Zoekresultaat: 28 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Jaar 2015 x Rubriek Article x

    In this paper, an attempt is made to work out a methodology for comparative legal research, which goes beyond the ‘functional method’ or methodological scepticism.
    The starting point is the idea that we need a ‘toolbox’, not a fixed methodological road map, and that a lot of published, but largely unnoticed, research outside rule and case oriented comparative law offers varying approaches, which could usefully be applied in comparative research. Six methods have been identified: the functional method, the structural one, the analytical one, the law-in-context method, the historical method, and the common core method. Basically, it is the aim of the research and the research question that will determine which methods could be useful. Moreover, different methods may be combined, as they are complementary and not mutually exclusive.This paper focuses on scholarly comparative legal research, not on the use of foreign law by legislators or courts, but, of course, the methodological questions and answers will largely overlap.


Mark Van Hoecke
Professor of Comparative Law at Queen Mary University of London, and Professor of Legal Theory and Comparative Law at Ghent University
Artikel

Politie en burgers: van informatie delen naar volwaardige samenwerking

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 0304 2015
Trefwoorden gebiedsgebonden politiewerk, burgerparticipatie, sociale media, participatieladder
Auteurs José Kerstholt, Arnout de Vries en Mirjam Huis in ’t Veld
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Community oriented policing (COP) can be seen as a co-production between citizens and police (and other stakeholders) in increasing public safety. There is a broad range of projects to cooperate with citizens. We ordered these projects along two dimensions: level of co-production (informing/consulting, advising and co-creation) and domain (prevention, law and order, investigation and quality of life). Today, most initiatives are at the lowest rungs (informing and consulting), but social media provide new possibilities to involve citizens in a more direct and fast way. The effects of the various projects are mostly limited to psycho-social factors like experienced safety, feelings of control and legitimacy. However recent studies show that these factors may have an indirect effect on crime rate. Furthermore, as reducing crime rate was not the only goal for introducing COP effect studies should not be limited to crime rate but incorporate a broad range of indicators.


José Kerstholt
José Kerstholt is werkzaam bij TNO Soesterberg, Universiteit Twente te Enschede.

Arnout de Vries
Arnout de Vries is werkzaam bij TNO Soesterberg, Universiteit Twente te Enschede.

Mirjam Huis in ’t Veld
Mirjam Huis in ’t Veld is werkzaam bij TNO Soesterberg, Universiteit Twente te Enschede.
Article

Access_open Cutting Corners or Enhancing Efficiency?

Simplified Procedures and the Israeli Quest to Speed up Justice

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2015
Trefwoorden Israel, austerity, civil procedure, simplified procedures, small claims
Auteurs Ehud Brosh
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Israel was spared the worst of the world financial crisis of 2008-2009. However, austerity concerns are by no means invisible in the developments in the field of civil procedure. These concerns correlate heavily with the long-standing Israeli preoccupation with ‘speeding up’ justice. An array of simplified procedural tracks, aimed at addressing the perceived inadequacy of ‘standard’ procedure, have been developed in Israel over the years. The importance of simplified procedures in the Israeli system cannot be overestimated. Their development illustrates the dialectical tension between the values of ‘efficiency’ and ‘quality’ in the administration of justice. During periods of austerity, the scales are easily (or easier) tipped in favour of efficiency and general or particular simplification of procedure. In times of prosperity, on the other hand, concerns over ‘quality’, access to justice, and truth discovery predominate, and attempts at promoting efficiency and/or simplification at their expense tend to be bogged down. Such attempts also tend to lose their extrinsic legitimacy and are widely viewed as ‘cutting corners’. This is evident in the recent Israeli experience with civil procedure reform.


Ehud Brosh
Ehud Brosh, LL.M., is a research student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    In her reply to critics, Jean Cohen responds to some of the main criticisms and remarks raised by the respondents.


