Zoekresultaat: 41 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

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

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.

    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

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).
Artikel

Burgerschap en niet-statelijk recht: een reconstructie

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden cities, citizenship, exclusion, social formations
Auteurs Robert Knegt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In recent discussions on ‘citizenship’, the concept is oddly dealt with as if it would have originated shortly before the French Revolution and would have meaning in a nation state context only. During at least seven centuries before that, however, it had a crucial importance in the development of Western-European cities. Citizenship, being primarily based on an exclusion from the jurisdiction of local rulers (privilege) which then opens opportunities for the inclusion of citizens in systems of self-rule, has been closely connected with law as from the start. In the article a model developed by Sassen (2006) is used to reconstruct the development of ‘citizenship’ with special reference to the transfer of its elements, often with a considerable change of meaning and function, from one into the other of the four social formations to be distinguished. It is argued that an extended perspective, that acknowledges citizenship and law before its usurpation by the nation state, may be relevant to our assessment of recent developments towards ‘transnational’ forms of citizenship.


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

Recht en burgerschap: een verkenning van modaliteiten

Inleiding bij een symposiumnummer

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden citizenship, sociology of law, juridification, policy
Auteurs Olaf Tans
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article analyzes the relation between law and citizenship on the basis of five modalities. This analysis is premised on the observation that citizenship plays a central role in the contemporary debate about the development of political communities. Furthermore it is obvious that citizenship is inextricably linked to law, but it is not easy to get a clear and complete picture of this link. This is due to, on the one hand, the versatility of the concept of citizenship, and the versatility of the phenomenon law on the other. In short, the relation between law and citizenship is multifaceted, which the typology of modalities is meant to reveal.


Olaf Tans
Olaf Tans is als rechtstheoreticus en politiek wetenschapper verbonden aan het Amsterdam University College. In het algemeen houdt hij zich bezig met de relatie tussen recht, ethiek en samenleving. De laatste tijd is hij gericht op onderwerpen als burgerschap, deliberatie en de narratieve benadering van rechtsvinding.
Artikel

Bewijs van goed Nederlanderschap

Het inburgeringsexamen nader onderzocht

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden citizenship, immigrant integration, Dutchness, identity
Auteurs Baukje Prins
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article discusses some examples of the Dutch integration exam that illustrate how immigrants are expected not just to know about, but to internalize Dutch norms and values. Some of these norms and values involve freedom of speech and sexual equality. But the message conveyed by the test is that native Dutch are allowed to make use of their right to free speech and sexual self expression, while immigrants would do better not to complain, even if they feel annoyed or hurt by native Dutchmen exercising these rights. This does not so much imply that Dutch natives and immigrants are measured by a different yard-stick, but rather that the first are never measured while the latter remain subjected to measurement all the time. Even if they show deviant, inappropriate or immoral behaviour, native citizens self evidently belong to the Dutch nation, while immigrants, however assimilated and appropriate their behaviour, will never be released from the burden to prove that they are indeed full Dutch citizens.


Baukje Prins
Baukje Prins is lector burgerschap en diversiteit aan de Haagse Hogeschool. Zij studeerde Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde en wijsbegeerte aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, promoveerde in 1997 aan de Universiteit Utrecht, en werkte als docent sociale en politieke filosofie aan de universiteiten van Amsterdam, Maastricht en Groningen. Enkele centrale publicaties van haar hand: Voorbij de onschuld. Het debat over integratie in Nederland (Amsterdam 2004, 2e herz. druk) en Vreemdelingenverkeer. Samen leven en laten leven (Den Haag 2010, intreerede).
Artikel

Burgerschap en inburgering

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden citizenship, republicanism, communitarianism, naturalization policy
Auteurs Roland Pierik
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Citizenship is a notoriously complex and an essentially contested concept which has been defined in many different ways. The only stable element in all these definitions seems to be that citizenship is primarily described in terms of the relationship between the political community and the citizen. This article aims to explain why citizenship is such a contested concept by showing that it is embedded in three very different normative traditions: the liberal conception of citizenship as a (legal) status, the republican conception of citizenship as an activity and the communitarian conception of citizenship as identity. Each approach emphasizes an important element of citizenship, but none of the three is comprehensive enough to provide a complete picture of what citizenship implies in contemporary constitutional democracies. At the same time they cannot simply be merged because they come from different normative traditions among themselves at odds with each other.This article starts by illustrating the three conceptions of citizenship on the basis of the underlying theoretical models: liberalism, republicanism and communitarianism. Section 3 discusses two mutual tensions between different conceptions of citizenship: first between the liberal and republican conception and then between the liberal and republican conception on the one hand and the communitarian conception on the other. In Section 4, this conceptual analysis is used to analyze a policy terrain that is explicitly embedded in the idea of citizenship, namely the integration of immigrants through naturalization policy. Section 5 concludes.


Roland Pierik
Roland Pierik is universitair hoofddocent rechtstheorie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Hij werkt op het gebied van hedendaagse liberale politieke theorie, toegepast op discussies van de multiculturele samenleving, integratiebeleid en internationale rechtvaardigheid. In 2010 is een door hem geredigeerde bundel over het kosmopolitisme en internationaal recht gepubliceerd door Cambridge University Press. Recent verschenen artikelen van hem in Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Journal of Social Philosophy, Ethics & International Affairs, Political Studies en Ethnicities.
Toont 1 - 20 van 41 gevonden teksten
« 1 3
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.