets of the subject. These studies will be discussed in this article in order to outline the state of empirical research on the legal reality of the retrial procedure. Against this background, the article will ultimately highlight currently discussed reforms and subject these to a critical evaluation as well. The aim of the recent reform efforts is to add a ground for retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant for cases in which new facts or evidence indicate that the acquitted person was guilty. After detailed discussion, the proposal in question is rejected, inter alia for constitutional reasons.


Michael Lindemann
Michael Lindemann is Professor for Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Criminology at the Faculty of Law of Bielefeld University, Germany.

Fabienne Lienau
Fabienne Lienau is Research Assistant at the Chair held by Michael Lindemann.
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 The Potential of Positive Obligations Against Romaphobic Attitudes and in the Development of ‘Roma Pride’

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Roma, Travellers, positive obligations, segregation, culturally adequate accommodation
Auteurs Lilla Farkas en Theodoros Alexandridis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The article analyses the jurisprudence of international tribunals on the education and housing of Roma and Travellers to understand whether positive obligations can change the hearts and minds of the majority and promote minority identities. Case law on education deals with integration rather than cultural specificities, while in the context of housing it accommodates minority needs. Positive obligations have achieved a higher level of compliance in the latter context by requiring majorities to tolerate the minority way of life in overwhelmingly segregated settings. Conversely, little seems to have changed in education, where legal and institutional reform, as well as a shift in both majority and minority attitudes, would be necessary to dismantle social distance and generate mutual trust. The interlocking factors of accessibility, judicial activism, European politics, expectations of political allegiance and community resources explain jurisprudential developments. The weak justiciability of minority rights, the lack of resources internal to the community and dual identities among the Eastern Roma impede legal claims for culture-specific accommodation in education. Conversely, the protection of minority identity and community ties is of paramount importance in the housing context, subsumed under the right to private and family life.


Lilla Farkas
Lilla Farkas is a practising lawyer in Hungary and recently earned a PhD from the European University Institute entitled ‘Mobilising for racial equality in Europe: Roma rights and transnational justice’. She is the race ground coordinator of the European Union’s Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-discrimination.

Theodoros Alexandridis
Theodoros Alexandridis is a practicing lawyer in Greece.
Artikel

Pro-cycling’s doping pentiti

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden doping, cycling, cultural criminology, crime facilitative system, organisational crime
Auteurs Dr. mr. Roland Moerland en Giulio Soana
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Throughout the last decade several cyclists have published memoirs in which they account for their doping use. In previous literature such autobiographical accounts have been characterized as attempts of fallen sports stars to sanitize their spoiled public image. In contrast, the analysis in this article will show that the accounts are of relevance when it comes to understanding the problem of doping in professional cycling. Their accounts break the omertà regarding doping, providing insights about the motivation and opportunity structures behind doping and how such structures are endemic to the system of professional cycling.


Dr. mr. Roland Moerland
Dr. mr. Roland Moerland is universitair docent criminologie aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Maastricht.

Giulio Soana
Giulio Soana is afgestudeerd Master Forensica, Criminologie en Rechtspleging, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Maastricht.
Artikel

Access to Justice voor 12- tot 16-jarigen bij niet-nakoming van de geneeskundige behandelingsovereenkomst?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Jeugdrecht, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden Access to Justice, minderjarigen, medische behandelingsovereenkomst, formele rechtsingang, artikel 5 IVRK
Auteurs B. Blanckenburg LL.M, I.F.H.M. Gerrits LL.B en Dr. M.P. Sombroek-van Doorm
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Patiënten in de leeftijd van 12 tot 16 jaar moeten, naast hun ouders, op basis van de Wet op de Geneeskundige Behandelingsovereenkomst (WGBO) toestemming geven voor hun medische behandelingsovereenkomst. Maar dit houdt niet in dat de jeugdige tussen de 12 en 16 jaar een zelfstandige toegang tot de rechter toekomt in geval van niet-nakoming van de behandelingsovereenkomst. Is dit in overeenstemming met kinder- en mensenrechten?


