Henk Leenen besteedde al in zijn eerste gezondheidsrechtelijke studies aandacht aan de Europeesrechtelijke dimensies van het gezondheidsrecht. Hoe keek Leenen ruim veertig jaar geleden tegen deze relatie aan? En hoe heeft het Europees recht nader vorm gegeven aan het gezondheidsrecht en vice versa? Een analyse.

This contribution puts the developments of the socio-legal approach of access to justice and legal aid in the low countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) in a broad perspective. During the last 40 years, the journal has dealt with some general problems, related to the accessibility of justice and legal aid and the effects of legislation in that field. Some important differences between het Belgian and the Dutch situation are highlighted. Although the general situation has not changed dramatically in both countries, some improvements have been achieved, e.g. when it comes to the so called “social legal aid”. Still, a better and more equal access to justice has to be promoted and realised.

This article collects publications in this journal about the emergence and effects of legislation. It covers the developments and results of research of the last four decades. First it is concluded that there has been considerable attention to the subject. Second a clear broadening and (theoretical) deepening from different perspectives can be observed. Social-legal research of legislation also appears to have specific characteristics. Subsequently, various points of attention are pointed out, such as more attention to the relationship between legal characteristics and effects, more variation in research methods and more systematic theory-driven research. Finally, attention is drawn to the relationship between (the working of) legislation and social transformations such as globalization, digitization and the increasing and profound influence of social media in society.

In this contribution, the authors enter into a debate on the innovation The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary made quite recently, promoting social effective justice (maatschappelijk effectieve rechtspraak;to English readers more familiar under the label of ‘Problem solving courts’).
Klijn has quite serious doubts about this strategy. First of all: the judge is not - and never has been - a problem solver, as (a) the judge lacks the competences to do so and (b) the structure of legal procedure falls fundamentally short of this task. Secondly, in our contemporary society other professionals are in charge of intervening in social conflicts, and they are much better positioned to do so, at the appropriate moment in time. Thirdly, in making this choice the Council misunderstands its role as the Third State Power, vis-a-vis the much greater influence of changing societal conditions stimulating societal changes.

Because of the sharp contrast between the law-in-the-books and the law-in-action regulatory enforcement has always been a popular subject in socio-legal research. This paper looks back at forty years of Dutch research on regulatory enforcement, using several key publications in this journal from each decade. First, it is argued that these Dutch studies reveal three general themes: this research can be seen as a time machine that takes us back to some of the most important social and political events of the past decades, these studies emphasize the crucial role of individual enforcement officials, and in everyday enforcement state law only plays a limited role. Next, this review also discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses of Dutch research. Most studies on regulatory enforcement are more interested in the role of the state than in the role of citizens and businesses. As a result, research focuses more on issues of effectiveness and less on questions of legitimacy. Finally, empirical research is seen as more important than theory development. Based on this overview, the author introduces a new research agenda for future research on regulatory enforcement.

Hartendorp emphasizes in his contribution that a judge is a decision-maker bound by the law. He agrees with Klijn that this position makes it difficult to act as a problem solver. However, this does not alter the fact that, in order to act effectively, a judge must have a dual orientation on the conflict and the dispute between the parties. The Judiciary can only increase its social effectiveness if it manages to bring about a synthesis between its classic decisive task and an orientation aimed at effectiveness.

In From big five to high five the author analyzes the developments of sociology of law at the law faculties in the Netherlands since the 1970ies until today. Focusing on the professors (‘chairs’) he argues that after a strong start with five prominent scholars the discipline is now placed in the periphery of the law curriculum. Sociology of law is ‘intellectually strong, but institutionally weak’.
The author encourages the present generation professors (‘chairs’) to cooperate more. He claims that writing one modern Dutch Introduction to Sociology of law is crucial to win the hearts and minds of the law students. Furthermore, he suggests that collaborative research projects contributes to the visibility of sociology of law in policy arenas and public debates.

From day one of the journal Recht der Werkelijkheid (Journal of Living Law) the Legal Anthropology was welcomed. What once started as the jurisprudential study on Folk Law on the one hand and the cultural anthropological study of law on the other hand, evolved into an intensive collaboration among the researchers. Even more intensive under the subject Legal Pluralism. The legal anthropological studies extended over the years to subjects closer to the First World legal practices, i.e. the studies of social groups like the one on migrants. Under the concept of semi autonomous social fields many contributions on cultural versus legal norms were published. Later on, the legal anthropological expertise that sustained the comparative studies for international and supranational law was welcomed. The article thus shows that the journal provided room for the socio legal studies of law practices in other continents, expanded to those of other continents in the home continent as well as to those in all continents.

