Zoekresultaat: 8 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid x Jaar 2012 x Rubriek Artikel x

    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.
Artikel

Burgerschap en verschil

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden parliamentary discourse, citizenship, Habermas, Foucault
Auteurs Bertjan Wolthuis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The citizen, understood in the classical republican sense as the political actor, is on occasion confronted with issues that concern the room for difference in politics. In the Netherlands, for example, the recent entrance of populist citizens in parliament is regarded as a problem by more deliberative citizens. Do populist citizens threaten ordinary politics or do ordinary citizens, on the contrary, restrict the space of politics too much? To prepare future research on this point, in this article three similar historical controversies in Dutch parliament are examined. In these cases citizens struggle with the problem how much room parliament ought to provide for the differences between them. In these cases citizens eventually grant each other the freedom to engage in politics in their own way, unless that way threatens the freedom of parliamentary politics itself. They defend the right to debate the widest range of issues in the sharpest way, for example, but prohibit making insults and endorsing illegal activities. Further research is needed to confirm and specify these still tentative conclusions.


Bertjan Wolthuis
Bertjan Wolthuis is universitair docent aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. Zijn onderzoeksinteresses zijn onder meer: de kwaliteit van het politieke debat, Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault, parlementaire geschiedenis, retorica en argumentatieleer.
Interface Showing Amount
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.