Zoekresultaat: 125 artikelen

x
Artikel

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Practice

A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Courts

Tijdschrift Handicap & Recht, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden CRPD, disabilities, discrimination, court, human rights
Auteurs Prof. Dr. L.B. Waddington en Dr. A.C. Broderick
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    On the 25th and 26th October 2018, the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University hosted a conference on The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Practice: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Courts. This article presents some of the key findings of the conference and summarises several of the speakers’ contributions to the conference.


Prof. Dr. L.B. Waddington
Prof. Dr. L.B. (Lisa) Waddington is European Disability Forum Chair in European Disability Law, Maastricht University.

Dr. A.C. Broderick
Dr. A.C. (Andrea) Broderick is Assistant Professor at Maastricht University.
Artikel

Access_open De geografische inrichting van de rechtspraak

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden courts, civil justice, access to justice, judicial map, travel distances
Auteurs Roland Eshuis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article relates the geographical allocation of Courts to access to justice. Travel distances within the Dutch system are higher than in surrounding countries, but still not extremely high. The scale of the Dutch Court organizations however, is extreme. On average, a Court location that handles small claims has jurisdiction over a territory with over half a million inhabitants. This large number of inhabitants automatically translates to large numbers of cases, and large bureaucracies, employing 500 to 1,000 people (judges, court staff, support) each. Do travel distances to the Courts actually have an impact on the use of the Court system? Two recent studies find no support for a popular belief that defendants will be less determined to defend themselves when the travel distance to the court is longer. They do show however that the number of cases brought to Court by local plaintiffs drops when ‘their’ local court closes down.


Roland Eshuis
Dr. R.J.J. Eshuis is als onderzoeker verbonden aan het WODC.
Artikel

De Rijdende Rechter als rolmodel

Hoe reality televisie het beeld van de rechtspraak beïnvloedt

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden The Iterant Judge, Dutch television, American tv judges, Low threshold courts, Binding dispute solution
Auteurs Mr. Annerie Smolders
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The tremendously popular television programme De Rijdende Rechter (The Itinerant Judge) has an uncomfortable relationship with official legal practice. Many people indeed think that the itinerant judge who arrives in their street to personally check neighbourly grievances has come as a representative of the Law with a capital L. It is not clear where reality TV stops and current legal practice begins. Things have become more complicated because the itinerant judge has become a symbol of the ‘close-to-the-people’ judge that is embraced by legal practice today. In this article the murky boundary between TV judges and official judiciary is investigated, taking into account the cult status of the itinerant judge, the effect of imagination on reality, similar phenomena in the United States and the current situation in the Netherlands.


Mr. Annerie Smolders
Mr. A. Smolders is publicist en voormalig rechter. Zij richt zich, onder meer als gastonderzoeker bij het Nederlands Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving (NSCR), op de verhouding tussen rechter en algemeen publiek, met als doel het publieke debat hierover te verbreden en van meer context te voorzien.
Artikel

Access_open Van Middelburg tot Almelo. Het hoe en waarom van prejudiciële vragen aan het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie door Nederlandse lagere rechters

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Prejudiciële procedure, Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie, Nationale rechters, Motieven om te verwijzen, rechtspolitiek
Auteurs Dr. Jasper Krommendijk LLM
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie heeft baanbrekende uitspraken gedaan, vooral als gevolg van prejudiciële vragen van nationale rechters op grond van art. 267 VWEU. Het zijn vooral niet-verwijzingsplichtige lagere rechters geweest die voor deze aanvoer hebben gezorgd. Dit artikel onderzoekt hoe dit kan worden verklaard en kijkt naar de motieven van Nederlandse lagere rechters om al dan niet prejudiciële vragen te stellen aan het HvJ. Het doet dit op basis van interviews met 22 rechters en een uitgebreide juridische analyse van uitspraken. Dit artikel toont aan dat met name pragmatische en praktische overwegingen een rol spelen bij het besluit om te verwijzen. Daarnaast laat dit artikel zien dat er meer verschillen zijn binnen een lidstaat dan tussen lidstaten onderling, met name tussen gerechtelijke instanties en individuele rechters.

    The Court of Justice of the European Union has rendered landmark cases, especially following references for a preliminary ruling from national courts on the basis of Art. 267 TFEU. Primarily lower courts that are not obliged to refer have been responsible for such cases. This article examines how these references of lower courts can be explained by focusing on the motives of the Dutch lower court judges to refer, or not to refer. It does so on the basis of interviews with 22 judges and an extensive legal analysis of judgments. This article shows that practical and pragmatic considerations play an important role in the court’s decision to refer. In addition, there are more differences within one Member States than between EU Member States, especially between particular courts and individual judges.