The paper highlights the contributions on judges and courts published in Recht der Werkelijkheid from 1980-2020. It addresses three general themes, namely communication in court, the consumers of the law and the professionals of the law, in view of the objective of the journal.
The authors of the contributions, newcomers as well as well-known experienced researchers, come from different kind of branches like anthropology, psychology, sociology and history, utilizing quite different approaches, methodologies and theories. They elaborate on each other’s work, methods, empirical findings and theoretical insights, in order to develop new research questions or to conduct research in different contexts. Although the critical-rational ideas of Popper has no many followers among the authors, lessons can be learned for policy makers, judges, lawyers and academics. By bringing the authors together, the journal has made an invaluable contribution to the debate among socio-legal researchers in the Netherlands.

Most countries in the world chose a more or less stringent form of lockdown policy in order to protect citizens from contagion. This essay offers a critical perspective by asking for the Netherlands whether flattening the curve does not cost more healthy life years (qaly’s) than it saves. A cost-benefit analysis is performed discussing four issues. First: how many qaly’s are actually saved by the lockdown measures? Second: what are the opportunity costs of the lockdown? This means investigating how many qaly’s could have been generated if the economic cost of the lockdown had been spent directly into health care. Third: investigating how many qaly’s are lost because of postponing regular care. And fourth: discussing how many qaly’s are at stake because of excess unemployment. While acknowledging uncertainties the conclusion seems unavoidable: lockdown has and will cost more qaly’s than it generates.

In this review-essay, two books by criminologist Lois Presser are discussed: Why We Harm (2013) and Inside Story: How Narratives Drive Mass Harm (2018). In these books the author develops a general theory of harmful action, in particular collective and massive forms of harmful action that are often related to state institutions and large companies. Presser shows that all kinds of stories, scripts and ideologies may justify, support, cover up or deny harmful action. In her publications, cultural sociology, critical criminology and discourse analysis are intimately intertwined.

This article critically examines the prospects of restorative justice in Brussels from the perspective of urban youth work. The insights issue from action research on the topic of ‘radicalisation’. The authors develop two arguments. The first tempers restorative optimism. It shows how restorative interventions are not necessarily the most adequate response to tensions and conflicts in urban settings. The second argument points out that resistance from urban youth workers regarding the implementation of restorative interventions should not be seen as a regrettable obstacle for academics who are eager to experiment with these interventions. Such a resistance can lead to new insights and fresh opportunities to radically rethink Restorative Justice. One of the ideas that the article brings to the surface comes down to this. In a city like Brussels, characterised by superdiversity, and clearly marked by social inequalities, academic researchers only gain credibility in initiating restorative interventions if they undeniably denounce these inequalities and fully express their engagement for social justice.

This contribution examines shareholder capitalism and shareholder idealism. It is also argued that excessive rewards – often a result of shareholder capitalism – fuel fraud. Supervisory directors and shareholders should therefore act as a counterforce and fulfil a corrective role.

In this article the ways in which philosophers have thought about greed are discussed. From antiquity until the Renaissance greed was considered to be a sin. This immoderate desire had to be stopped because it constitutes a threat to the wellbeing of both an individual and society as a whole. This changed since the beginning of the modern era, when a more positive attitude towards this excessive desire arose. The new opinion was: private vices lead to public benefits, and thus the normalization of an excess came about. Greed no longer was considered to be a sin or vice, but instead to be a harmless passion that had a good effect on the welfare of society. The financial crisis of 2008 may have induced some doubts concerning the idea that greed is good, but a real change in opinion has not yet occurred.

This article discusses the problem of excessive drug use from a historical perspective. Cultural ambivalence towards excessive use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs has roots going back into the seventeenth century. A case study is presented of the introduction and adaptation of tobacco in the Dutch republic. Dutch national and colonial drug regulation is discussed. It is concluded that regulations have been primarily motivated by anxieties about excessive behaviour among the labouring classes, endangering public order, and non-white users in the colonies. This has led to criminalization of excessive behaviour, and to the creation of a criminal underground economy.

The lifeblood of contemporary consumer capitalism is ever-growing and accelerating human needs for new consumer goods and services. Needs that remain unsatisfied on the one hand but defy the carrying capacity of planet Earth on the other. Anything but a win-win situation. Although excess harms, the infrastructure of consumption pays full service to perpetuate and cultivate the ‘more and faster’ orientation of today’s consumers. It is believed that we can cope with excess by taking efficiency measures and paying attention to recycling and refurbishing. This article, however, points out that there is need to rethink consumption and reconsider prevalent orientations dedicated to excess consumption more fundamentally.

Sexualized graffiti has emerged on walls in Brussels since the beginning of 2013, generating fierce debates. Perceived as street art and a welcome challenge to heteropatriarchy by some and as obscenity and vulgarity by others, these pieces highlight the inherently contested character of public spaces. The controversies around the presence of these paintings in public space relate to what in the literature has become known as moral geographies, that is, the spatial aspect of morality. What should one do about these supposed ‘porn’ pieces: regulate their existence and control potential tensions and conflicts, or let frictions emerge between the partisans and the opponents of such urban interventions? Who gets to say what should be tolerated and what should be regulated in public space? In this opinion piece, I situate this issue between two ends: an agonistic one, in which contestation is the rule; and an excessively regulatory one, in which public space is over-rationalized and normalized.