Zoekresultaat: 80 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid x Rubriek Artikel x
Artikel

De afstand tussen burger en rechter

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden Confidence in the judiciary, punitivity gap, accessibility gap
Auteurs Marijke Malsch
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The distance between the public and the judiciary takes two forms: a punitivity gap and an accessibility gap. This article discusses both types of gap and elaborates on the issue of whether the existence of these gaps influences confidence in the judiciary. From the literature, it appears that the public is generally of the opinion that courts sentence too leniently. However, experiments show that when citizens receive information on a specific case, they become less punitive. Information provision may also help to bridge an accessibility gap, as does actual citizen involvement in the administration of justice. The relation between the gaps discussed and confidence in the judiciary is not clear as yet. The article discusses methods generally used to assess confidence and suggests that confidence may be increased by a reduction of the two gaps.


Marijke Malsch
Marijke Malsch is senior onderzoeker bij het Nederlands Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving (NSCR) te Amsterdam, en rechter-plaatsvervanger bij de Rechtbank Haarlem en het Hof Den Bosch. Bij de Vrije Universiteit (VU) verzorgt zij het vak ‘Recht en Praktijk’. Enkele publicaties: ‘De aanvaarding en naleving van rechtsnormen door burgers: participatie, informatieverschaffing en bejegening’, in: P.T. de Beer & C.J.M. Schuyt (red.), Bijdragen aan waarden en normen, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2004, p. 77-106. En: Democracy in the courts. Lay participation in European criminal justice systems, Aldershot: Ashgate 2009.
Artikel

Verschillen tussen burgers in vertrouwen in de rechtspraak

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden Confidence in the judiciary, framing, windtunneling
Auteurs Bert Niemeijer en Peter van Wijck
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The degree to which individuals have confidence in the judiciary varies substantially. In this paper, we take the heterogeneity of the population as a starting-point. Our basic idea is that signals about the judiciary acquire significance through frames, schemes of interpretation. Using focus groups we portrayed contrasting frames of citizens. These frames enable us to test the consequences of measures to promote confidence. Measures that tend to increase confidence according to one frame may decrease confidence according to another. This yields dilemmas for those looking for possibilities to promote confidence. One possibility to deal with these dilemmas is to differentiate between different audiences.


Bert Niemeijer
Bert Niemeijer is (bijzonder) hoogleraar rechtssociologie aan de Vrije Universiteit en coördinator strategieontwikkeling bij het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Recente publicaties: ‘Wat leren wetsevaluaties ons over de effectiviteit van wetgeving?’, in: M. Hertogh & H. Weyers (red.), Recht van onderop. Antwoorden uit de rechtssociologie, Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri 2011, p. 41-61; ‘De verklaring van geschilgedrag – Gedragseconomische bijdragen en hun beperkingen’, in: W.H. van Boom, I. Giesen & A.J. Verheij (red.), Capita civilologie. Handboek empirie en privaatrecht, Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers 2013, p. 109-145 (met C. Klein Haarhuis).

Peter van Wijck
Peter van Wijck is universitair hoofddocent rechtseconomie aan de Universiteit Leiden en coördinator strategieontwikkeling bij het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Recente publicaties: ‘The economics of pre-crime interventions’, European Journal of Law and Economics 2013-35, p. 441-458 en (met Ben van Velthoven), Recht en efficiëntie: een inleiding in de economische analyse van het recht, Deventer: Kluwer, vijfde druk, 2013.
Artikel

Vertrouwen en wantrouwen in de Belgische justitie en de rol van de krantenberichtgeving

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden Trust in justice system, Belgium, reporting of newspapers
Auteurs Stien Mercelis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this contribution it has been set out that trust in the Belgian justice system cannot be taken for granted. The article contains empirical research on the reporting of newspapers on the Belgian justice system and tries to uncover a possible causal relationship between reading certain newspapers and trust in the justice system. Although it turns out that quality newspapers report on the justice system in a more negative way, readers of popular papers have less trust in the justice system. A direct link between negative reporting and reduced trust was therefore not found. Socio-economic variables and the priming effect on punitive attitudes in popular newspapers are cited as possible explanations.