Professor Jean L. Cohen
Jean L. Cohen is the Nell and Herbert M. Singer Professor of Political Thought and Contemporary Civilization at the Department of Political Science of Columbia University (New York) and will be the Emile Noel Fellow at the Jean Monet Center of the NYU Law School from January till June 2016.
Artikel

Access_open Freedom of Religion, Inc.: Whose Sovereignty?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden accommodation, freedom of religion, political theology, liberalism, liberty of conscience
Auteurs Jean L. Cohen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article focuses on an expansive conception of religious freedom propagated by a vocal group of American legal scholars – jurisdictional pluralists – often working with well-funded conservative foundations and influencing accommodation decisions throughout the US. I show that the proliferation of ‘accommodation’ claims in the name of church autonomy and religious conscience entailing exemption from civil regulation and anti-discrimination laws required by justice have a deep structure that has little to do with fairness or inclusion or liberal pluralism. Instead they are tantamount to sovereignty claims, involving powers and immunities for the religious, implicitly referring to another, higher law and sovereign than the constitution or the people. The twenty-first century version of older pluralist ‘freedom of religion’ discourses also rejects the comprehensive jurisdiction and scope of public, civil law – this time challenging the ‘monistic sovereignty’ of the democratic constitutional state. I argue that the jurisdictional pluralist approach to religious freedom challenges liberal democratic constitutionalism at its core and should be resisted wherever it arises.


Jean L. Cohen
Jean L. Cohen is the Nell and Herbert M. Singer Professor of Political Thought and Contemporary Civilization at the Department of Political Science of Columbia University (New York) and will be the Emile Noel Fellow at the Jean Monet Center of the NYU Law School from January till June 2016.
Artikel

Access_open Group Pluralism versus Group Accommodation

A Commentary on Jean Cohen

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden group pluralism, multiculturalism, religious accommodation
Auteurs Avigail Eisenberg
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this paper, I sharply distinguish between religious group-based pluralism and religious accommodation, which are each reflected in the cases examined in Jean Cohen’s paper and thereby provide a clearer understanding of different kinds of challenges to protecting religious freedom today and explain how these two approaches sometimes pull interpretations of religious freedom in different directions.


Avigail Eisenberg
Avigail Eisenberg is Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Victoria, Canada.
Artikel

The legacy and current relevance of Cappelletti and the Florence project on access to justice

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden definition and dimensions access to justice, recommendations, historic context access to justice, current context access to justice
Auteurs Bernard Hubeau
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution explains what access to justice can encompass and how the ideals about access to justice have developed in time. The way to do this is going back to the work of the famous scholars Cappelletti and Garth, who were responsible for a worldwide project on access to justice in the 1970s. Their main issue was to explain access to justice is more than the access to a judge and the organization of courts. Primarily, the system must be equally accessible to all, irrespective of social or economic status or other incapacity. But it also must lead to results that are individually and socially just and fair. Equal access and effective access are the central notions. Their work is put in perspective. The importance of their legacy and the question how we can get along with their work are stressed. Their definition is compared to a few other authoritative definitions. The waves in the history of access to justice are described and putting them in the current context illustrates why a fourth waved can be observed. The major question to be answered is how one can assess the challenges and obstacles of access to justice in the current context. Therefore, some recent dimensions and developments within access to justice are presented: the democratic dimension, the effectiveness of new social rights, the attention for poor and vulnerable people, further juridification, expanding frontiers of and monitoring access to justice, e-justice, and self-help. Finally, a few building blocks for reforms are presented.


Bernard Hubeau
Bernard Hubeau is a full-time Professor in Sociology and Sociology of Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Antwerp. He also teaches at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Antwerp and the Faculty of Law and Criminology of the University of Brussels. He is the former ombudsman of the city of Antwerp and of the Flemish Parliament.
Artikel

The preliminary reference procedure: challenge or opportunity?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden preliminary reference procedure, empowerment, EU law, Court of Justice EU
Auteurs Jos Hoevenaars
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution approaches the theme of access to justice from an EU law perspective and deals with the question: to what extent can the preliminary reference procedure serve as an empowering tool for individuals and civil society? The first part of the contribution deals with the structure of the EU legal system and the theoretically empowering function of preliminary references. Based on interviews with litigants and their counsellors, the second part deals with this notion from a sociological and empirical perspective. The analysis reveals the practical obstacles to realizing ones rights by preliminary references, and thus nuances the empowerment thesis found both among legal- and political sciences theories as well as in the legitimating rhetoric by propagators of the EU legal system.