B. Blanckenburg LL.M
B. Blanckenburg LL.M is advocaat bij Van Doorn cs advocaten.

I.F.H.M. Gerrits LL.B
I.F.H.M. Gerrits LL.B is masterstudent jeugdrecht aan de Universiteit van Leiden.

Dr. M.P. Sombroek-van Doorm
Dr. M.P. Sombroek-van Doorm is directeur van de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid en benoemd in het Faculteitsbestuur. Verder is zij universitair docent bij de afdeling jeugdrecht en tuchtrechter bij het Regionaal Tuchtcollege voor de gezondheidszorg in Amsterdam.
Titel

Innovatie en betere regelgeving

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 5 2020
Trefwoorden Experimenteerregelgeving, Toekomstbestendigheid, Innovatiebeginsel, Innovatiebeleid
Auteurs Prof. mr. dr. S.H. Ranchordas
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Het innovatiebeginsel is tegenwoordig onderdeel van de geïntegreerde aanpak van de Europese Commissie voor betere regelgeving. Het innovatiebeginsel waarborgt dat bij de ontwikkeling van beleid en wetgeving de gevolgen voor innovatie volledig worden beoordeeld. De impact van nieuwe regels op innovatie wordt ook in Nederland geanalyseerd in het IAK en in het kader van de mkb-toets. Toch blijft de betekenis van het innovatiebeginsel ondoorgrondelijk. De literatuur is tevens terughoudend ten opzichte van de invoering van innovatie als een rechtsbeginsel. Dit artikel geeft aan de hand van interdisciplinaire literatuur een genuanceerd beeld van innovatievriendelijke regelgeving en het innovatiebeginsel. Het gaat in op de juiste interpretatie van het innovatiebeginsel en hoe dit principe kan bijdragen aan het realiseren van betere regelgeving.


Prof. mr. dr. S.H. Ranchordas
Prof. mr. dr. S.H. (Sofia) Ranchordas is adjunct-hoogleraar Europees en vergelijkend publiekrecht en Rosalind Franklin Fellow, Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Artikel

Access_open Teaching Comparative Law, Pragmatically (Not Practically)

Special Issue on Pragmatism and Legal Education, Sanne Taekema & Thomas Riesthuis (eds.)

Tijdschrift Law and Method, oktober 2020
Trefwoorden comparative legal studies, legal education, pragmatism
Auteurs Alexandra Mercescu
Auteursinformatie

Alexandra Mercescu
Alexandra Mercescu, Ph.D is lecturer at the Department of Public Law, University of Timisoara, Romania.
Article

Access_open The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden empirical legal studies, legal research methods, doctrinal legal research, new legal realism, critical legal studies, law and policy
Auteurs Gareth Davies
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article considers how empirical legal studies (ELS) and doctrinal legal research (DLR) interact. Rather than seeing them as competitors that are methodologically independent and static, it suggests that they are interdependent activities, which may each be changed by interaction with the other, and that this change brings both opportunities and threats. For ELS, the article argues that DLR should properly be understood as part of its theoretical framework, yet in practice little attention is given to doctrine in empirical work. Paying more attention to DLR and legal frames generally would help ELS meet the common criticism that it is under-theorised and excessively policy oriented. On the other hand, an embrace of legal thinking, particularly of critical legal thinking, might lead to loss of status for ELS in policy circles and mainstream social science. For DLR, ELS offers a chance for it to escape the threat of insular sterility and irrelevance and to participate in a founded commentary on the world. The risk, however, is that in tailoring legal analysis to what can be empirically researched legal scholars become less analytically ambitious and more safe, and their traditionally important role as a source of socially relevant critique is weakened. Inevitably, in offering different ways of moving to normative conclusions about the law, ELS and DLR pose challenges to each other, and meeting those challenges will require sometimes uncomfortable self-reflection.