Stien Mercelis
Stien Mercelis is master in de Rechten en bachelor in de Criminologie. Momenteel is zij assistente Rechtssociologie aan de Universiteit Antwerpen. Zij schrijft een proefschrift over de interne en externe factoren van het vertrouwen in de Belgische justitie als openbare dienst.
Artikel

Transparantie leidt niet vanzelfsprekend tot vertrouwen in de rechtspraak

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden Transparency, information, factors influencing confidence in the judiciary
Auteurs Petra Jonkers
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Transparency of institutions like the judiciary is often assumed to increase confidence. However, a recent survey concerning opinions about the judiciary showed that in many cases one trusts the judiciary without having any special interest in the judiciary itself. It revealed that confidence in the judiciary depends on various factors like anomy, social trust, general institutional trust, personal experience and feelings about a fair chance in a hypothetical case for court. And transparency will not easily change these factors. Furthermore, providing information can both strengthen and weaken confidence due to the personal backgrounds of those receiving the information. Finally, this paper discusses whether strategic and positive information that is needed to increase confidence allows for drawing one’s own conclusions as transparency promises.


Petra Jonkers
Petra Jonkers is politicoloog en stafmedewerker bij de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Zij promoveerde in 2003 in Nijmegen op een rechtssociologisch onderzoek naar de kwaliteit van wetgeving. Recente publicaties: ‘Inzicht in gedrag voorwaarde voor goede wetgeving’, Regelmaat 2013-28(1), p. 6-21; ‘Zet transparantie liever in voor bekritiseerbaarheid dan voor vertrouwen’, in: D. Broeders, C. Prins, H. Griffioen, P. Jonkers, M. Bokhorst & M. Sax (red.), Speelruimte voor transparantere rechtspraak, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2013, p. 449-479.
Artikel

Geen woorden maar daden

De invloed van legitimiteit en vertrouwen op het nalevingsgedrag van verkeersovertreders

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden perceptions of legitimacy, Compliance, procedural justice
Auteurs Marc Hertogh, Bert Schudde en Heinrich Winter
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    For many years, most regulatory research focused on instrumental motivations for compliance, which emphasize the role of rewards and punishments related to (dis)obeying the law. However, more recent studies have also emphasized the potential role of normative motivations. Using survey data collected from a sample of 1,182 traffic offenders in the Netherlands, and building on the ‘procedural justice model’ which was first developed in Why People Obey the Law (Tyler 1990), this paper explores how perceptions of legitimacy shape regulatory compliance. The study makes three contributions to the literature. First, this study is one of the few studies in which the procedural justice model is tested in Continental Europe. Second, following recent critiques in the literature, the paper introduces three modifications to the original model. Third, and unlike most previous studies, this study is not entirely based on self-reporting by drivers, but includes actual evidence about their behavior as well. With regard to the self-reported level of compliance, our study largely confirms Tyler’s (1990) original findings. Yet with regard to the observed level of compliance, there are also important differences between both studies. These findings will be explained by shifting our focus of attention from Tyler’s ‘universalistic’ approach to ‘legitimacy-in-context’ (Beetham 1991).


Marc Hertogh
Marc Hertogh is hoogleraar Rechtssociologie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Centrale thema’s in zijn onderzoek zijn de maatschappelijke effecten van wetgeving, de maatschappelijke beleving van recht en rechtsstaat, en de legitimiteit van het overheidsoptreden. Recente publicaties: Scheidende machten: de relatiecrisis tussen politiek en rechtspraak (Boom Juridische uitgevers 2012) en (met Heleen Weyers) Recht van onderop: antwoorden uit de rechtssociologie (Ars Aequi Libri 2011).

Bert Schudde
Bert Schudde studeerde sociologie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en is werkzaam als onderzoeker bij Pro Facto. Hij heeft brede onderzoekservaring in toegepast beleids- en evaluatieonderzoek, grootschalig surveyonderzoek en kwantitatieve analyse.