Jos Hoevenaars
Jos Hoevenaars holds a Master’s degree in Sociology from the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Sociology of Law/Centre for Migration Law of the Radboud University of Nijmegen. In his research, he studies individual litigation in the European legal system, with a specific focus on the preliminary reference procedure.

    The paper aims at justifying an interpretation of Dworkin’s theory of Law as Integrity that brings it closer to philosophical pragmatism despite his rejection of legal pragmatism. In order to achieve this aim, this work employs a classification of philosophical commitments that define pragmatism in a broad and in a narrow sense and shows that legal pragmatism follows the main thinkers of pragmatism in the narrow sense in committing to instrumentalism. The attribution of a pragmatist character to Dworkin’s theory of law rests on the idea that the adoption of a commitment to instrumentalism is not implicated by its adoption of other pragmatist commitments.


Thiago Lopes Decat
Thiago Lopes Decat, Ph.D., is Adjunct Professor at the Department of Propedeutic and Critical Disciplines of the Faculdade de Direito Milton Campos, Nova Lima, Brazil.
Artikel

Het verbod op het neef-nichthuwelijk

Opvattingen van Turkse en Marokkaanse Nederlanders

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 4 2015
Trefwoorden cousin marriage, Turkish and Moroccan Dutch, forced marriages, personal freedom, migration policy
Auteurs J. Priem MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article describes the attitudes of Turkish and Moroccan Dutch regarding cousin marriages, using two qualitative studies. Last year the Lower House of the Dutch parliament passed a bill involving a ban of cousin marriages. The main reason for the ban is that many of these marriages are supposed to be concluded forcibly. The new law will mostly affect immigrant groups, since such marriages occur frequently in this population. This article describes the significance for the enforceability of the ban for these groups as well as the attitudes towards cousin marriage. Legitimacy problems seem to arise because a part of the Turkish and Moroccan Dutch respondents feel that the state should not interfere with the individual choice for a marriage partner. Yet there is also evidence for regulatory compliance on normative grounds, even among those who oppose the bans, due to democratic procedures and religious norms.


J. Priem MSc
Josanne Priem MSc voltooide onlangs haar master Sociologie Grootstedelijke Vraagstukken en Beleid aan de Erasmus Universiteit te Rotterdam.
Artikel

Onafhankelijkheid en regulerende bevoegdheden van markttoezichthouders in EU-perspectief

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden legaliteitsbeginsel, onafhankelijk markttoezicht, zelfstandig bestuursorgaan
Auteurs Prof. dr. S. Lavrijssen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In deze bijdrage staat de vraag centraal of en hoe Europese onafhankelijkheidsvereisten in overeenstemming zijn met het legaliteitsbeginsel en het democratiebeginsel, en of deze beginselen ook op een andere wijze kunnen of moeten worden ingevuld, gelet op de Europese ontwikkelingen inzake markttoezicht. De Europese eisen inzake de onafhankelijkheid van markttoezicht houden enerzijds in dat de toezichthouder onafhankelijk moet zijn en anderzijds dat de toezichthouder ook tot op zekere hoogte onafhankelijk moet zijn van de nationale politiek. Dit laatste element roept de vraag op of zich dat verdraagt met de Nederlandse invulling van het legaliteitsbeginsel, namelijk het primaat van de wetgever. Deze vraag wordt bevestigend beantwoord, omdat zowel het democratiebeginsel als het legaliteitsbeginsel ruimte laat voor een andere invulling dan de traditionele, mits wordt gewaarborgd dat burgers inspraak hebben en dat de autoriteit verantwoording schuldig is aan de rechter. Daarnaast nopen Europese ontwikkelingen bij markttoezicht ook tot een andere invulling.