Dr. Jasper Krommendijk LLM
Jasper Krommendijk is universitair docent Europees recht aan de Radboud Universiteit.
Article

Access_open Right to Access Information as a Collective-Based Approach to the GDPR’s Right to Explanation in European Law

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden automated decision-making, right to access information, right to explanation, prohibition on discrimination, public information
Auteurs Joanna Mazur
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article presents a perspective which focuses on the right to access information as a mean to ensure a non-discriminatory character of algorithms by providing an alternative to the right to explanation implemented in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). I adopt the evidence-based assumption that automated decision-making technologies have an inherent discriminatory potential. The example of a regulatory means which to a certain extent addresses this problem is the approach based on privacy protection in regard to the right to explanation. The Articles 13-15 and 22 of the GDPR provide individual users with certain rights referring to the automated decision-making technologies. However, the right to explanation not only may have a very limited impact, but it also focuses on individuals thus overlooking potentially discriminated groups. Because of this, the article offers an alternative approach on the basis of the right to access information. It explores the possibility of using this right as a tool to receive information on the algorithms determining automated decision-making solutions. Tracking an evolution of the interpretation of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Right and Fundamental Freedoms in the relevant case law aims to illustrate how the right to access information may become a collective-based approach towards the right to explanation. I consider both, the potential of this approach, such as its more collective character e.g. due to the unique role played by the media and NGOs in enforcing the right to access information, as well as its limitations.


Joanna Mazur
Joanna Mazur, M.A., PhD student, Faculty of Law and Administration, Uniwersytet Warszawski.

Peter Mascini
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law. Corresponding author. Sanders building, 7 West, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pmascini@gmail.com.

Wibo van Rossum
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law.
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.
Article

Access_open Empirical Legal Research in Europe: Prevalence, Obstacles, and Interventions

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden empirical legal research, Europe, popularity, increase, journals
Auteurs Gijs van Dijck, Shahar Sverdlov en Gabriela Buck
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Empirical Legal research (ELR) has become well established in the United States, whereas its popularity in Europe is debatable. This article explores the popularity of ELR in Europe. The authors carried out an empirical analysis of 78 European-based law journals, encompassing issues from 2008-2017. The findings demonstrate that a supposed increase of ELR is questionable (at best).
    Moreover, additional findings highlight:

    • An increase for a few journals, with a small number of other journals showing a decrease over time;

    • A higher percentage of empirical articles for extra-legal journals than for legal journals (average proportion per journal is 4.6 percent for legal journals, 18.9 percent for extra-legal journals);

    • Criminal justice journals, environmental journals, and economically oriented journals being more likely to publish empirical articles than other journals;

    • More prestigious journals being more likely to publish empirical articles than less-prestigious journals;

    • Older journals being more likely to publish empirical work than younger journals, but not at an increasing rate;

    • Journals being legal/extra-legal, journals in a specific field, journal ranking, or the age of the journal not making it more (or less) likely that the journal will publish empirical articles at an increasing (or decreasing) rate.
      Considering the lack of convincing evidence indicating an increase of ELR, we identify reasons for why ELR is seemingly becoming more popular but not resulting in more empirical research in Europe. Additionally, we explore interventions for overcoming the obstacles ELR currently faces.


Gijs van Dijck
Professor of Private Law at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

Shahar Sverdlov
Law student at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Gabriela Buck
Law student at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
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.
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.
Artikel

De afnemende rol van de rechtspraak: is vervanging van de rechter mogelijk en wenselijk?

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 4 2018
Trefwoorden judges, marginalization, administrative bodies, truth finding, legal protection
Auteurs Mr. dr. Marijke Malsch
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The last decades have shown a tendency in which tasks are transferred from the judge to other authorities, such as the police and public prosecutor, administrative bodies, administrative procedures, or private parties. The central question in this article is whether these authorities can really replace the court. A comparison is made between legal proceedings and procedures for other authorities on the following aspects: truth finding, openness and legal protection of the (vulnerable) citizen. The author also discusses a recent legislative proposal for an own budget for the Judiciary, which aims to strengthen the independence of the judge towards the two other state powers. It is argued that the courts should be also accessible in the case of relatively small offenses and for vulnerable citizens.


Mr. dr. Marijke Malsch
Mr. dr. M. Malsch is senior onderzoeker bij het Nederlands Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving (NSCR), raadsheer-plaatsvervanger in het Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch en rechter-plaatsvervanger bij de Rechtbank Noord-Holland.
Artikel

Access_open Crisis in the Courtroom

The Discursive Conditions of Possibility for Ruptures in Legal Discourse

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden crisis discourse, rupture, counterterrorism, precautionary logic, risk
Auteurs Laura M. Henderson
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article addresses the conditions of possibility for the precautionary turn in legal discourse. Although the precautionary turn itself has been well-detailed in both legal and political discourse, insufficient attention has been paid to what made this shift possible. This article remedies this, starting by showing how the events of 9/11 were unable to be incorporated within current discursive structures. As a result, these discursive structures were dislocated and a new ‘crisis discourse’ emerged that succeeded in attributing meaning to the events of 9/11. By focusing on three important cases from three different jurisdictions evidencing the precautionary turn in legal discourse, this article shows that crisis discourse is indeed employed by the judiciary and that its logic made this precautionary approach to counterterrorism in the law possible. These events, now some 16 years ago, hold relevance for today’s continuing presence of crisis and crisis discourse.