Heinrich Winter
Heinrich Winter is directeur van Pro Facto, bureau voor bestuurskundig en juridisch onderzoek, onderwijs en advies. Daarnaast is hij in Groningen bijzonder hoogleraar Toezicht. Hij is veelvuldig betrokken bij wetsevaluaties, waarover hij ook publiceert. Recente publicaties over toezicht zijn ‘Waar blijft het interbestuurlijk toezicht?’, in: Publicaties van de Staatsrechtkring nr. 16 (Wolf Legal Publishers 2012) en ‘Meten van de effecten van toezicht. Yes we can?’, Tijdschrift voor Toezicht 2012/2, p. 63-80. In 2013 schreef hij met Bert Marseille de handleiding Professioneel behandelen van bezwaarschriften voor BZK/Prettig contact met de overheid.
Artikel

Perspectieven van de buiten- en binnenwacht: de institutionele opgave van de rechtspraak

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden internal and external reputation of the courts, value identity of the judiciary, governance of the judiciary
Auteurs Suzan Verberk, Paul Frissen, Paul ´t Hart e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    It is important for the Dutch judiciary to monitor how society, professional partners and litigants perceive the administration of justice. Different polls and studies provide this information. However, up until 2012 little was known about the way top-level (public and private) decision makers and opinion leaders view the functioning of the courts. This prompted the Council for the Judiciary to commission a study on the external reputation of the administration of justice. The results of this study show that there is neither reason for serious concern nor reason for complacency. Criticism was voiced with regard to the operational capacity of the courts, most notably the case processing time and the lack of technical innovation. Also, it was concluded that the judiciary should take a more proactive stance concerning external communication.A couple of months after the study on the external reputation of the courts was completed, some justices of the Court of Appeal Leeuwarden conceived the so-called ‘Manifest’. Among other things, they criticized the caseload, which in their view threatens the independence of judges. Approximately 700 judges supported the Manifest. So lack of internal support rather than lack of external support seemed to pose a problem for the judiciary. What should the judiciary’s course of action be? Whereas the reputation study points to increasing the operational capacity of the courts, the supporters of the Manifest warn that too strong a focus on output would endanger the quality of justice. These contradictory factors demand reflection on the value identity of the judiciary. In our view this requires the Council for the Judiciary to focus less on management and more on governance. For judges this requires that they, through the development of professional standards, define and refine their view on ‘good administration of justice’.


Suzan Verberk
Suzan Verberk is als wetenschappelijk adviseur verbonden aan de Raad voor de rechtspraak en aldaar verantwoordelijk voor het onderzoeksprogramma. Het onderzoeksprogramma staat ten dienste van de vorming en de uitvoering van de strategie van de Raad en beoogt bij te dragen aan vernieuwing van de rechtspraak. Voorheen was zij werkzaam in zowel de beleidsgeoriënteerde als de wetenschappelijke onderzoekspraktijk. Van haar hand verscheen in 2011 Probleemoplossend strafrecht en het ideaal van responsieve rechtspraak (Sdu Uitgevers).

Paul Frissen
Paul Frissen is decaan en bestuursvoorzitter van de Nederlandse School voor Openbaar Bestuur, hoogleraar Bestuurskunde aan de Universiteit van Tilburg en lid van de Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling. Recente publicaties van zijn hand: Van goede bedoelingen, de dingen die nooit voorbijgaan (Van Gennep 2012, tweede druk 2013) en De fatale staat. Over de politiek noodzakelijke verzoening met tragiek (Van Gennep 2013, derde druk 2013).

Paul ´t Hart
Paul ’t Hart is hoogleraar Bestuurskunde aan de Universiteit Utrecht en co-decaan bij de Nederlandse School voor Openbaar Bestuur. Hij schrijft de laatste tien jaar veel over leiderschap in politiek, bestuur en publieke organisaties. Daarnaast verricht hij veel onderzoek naar politiek-bestuurlijk crisismanagement en politiek-ambtelijke verhoudingen. Actuele publicaties zijn Understanding Prime-Ministerial Performance: Comparative Perspectives (Oxford University Press 2013) en The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership (Oxford University Press 2014).