Prof. dr. S. Lavrijssen
Prof. dr. S. Lavrijssen is hoogleraar consument en energierecht aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam en verbonden aan het Tilburg Law and Economics Center van Tilburg University.
Artikel

Jeugddelinquentie in vergelijkend perspectief

Vertellen micro- en macroanalyses hetzelfde verhaal?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden cross-national criminology, juvenile delinquency, theoretical integration, self-report survey, theory-testing
Auteurs Chris Marshall PhD en Prof. Ineke Haen Marshall
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article presents a micro- and a macro-level analysis of predictors of delinquency in order to contribute to the discussion about the micro-macro problem in criminology. We use Coleman’s boat (1990) to situate our research question. Individual theories dominate the field of delinquency, there are few theories at macro level. Cross-level theoretical integration primarily takes place between individual (micro) and community (meso) levels, and hardly ever on (national) macro level. Our question is to which extent macro-level theory fruitfully may use concepts drawn from micro-level theory. We test a micro and a macro model using indicators from the domains of family, school, friends/peers and economy, using data collected by the Second International Self-Report Study of Delinquency (ISRD2), a cross-national self-report survey of delinquency and victimization among students between 12 and 16 years in 30 countries (n=71.436). Dependent variable at micro level is versatility (last year), at the macro level (national) we use contacts with the police for youths under 18. Results confirm the importance of including macro context (country clusters) in the analysis of individual delinquency. We further conclude that factors related to family and friends correlate at both micro and macro level with measures of delinquency; the role of school and economic factors is less clear-cut. The article concludes with the recommendation to give the micro-macro problem in delinquency theory a more central and explicit position in research programs.


Chris Marshall PhD
C.E. Marshall, PhD is Associate Professor bij de School of Criminology and Criminal Justice van de University of Nebraska-Omaha (VS).

Prof. Ineke Haen Marshall
Prof. I. Haen Marshall is Professor bij de School of Criminology and Criminal Justice en de Department of Sociology & Anthropology van de Northeastern University in Boston (VS).
Artikel

Access_open Terug naar het begin: Een onderzoek naar het principe van constituerende macht

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden constituent power, legitimacy, representation, collective action, ontology
Auteurs Nora Timmermans Ph.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In dit artikel argumenteer ik dat er twee mogelijke invullingen zijn voor het principe van constituerende macht. De eerste mogelijkheid is deze van de klassieke basisveronderstelling van de constitutionele democratie, namelijk dat de gemeenschap zelf vorm kan en moet geven aan de fundamentele regels die die gemeenschap beheersen. Hans Lindahl maakt een interessante analyse van deze traditionele invulling, die ik kritisch zal benaderen. Lindahl heeft immers zelf scherpe kritiek op de invulling die Antonio Negri aan het concept constituerende macht geeft. Mijn interpretatie gaat er echter van uit dat Negri een fundamenteel andere inhoud geeft aan het principe van constituerende macht, waarbij constituerende macht niet alleen wordt losgemaakt van het constitutionalisme, maar meer algemeen van elk rechtssysteem en zelfs van elke vorm van finaliteit. Deze argumentatie werpt een nieuw licht op het debat rond Negri’s theorie van constituerende macht, waarin diens meest fundamentele uitgangspunt vaak over het hoofd wordt gezien.


Nora Timmermans Ph.D.
Nora Timmermans is Master in Philosophy and currently a Ph.D. Student.
Artikel

Access_open The Casuistry of International Criminal Law: Exploring A New Field of Research

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden international criminal law, judicial reasoning, casuistry, genocide
Auteurs Marjolein Cupido
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    International criminal courts have made an important contribution to the development of international criminal law. Through case law, the courts have fine-tuned and modernized outdated concepts of international crimes and liability theories. In studying this practice, scholars have so far focused on the judicial interpretation of statutory and customary rules, thereby paying little attention to the rules’ application in individual cases. In this article, I reveal the limitations of this approach and illustrate how insights from casuistry can advance international criminal law discourse. In particular, I use the example of genocide to show that casuistic case law analyses can help scholars clarify the meaning of the law and appraise the application of substantive legal concepts in individual cases. Based on these observations, I argue that scholars should complement their current research with studies into the casuistry of international criminal law.