Laura M. Henderson
Laura M. Henderson is a researcher at UGlobe, the Utrecht Centre for Global Challenges, at Utrecht University. She wrote this article as a Ph.D. candidate at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    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.

Dr. Beatriz Barreiro Carril
Lecturer of International Law (Rey Juan Carlos University).

    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.

Kristin Henrard Ph.D.
Kristin Henrard is professor minorities and fundamental rights in the department of International and EU law of the Erasmus School of Law in the Netherlands.

Jeremie Gilbert
Jeremie Gilbert is professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Roehampton in the UK.
Artikel

Grensoverschrijdende bewijsverkrijging door de Nederlandse rechter in strijd met buitenlandse wettelijke geheimhoudingsplichten

Lessen uit de Amerikaanse discovery-praktijk

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden grensoverschrijdende bewijsverkrijging, geheimhouding, comitas, inzage
Auteurs Mr. R. Jansen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Deze bijdrage bespreekt een mogelijk internationaal gevolg van het advies Modernisering burgerlijk bewijsrecht. Uit Amerikaanse federale jurisprudentie blijkt dat partijen in een spagaat kunnen belanden, wanneer hun wederpartij hen kan verplichten om informatie te verstrekken waarop een buitenlandse wettelijke geheimhoudingsplicht rust. De auteur beschrijft de afweging die federale rechters maken bij het beoordelen van een inzageverzoek. Deze blijkt soortgelijk te zijn aan een beoordeling onder art. 843a Rv. Zijns inziens bestaat hierdoor de kans dat de Nederlandse rechter onvoldoende gewicht toekent aan een buitenlandse geheimhoudingsplicht. De comitas-leer zou de rechter ertoe kunnen bewegen om het inzageverzoek via de internationale bewijsverkrijgingsregelingen te laten verlopen.


Mr. R. Jansen
Mr. R. Jansen is als promovendus verbonden aan het departement Privaatrecht van Tilburg University, waar hij onderzoek verricht naar de rol van buitenlandse verschoningsrechten in civiele procedures en de invloed van de comitas-leer.
Article

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

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

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


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

Access_open Administering Justice and Serving the People

The Tension between the Objective of Judicial Efficiency and Informal Justice in Canadian Access to Justice Initiatives

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden access to justice, procedural law, courts, civil justice reform, comparative law
Auteurs Catherine Piché
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Canada has a complex system of courts that seek to serve Canadians in view of the traditional objectives of civil justice – principally accessibility, efficiency, fairness, efficacy, proportionality and equality. The Canadian court system is generally considered by its users to work well and to have legitimacy. Yet, researchers have found that ‘there is a tendency for people involved in a civil case to become disillusioned about the ability of the system to effect a fair and timely resolution to a civil justice problem’. This article will discuss the ways in which reforms of procedural law and civil justice have originated and continue to be made throughout Canada, both nationally and provincially, as well as the trends and influences in making these reforms. With hundreds of contemporary procedural reforms having been discussed, proposed and/or completed since the first days of Canadian colonisation on a national basis and in the Canadian provinces and territory, providing a detailed analysis will prove challenging. This article will nonetheless provide a review of civil justice and procedural reform issues in Canada, focusing principally, at the provincial level, on the systems of Ontario and Quebec. Importantly, I will seek to reconcile the increasing willingness to have an economically efficient civil justice and the increased power of judges in managing cases, with our court system’s invasion of ADR and its prioritisation of informal modes of adjudication.


Catherine Piché
Dr. Prof. Catherine Piché, Université de Montreal.
Article

Access_open A Critical Appraisal of the Role of Retribution in Malawian Sentencing Jurisprudence

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden sentencing, retribution, just deserts, punishment, Malawi
Auteurs Esther Gumboh
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The theory of retribution is a central tenet in Malawian sentencing jurisprudence. Courts have given expression to retribution in various ways, most conspicuously through the recognition of the principle of proportionality as the most important principle in sentencing. Retribution has permeated courts’ consideration of certain sentencing factors such as the seriousness of the offence, family obligations and public opinion. Overall, retribution rightly plays a pivotal role in Malawian sentencing jurisprudence by elevating the principle of proportionality to the most important principle in sentencing. Malawian courts have also noted that whether in pursuit of retribution or utilitarianism, the ultimate objective is to arrive at a sentence that is just and fair in relation to the crime and the offender. This also ensures that the sentence imposed does not offend the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.


Esther Gumboh
Esther Gumboh is a postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Toont 1 - 20 van 125 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7
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.