Stijn Sieckelinck
Stijn Sieckelinck is als sociaal- en wijsgerig-pedagogisch onderzoeker en als docent verbonden aan de vakgroep Pedagogiek van de Universiteit Utrecht. Van zijn hand zijn de onderzoeksrapportages Onbevoegd Gezag. Hoe burgers zelf de gezagscrisis aanpakken en Idealen op drift. Laatstgenoemd boek is een pedagogische kijk op radicalisering van jongeren, waarvan een internationale versie op dit moment wordt ontwikkeld in samenwerking met Deense en Britse onderzoekspartijen.
Artikel

Henry Stimson en het Neurenberg Tribunaal

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden Nuremberg Tribunal, international criminal law, Morgenthau plan, summary execution of war criminals
Auteurs Alex Jettinghoff
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    When the Allied victory over the Axis powers is becoming certain, American officials start making plans for the occupation of Germany. In the aftermath of the invasion in 1944, some of these plans are brought to the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury in Roosevelt’s war cabinet, Henry Morgenthau. These plans infuriate him, because he considers them too lenient on Germany, which in his opinion should be reduced to an agrarian economy after its Nazi leadership has been summarily executed. The President at first agrees with this line of action as do most of the members of his cabinet. The only one opposing these ideas is the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, suggesting economic reconstruction and an international tribunal instead. His opposition seems in vain, when Roosevelt and Churchill publicly agree to this course of action towards Germany during a meeting in Quebec. But the ‘Morgenthau plan’ unravels when it is leaked to the press and it causes an uproar. Roosevelt fears for his re-election chances and hastily retreats. But he makes no decision on the issue and Stimson has to wait for his opportunity. It comes in the person of a new President: Harry Truman. He agrees to Stimson’s proposal for an international tribunal and this brings the United States on board of an allied majority for what is later to become the Nuremberg Tribunal.


Alex Jettinghoff
Alex Jettinghoff is als fellow verbonden aan het Instituut voor Rechtssociologie van de Rechtenfaculteit van Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Hij schreef recentelijk over het procederen van bedrijven, rechterlijke specialisatie en de wording van het Unified Patent System van de Europese Unie.
Artikel

Beate Sirota en de gelijkstelling van mannen en vrouwen in artikel 24 van de Japanse Grondwet in 1947

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden Japanese Constitution, Japanese Civil code, Women's rights, Beate Sirota
Auteurs Peter van den Berg
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Beate Sirota has been described as the ‘heroine of Japanese women’s rights’, because she contributed considerably to the inclusion of a forceful provision on the rights of women in the new Constitution of Japan as a member of the Government Section of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), headed by General Douglas MacArthur. Her role was serendipitous, because at first the Americans were not planning such a thorough revision of the Meiji Constitution (1890). Sirota was not a constitutional scholar, let alone an expert on the rights of women. She was hired only because she had spent her youth in Japan and spoke Japanese fluently. But once she got involved in the drafting of a new Constitution, her intimate knowledge of the position of women in Japanese society proved very useful. She proposed elaborate and detailed provisions on women’s rights in order to counter the expected resistance. This strategy turned out to be successful. Although Sirota was not substantially involved in the implementation of article 24, she returned to the United States in 1947. Since its introduction the provision has been a firm anchor for proponents of the emancipation of women in Japan.


Peter van den Berg
Peter A.J. van den Berg is als universitair hoofddocent verbonden aan de juridische faculteit van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (Vakgroep Algemene Rechtswetenschap en Rechtsgeschiedenis). Hij publiceert onder meer over constitutionele geschiedenis, geschiedenis van het staatsburgerschap en codificatiegeschiedenis. In 2007 verscheen van zijn hand The politics of European codification. A history of the unification of law in France, Prussia, the Austrian Monarchy and the Netherlands. Hij is een van de leiders van het door NWO als onderdeel van het programma ‘Omstreden Democratie’ gefinancierde project ‘Contested Constitutions’.
Artikel

Voor en na Mabo. Rechtsontwikkeling in Australië

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden Legal anthropology, legal culture, Australian indigenous people, Aboriginal law, High Court of Australia
Auteurs Agnes Schreiner
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Important legal developments are often credited to court decisions. This contribution will firstly discuss the Australian High Court decision in the Mabo case as such. The legal implications of a decision are often emphasised, instead of the actual persons who started the case, as Dutch sociological research has shown. The article will secondly state that in the Mabo case the person Eddy Mabo and his Aboriginal companions were a lot more important. Not that one has to solely think of him and his clansmen as political activists who go to court to change the legal order. The analysis will show that Eddie Mabo c.s. represent a legal culture in its own right. That legal culture has a far much longer history than the two centuries of Anglo-Australian common law. Mabo came to the fore as someone who was entitled by Aboriginal law to bear witness of Aboriginal law. The fact that an Aboriginal actor as such is the pure actuality of law is hardly recognised by the Anglo-Australian legal culture.