Marjolein Cupido
Marjolein Cupido is Assistant Professor at the Department of Criminal Law at VU University Amsterdam and fellow of the Center for International Criminal Justice.
Artikel

Access_open Kelsen, Secular Religion, and the Problem of Transcendence

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden Kelsen, secular religion, Voegelin, Schmitt, transcendence
Auteurs professor Bert van Roermund
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    An alleged ‘return to religion’ in contemporary western politics (and science) prompted the Trustees of the Hans Kelsen Institut to posthumously publish Kelsen’s critique of the concept of ‘secular religion’ advanced by his early student Eric Voegelin. This paper identifies, firstly, what concept of transcendence is targeted by Kelsen, and argues that his analysis leaves scope for other conceptions. It does so in two steps: it summarizes the arguments against ‘secular religion’ (section 2) and it gives an account of the differences between Voegelin’s and Schmitt’s conception of transcendence – both under attack from Kelsen (section 3). It then submits an alternative account of the relationship between politics and religion in Modernity, building on the concept of a ‘civil religion’ as found in Rousseau’s Social Contract. Giving a Rousseauist slant to Claude Lefort’s analysis of political theology (section 4) it concludes that a thin concept of transcendence is part and parcel of every, in particular a democratic, account of politics. It should be a stronghold against any resurgence of religion that feeds on hypostatized transcendence. In closing (section 5), it is argued that two key concepts in Kelsen’s legal philosophy may well be understood as paradigms of thin transcendence, namely ‘the people’ and ‘the Grundnorm’.


professor Bert van Roermund
Bert van Roermund is professor (em.) of philosophy at Tilburg Law School and international correspondent of the Hans Kelsen Institute in Vienna.
Artikel

Vrijwilligheid, vertrouwelijkheid en onpartijdigheid

Opvattingen van deelnemers aan herstelbemiddeling in Vlaanderen

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden Herstelbemiddeling, werkingsprincipes, onpartijdigheid, vrijwilligheid, vertrouwelijkheid
Auteurs Vicky De Mesmaecker
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article considers the fundamental restorative justice principles of voluntary participation, the impartiality of the facilitator and the confidentiality of the restorative process from the point of view of participants to victim-offender mediation in Flanders, Belgium. These principles have remained relatively theoretical; little is known about how they are perceived by the participants to restorative practices. Results of our study show that whereas victims and offenders unequivocally support the principles of voluntariness and impartiality, the principle of confidentiality causes dissatisfaction and frustration when they believe it hinders the judge trying the case in court from establishing the truth about the facts.


Vicky De Mesmaecker
Vicky De Mesmaecker behaalde een doctoraat en master in de Criminologische Wetenschappen en een master in de Internationale Betrekkingen en Conflictbeheersing aan de KU Leuven (België). Zij werkte als doctoraal en postdoctoraal onderzoeker aan het Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie (LINC) van de KU Leuven en als Visiting Researcher aan Yale Law School in de Verenigde Staten en het Nederlands Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving in Nederland. Zij werkt momenteel als Senior Qualitative Researcher bij GfK Belgium.