Gareth Davies
Gareth Davies is Professor of European Law at the Faculty of Law of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Artikel

Voorbij het polderen in de slimme stad

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden smart city, public values, civil servants, public involvement, anchored pluralism
Auteurs Dr. Jiska Engelbert
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Steering on public values in Dutch smart cities, let alone their regulation, is complicated. This article situates this difficulty in the vested interests that Dutch local authorities have in public-private smart city projects, and in the fact that public values are narrowly defined in relation to the technology; not in relation to a vision for the city in which its communities thrive. A way out of this deadlock, the article proposes, is to understand smart cities in the Netherlands beyond the typically Dutch consensus politics (the ‘polder’) and, instead, as part of a broader (urban) governance tendency to push urban technologies through the recital of fixed urban problems and public values. Consequently, state regulation of the (Dutch) smart city should principally enable (local) public and political involvement in defining urban problems and urban dreams, and thus in deciding the public values that are at stake.


Dr. Jiska Engelbert
Dr. J. Engelbert is als onderzoeker verbonden aan het Centre for BOLD Cities van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open Age Barriers in Healthcare

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden age discrimination, age equality, health care
Auteurs Rachel Horton
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Age limits, minimum and maximum, and both explicit and ‘covert’, are still used in the National Health Service to determine access to a range of health interventions, including infertility services and cancer screening and treatment. Evidence suggests that chronological age is used as a proxy for a host of characteristics in determining access to healthcare: as a proxy for the capacity of an individual to benefit from an intervention; for the type of harm that may result from an intervention; for the likelihood of such benefit or harm occurring; and, in some cases, for other indicators used to determine what may be in the patient’s interest. Age is used as a proxy in this way in making decisions about both individual patients and wider populations; it may be used where no better ‘marker’ for the relevant characteristic exists or – for reasons including cost, practicality or fairness – in preference to other available markers. This article reviews the justifications for using age in this way in the context of the existing legal framework on age discrimination in the provision of public services.


Rachel Horton
Lecturer University of Reading.
Article

Access_open Characteristics of Young Adults Sentenced with Juvenile Sanctions in the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden young adult offenders, juvenile sanctions for young adults, juvenile criminal law, psychosocial immaturity
Auteurs Lise Prop, André van der Laan, Charlotte Barendregt e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since 1 April 2014, young adults aged 18 up to and including 22 years can be sentenced with juvenile sanctions in the Netherlands. This legislation is referred to as ‘adolescent criminal law’ (ACL). An important reason for the special treatment of young adults is their over-representation in crime. The underlying idea of ACL is that some young adult offenders are less mature than others. These young adults may benefit more from pedagogically oriented juvenile sanctions than from the deterrent focus of adult sanctions. Little is known, however, about the characteristics of the young adults sentenced with juvenile sanctions since the implementation of ACL. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the demographic, criminogenic and criminal case characteristics of young adult offenders sentenced with juvenile sanctions in the first year after the implementation of ACL. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a juvenile sanction group and an adult sanction group. Data on 583 criminal cases of young adults, sanctioned from 1 April 2014 up to March 2015, were included. Data were obtained from the Public Prosecution Service, the Dutch Probation Service and Statistics Netherlands. The results showed that characteristics indicating problems across different domains were more prevalent among young adults sentenced with juvenile sanctions. Furthermore, these young adults committed a greater number of serious offences compared with young adults who were sentenced with adult sanctions. The findings of this study provide support for the special treatment of young adult offenders in criminal law as intended by ACL.


Lise Prop
Lise Prop is researcher at the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), Den Haag, the Netherlands.

André van der Laan
André van der Laan is senior researcher at the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), Den Haag, the Netherlands.

Charlotte Barendregt
Charlotte Barendregt is senior advisor at the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen
Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen is professor at Tilburg University, and treatment manager at the Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
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 Age Limits in Law: Between Behavioural Science and Human Rights

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden age limits, behavioural science, human rights, age, juvenile justice
Auteurs Frank Weerman en Jolande uit Beijerse
Auteursinformatie

Frank Weerman
Frank Weerman is endowed professor Youth Criminology at the Erasmus School of Law and senior researcher at the NSCR (Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement).

Jolande uit Beijerse
Jolande uit Beijerse is associate professor Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at the Erasmus School of Law.
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 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.
Toont 1 - 20 van 346 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 17 18
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.