Agnes Schreiner
Agnes Schreiner is als universitair docent werkzaam bij de Afdeling Algemene Rechtsleer, sectie Rechtssociologie, van de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Zij verzorgt onder meer het keuzevak Rechtsantropologie en het masterkeuzevak Anthropology of European Private Law. In 1990 promoveerde ze op Roem van het recht. Haar bijzondere belangstelling gaat uit naar recht & cultuur, recht & media, recht & ritueel, recht & semiotiek. Ze publiceerde onlangs eveneens over Australië: How Law Manifests Itself in Australian Aboriginal Art (2013).
Artikel

Raphael Lemkin en de misdaad zonder naam

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden Genocide Convention, human rights, public international law, United Nations, international tribunals, jurisdiction, campaigning
Auteurs Reyer Baas
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Could one imagine that up until the mid-1940s international treaties had been ratified on postal services, copyright protection, and whale hunting, but not on genocide? It was only after the Second World War that the deliberate and systematic destruction of groups was recognised as an international crime. There had not even been a name for this practice, which has existed since the beginning of humanity. The 1948 Genocide Convention, the first human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations, was a milestone in the international protection of human rights, although several tragedies have shown that mere law is not sufficient to relegate genocide to the scrapheap of history. The initiator of the Convention was not a very well-known man. This article is about the struggle of Raphael Lemkin, who had, with unflagging zeal, devoted his life to the elimination of genocide.


Reyer Baas
Reyer Baas is promovendus Rechtspleging aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen en bereidt een proefschrift voor over rechterlijke besluitvorming. Tevens is hij docent Algemene rechtswetenschap. Hij publiceerde onder andere: R. Baas e.a., Rechtspraak: samen of alleen, Den Haag: Raad voor de rechtspraak 2010.
Artikel

Derkje Hazewinkel-Suringa: moed en middenweg

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden First female Dutch law professor, anti-fascism, Dutch criminal law
Auteurs Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Derkje Hazewinkel-Suringa entered law studies only after marriage and fulfilling about fifteen years of motherhood duty. Once at the university however, she rapidly became a student-researcher, delivered a PhD dissertation on ownership transfer and was appointed as the first female law professor in 1932, at the age of 42. Her professorship was in a remarkably different field, namely criminal law. Twenty years later she published the Introduction to the Study of Criminal Law, which would become the basis for criminal law teaching in the Netherlands for decades. A major reason behind this success was that the book, emphasizing active study of the law rather than passive reproduction, coincided with the general sprit of the post war era. Besides her scholarly work in which balance and synthesis were the major features, Hazewinkel-Suringa was a very outspoken actor in matters political. In 1936, when virtually the whole country was trying to accommodate the rise of fascism in the mighty neighbouring country, she became member of an anti-fascism committee. In 1938 she wrote a plea to the minister of Justice to allow entry of German-Jewish children into the country. During the German occupation (1940-1945) she proposed to close the university because of the dismissal of Jewish professors. She continued her protests against the social mainstream after the war, e.g. writing against the reintroduction of the death penalty (primarily focused on collaborators with the German regime). Hazewinkel-Suringa’s acts of individual courage could not make a difference in the overall political atmosphere of these times.


Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen
Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen is hoogleraar Rechtspleging en voorzitter van het gelijknamige onderzoeksprogramma van het onderzoekscentrum Staat en Recht van de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Zij publiceerde in boeken en tijdschriften over de juridische beroepen en de legitimiteit van rechtspraak.
Artikel

Hugo Sinzheimer en de collectieve arbeidsovereenkomst

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden Labour relations, collective agreement, Sinzheimer
Auteurs Robert Knegt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The German lawyer / labour law professor Hugo Sinzheimer (1875-1945) has, in the first two decades of the twentieth century, contributed significantly to the legal recognition of the ‘collective labour agreement’. The imperative character of CLA provisions, now widely accepted all over the world, required a paradigmatic turn in the dominant private law perspective on labour relations. The paper tries to specify what made him able and prone to do this, both by reconstructing the legal and political discussion in Germany and the Netherlands and by relating elements of the process to social-scientific theories of institutional and intellectual innovation. I argue that his combination of commitments in various fields (legal practice, science, politics) allowed him to span the gap between the fields of labour relations and state law and to contribute to the constitutionalisation of labour relations.


Robert Knegt
Robert Knegt is als directeur onderzoek verbonden aan het Hugo Sinzheimer Instituut, centrum voor onderzoek van ‘arbeid en recht’ aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Hij doet daar onderzoek naar de praktijk van arbeidsrechtelijke regelingen (ontslagrecht, flexwerk, arbeidstijden) en werkt aan een bij uitstek interdisciplinair project over ‘langetermijnontwikkelingen in de regulering van arbeid’. In 2008 verscheen The employment contract as an exclusionary device (Antwerp-Oxford-Portland: Intersentia).
Artikel

Henk Leenen: peetvader van het Nederlandse gezondheidsrecht

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden Health law, agenda-setting, formal and informal position, self-determination
Auteurs Heleen Weyers
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article paints Henk Leenen as the godfather of Dutch health law. Godfather because Leenendesigned his own version of health law, a version that is characterized by an emphasis on autonomy of the patient. And godfather because Leenen was one of the founders of the Dutch Association of Health Law and for many years the editor of its periodical. He succeeded to bind almost all health law scholars to this organization and his way of seeing health law. The article illustrates Leenen’s influence by describing his reading of autonomy in health law, by outlining his informal and formal position in the health law landscape and by sketching the coming into being and the content of two important laws: the Law on medical contracts and the Law on physician assisted death (‘euthanasia’).


Heleen Weyers
Heleen Weyers is universitair docent bij de Vakgroep Rechtstheorie aan de Rijksuniversiteit van Groningen. Zij geeft onderwijs in rechtssociologie, politieke theorie en wetsevaluatie. In haar onderzoek richt ze zich op de totstandkoming van recht, de sociale werking van recht en de relatie tussen beide. Qua onderwerpen gaat het daarbij onder andere om de regulering van het medisch handelen aan het einde van het leven en het rookverbod in de horeca.
Artikel

Nabeschouwing: de actor als factor

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden Kingdon, policy formation, policy entrepreneurs
Auteurs Alex Jettinghoff en Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    With the help of a model of policy formation designed by John Kingdon, we seek to map the actors in the previous cases of legal change and to establish the way in which they performed their key role and what conditions allowed them to do that. It appears that only two of the actors are insiders, government officials. The rest are outsiders. According to Kingdon’s model, a particular kind of actors is most likely to play a key role in policy change. He calls them ‘policy entrepreneurs’ and they typically are experts in a particular field of policy, who spend time, energy and money to promote a proposal they favour. They spring into action when they seize an opportunity to push their proposal on the agenda of the decision-makers. In our small collection of actors, Lemkin, Sinzheimer and Leenen are prototypical ‘policy entrepreneurs’. The others do not fit this profile, but played an influential role nevertheless.


Alex Jettinghoff
Alex Jettinghoff is als fellow verbonden aan het Instituut voor Rechtssociologie van de Rechtenfaculteit van Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Hij schreef recentelijk over het procederen van bedrijven, rechterlijke specialisatie en de wording van het Unified Patent System van de Europese Unie.

Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen
Leny de Groot-van Leeuwen is hoogleraar Rechtspleging en voorzitter van het gelijknamige onderzoeksprogramma van het onderzoekscentrum Staat en Recht van de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Zij publiceerde in boeken en tijdschriften over de juridische beroepen en de legitimiteit van rechtspraak.
Artikel

De Pardonregeling: risico’s van regularisatieprogramma’s en de in Nederland gehanteerde oplossingen

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2013
Trefwoorden asylum, regularisation programme, residence permit, return migration
Auteurs Monika Smit, Moira Galloway en Vina Wijkhuijs
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The 2007 Dutch Pardon Regulation, a regularisation programme to settle the legacy of the old immigration law, was meant to deal with backlogs in the settling of asylum procedures. According to the literature there are several risks attached to such regularisation programmes. The parties involved in the implementation of the Dutch Pardon Regulation managed to evade most of these risks, partly because of their great efforts and close cooperation. The results of the Regulation were according to plan with respect to the number of asylum seekers who received a permit in the context of the regulation and their housing. In two respects the Regulation did not have the desired result: temporary shelter in municipalities decreased but was not ended, and it proved difficult to carry through the return of people who were ineligible for the regularisation programme.


Monika Smit
Monika Smit is hoofd van de onderzoeksafdeling Rechtsbestel, Wetgeving en Internationale en vreemdelingenaangelegenheden (RWI) van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) van het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.

Moira Galloway
Moira Galloway is freelance onderzoeker, zij is werkzaam geweest bij het WODC.

Vina Wijkhuijs
Vina Wijkhuijs is momenteel als senior onderzoeker verbonden aan het lectoraat Crisisbeheersing van het Instituut Fysieke Veiligheid/Politieacademie. Zij is eveneens werkzaam geweest bij het WODC.

    Elbers et al. studied the impact of being involved in a compensation process on the health of the claimant/plaintiff. Although there is some evidence that being involved has a negative effect on health, there is contradictory evidence concerning the explanatory factors. The authors review various empirical studies, pinpoint the contradictory conclusions and analyse their methodological strengths and weaknesses. Studies concerning the influence of claim settlement processes on the wellbeing of claimants offer insights from which suggestions can be derived for improvement of the position of claimants.


Nieke Elbers
Nieke Elbers is neuropsychologist and post-doc researcher at the Faculty of Law at the VU University Amsterdam. She wrote her PhD thesis about empowerment of injured claimants, investigating claim factors, procedural justice, and e-health.

Arno Akkermans
Arno Akkermans is professor at the Faculty of Law at the VU University Amsterdam. His research interests concern the impact of law and legal procedure on the wellbeing and health of individuals, in the context of civil procedure in general, and of the settlement of personal injury claims in particular.

Pim Cuijpers
Pim Cuijpers is professor of clinical psychology and head of the Department of Clinical Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology and Education at the VU University Amsterdam. He is specialised in conducting randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses on prevention and psychological treatments of common mental disorders, especially depression and anxiety disorders.

David Bruinvels
David Bruinvels is an epidemiologist and occupational physician working at the Netherlands Society of Occupational Medicine (NVAB), the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), and the VU University Amsterdam. His research concerns developing and investigating interventions to improve return to work.

    Visscher gives an overview of the empirical research on the deterrent effects of tort law within the domain of traffic accidents. An impressive amount of law and economics research has been done in the last few decades. This has resulted in special attention for the deterrent effects of the financial incentives which are embedded in various legal systems. Contradictory empirical evidence motivates Visscher to reflect on methodological issues. A major shortcoming of most studies is that the dependent and independent variables are not properly defined and distinguished. Another difficulty is to properly assess the influence of the introduction of the no-fault system on incentives: no-fault not only implies that the prevalence of the tort-system is more-or-less marginalised, but also that it transforms the extent to which the damages of those injured are covered by insurances in various ways. It is not easy to isolate both factors properly. Nevertheless, Visscher finds enough support in the empirical evidence to conclude that, without added financial deterrence incentives, no-fault schemes are likely to lead to increased accident rates, more injuries and more fatalities.