    Those who talk can be heard. Those who are allowed to talk may be listened to. This study is an attempt to give legal voice to those who cannot talk or are usually not listened to: children. This study is about the attention given to their interests, the best interests of the child. When these interests are immersed in a minority context, children may be overlooked for different reasons, including discriminatory attitudes or prejudice regarding their families. Law and its interpretation must be changed in order to include the difference. This study discusses the best interests of the child principle with special attention to its legal relevance in cases where lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) are, or want to be, parents. The authoritative source for the interpretation of the principle is the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The analysis focuses on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and its case law. The study aims to explore the Court’s approach to the best interest of the child and identify whether the principle is being consistently applied in cases involving LGBT families, given the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are still sensitive issues in Europe. This is done by comparing these cases to cases lodged by applicants who were not identified as an LGBT person. The margin of appreciation doctrine and the lack of European consensus on sexual minorities’ rights are confronted with the urgent paramount consideration that has to be given to children’s best interests. The analysis explores whether there is room for detecting a possible Court’s biased approach towards the concept of the best interests of the child. This study challenges the Court’s decisions in the sense that the focus should not only be at the LGBT parents’ rights to private and family life, but also at the interests of their daughters and sons. This is an attempt to call upon the ECtHR and all states not only to actively fight discrimination against LGBT persons, but, ultimately, to stop interpreting the concept of the best interests of the child in an arguably biased way, and to consider the principle’s legal value in any decision, regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or any other distinction.


Mr. Gabriel Alves de Faria
Gabriel Alves de Faria is a Brazilian lawyer, LGBTI activist and human rights specialist who holds a Law degree from the Federal University of Espirito Santo and a European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation (E. MA/EIUC - Utrecht University). Among other legal and social experiences in the human rights field, Gabriel has worked as a researcher in comparative sexual orientation Law at Leiden University and most recently as a Fellow and consultant lawyer at the LGBTI Rapporteurship of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC. His latest project is a documentary on the situation of LGBTI persons in Southeast Asia.

    I will argue that it is possible to give a neutral or antiperfectionist legitimation for state support for religion, which I consider a perfectionist good that is not in the common interest. I will argue that state support for perfectionist goods (and thus also for religion) can, in some circumstances and under certain conditions, be allowed as a second-best option in order to guarantee an adequate range of valuable options to choose among - and this range of options is a necessary condition for autonomy. Subsequently, I will argue that the bottom line - which is also the limit - for support is a sufficient range of valuable options. Furthermore, I will argue that state support for religion is only allowed if there is a democratic consensus about the value of that particular perfectionist good. Finally, I will claim that state support for religion is only allowed under certain conditions.


Leni Franken
Leni Franken is als doctor-assistente verbonden aan het Centrum Pieter Gillis (Universiteit Antwerpen), waar zij levensbeschouwing doceert in de faculteiten Rechten en Toegepaste Ingenieurswetenschappen.

    The article considers the role of the liberal public-private divide in protecting religious minorities against national-majoritarian assault. It links the defence of the public-private divide to liberal neutrality and argues that it rests on two distinct propositions: that the distinction between the ’public sphere’ and the ’private sphere’ is a meaningful way to cognize and structure modern pluralistic societies; and that there is a meaningful way to distinguish what is or ought to be ‘public’ from what is or ought to be ‘private.’ While the latter proposition cannot be defended on grounds of liberal neutrality, the former proposition provides the institutional framework for conducting liberal politics by enabling the negotiation of the public and the private between national majorities and religious minorities as members of the same political community.


Daniel Augenstein
Daniel Augenstein is Associate Professor at the Department of European and International Public Law at Tilburg University.

    How best to account for moral quality in adjudication? This article proposes a six-pack of judicial virtues as part of a truly virtue-centred approach to adjudication. These virtues are presented as both constitutive and indispensible for realizing moral quality in adjudication. In addition, it will be argued that in order to honour the inherent relational dimension of adjudication a judge should not only possess these judicial virtues to a sufficient degree, he should also have the attitude of a civic friend. The Aristotelian concept of civic friendship will be proposed as an important complement to a virtue-ethical approach to adjudication.


Iris van Domselaar
Iris van Domselaar is Assistant Professor and Executive Director of the Amsterdam Centre on the Legal Professions (ACLP), Department of Law, University of Amsterdam.
Toont 1 - 20 van 28 gevonden teksten
« 1
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.