Louis Visscher
Louis Visscher is associate professor in law and economics at the Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE) of the Erasmus School of Law. He has studied both economics and law (cum laude) at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, where he also wrote a PhD dissertation on ‘An economic analysis of Dutch tort law’. Louis has published articles and book chapters in the area of the economic analysis of tort law, the law of damages, causation in tort law, insurance, contract law and law enforcement.
Artikel

Medical liability: do doctors care?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2012
Auteurs Ben C.J. van Velthoven en Peter W. van Wijck
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Van Velthoven and Van Wijck review empirical studies on the effects of tort law in the medical sector. The data they present comes mainly from the US, because from the 1970’s US states have enacted a variety of reforms in their tort systems. This variation has provided very useful data to study preventive effects. The empirical evidence analysed shows that medical malpractice risk affects the behaviour of health care providers. It has a negative impact on the supply of services and it encourages extra diagnostic testing;yet if the additional tests and procedures have any value, it is only a marginal one. Furthermore it has been found that changes in the supply of services do not affect health adversely. This suggests that the physicians who are driven out of business have a below average quality of performance. The authors conclude that, at the margin, medical liability law may have some social benefits after all.


Ben C.J. van Velthoven
Ben van Velthoven is associate professor of law and economics at Leiden University. His research interests are: liability issues, civil litigation, and criminal law enforcement.

Peter W. van Wijck
Peter van Wijck is associate professor of law and economics at Leiden University and coordinator strategy development at the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice. His research interests concern tort law, contract law, civil litigation, and crime.
Artikel

Non-pecuniary damages: financial incentive or symbol?

Comparing an economic and a sociological account of tort law

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2012
Auteurs Rob Schwitters
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Schwitters focuses on the differences between economic and a sociological perspectives on non-pecuniary damages. By exposing the alternative perspectives on this issue, he illuminates some methodological differences between both disciplines. Although law and economics has had a positive influence on empirical research, he questions the merits of this perspective when analysing non-pecuniary damages. Law and economics regards non-pecuniary damages exclusively as a financial incentive to realise optimal deterrence and maximisation of welfare. Alternatively, in sociology of law there is also attention for the symbolic dimension of law in which rules are seen as normative standards of behaviour. Compensation is a way to bring the wrongdoer to recognise that he has done wrong and has to compensate the victim, and to show the victim that his rights are taken seriously. Through a sociological lens, the adoption of an exclusively economic model of human behaviour has to be questioned. To what extent human behaviour is really influenced by either financial incentives or by normative standards of behaviour is an open empirical question. Finally, he argues that the decision to base our institutions (such as law) on economic underpinnings is a decision which itself cannot be based on an economic procedure of aggregating individual preferences and maximising welfare.


Rob Schwitters
Rob Schwitters is associate professor (sociology of law) and member of the Paul Scholten Centre (University of Amsterdam). He publishes on tort law, responsibility and liability, the welfare state, compliance and methodological issues.
Artikel

Juridische verkaveling van publieke taken: een historische vergelijking van dijkonderhoud en re-integratietaken

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2012
Trefwoorden allotment, legal continuity, work reintegration, collective action
Auteurs Robert Knegt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the Netherlands the task of reintegrating partially disabled workers into the labour market, that used to be accomplished by collective institutions, has been redistributed by the government to private actors: those who were the last to employ these workers. It is pointed out that this policy choice implies reusing a medieval legal technique and that its use regenerates typical legitimacy problems. Building on Ostrom’s theory of ‘institutions for collective action’, a historical comparison of the organization of dyke maintenance in the Dutch bog peat areas of the 11th-13th centuries and of these recent policies reveals that both are to be analysed in terms of a ‘double allotment’: duties as to collective tasks are allotted to individual participants in a collectivity by linking them up with a preceding allotment of usage rights, legally formalized in terms of ‘private law’. While neoliberal ideology may account for the direction that recent reintegration policies have taken, it is only in the Netherlands that this legal technique has to such an extent been mobilized. This observation raises questions as to long-term continuities in Dutch policies.


Robert Knegt
Robert Knegt is als directeur onderzoek verbonden aan het Hugo Sinzheimer Instituut, centrum voor onderzoek van ‘arbeid en recht’ aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Hij doet daar onderzoek naar de praktijk van arbeidsrechtelijke regelingen (ontslagrecht, flexwerk, arbeidstijden) en werkt aan een bij uitstek interdisciplinair project over ‘langetermijnontwikkelingen in de regulering van arbeid’. In 2008 verscheen The employment contract as an exclusionary device (Antwerp/Oxford/Portland: Intersentia).
Toont 1 - 20 van 80 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.