Zoekresultaat: 6 artikelen

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

Access_open Coronacrisis en rechtspleging

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Corona crisis, judiciary, ICT, Court delay, Trias politica
Auteurs Dr. Frans van Dijk en Mr. dr. Eddy Bauw
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Four phases of the Corona crisis are distinguished: a first acute phase, the gradual transition to a new normal, the economic downturn and the long run. The article describes what happened in the courts in the first and in the beginning of the second phase, and what is subsequently likely to happen. In the acute phase the court buildings shut down, and adjudication came largely to a halt. The courts were late in opening up, and as a result backlogs of, in particular, criminal cases increased. The courts extended their use of digital tools (e.g. tele-hearings) that, while allowing cases to proceed, did not fully protect the rights of parties. While so far the volume of commercial cases and bankruptcies has not increased, a (rapid) increase is inevitable. Contract breach will be wide spread, and will give rise to fundamental legal issues. For economic recovery it is essential that the courts give clear and consistent guidance in these matters quickly. This requires the courts to reduce the currently long duration of civil cases, and to use the available procedures to get expeditious decisions of the Supreme Court. The courts will also need to develop their ICT-instruments rapidly to guarantee the rights of parties. After a difficult first phase, the courts now face the challenge to effectively guide society through the Corona crisis and its aftermath, and thereby play its role in the trias politica.


Dr. Frans van Dijk
Frans van Dijk is professor Empirische analyse van rechtssystemen, Montaigne Centrum voor rechtsstaat en rechtspleging, Universiteit Utrecht en adviseur van de Raad voor de rechtspraak. Zijn huidige onderzoek gaat over percepties van rechterlijke onafhankelijkheid, fouten in rechterlijke besluitvorming en de rol van de rechtspraak in de economie. Hij heeft enquêtes onder rechters en advocaten georganiseerd voor het Europees Netwerk van Raden voor de rechtspraak.

Mr. dr. Eddy Bauw
Eddy Bauw is hoogleraar Privaatrecht en rechtspleging. Voorzitter van het Molengraaff Instituut voor Privaatrecht en programmaleider van het Montaigne Centrum voor rechtsstaat en rechtspleging. Raadsheer-plaatsvervanger gerechtshof Den Haag. Zijn recente onderzoek richt zich op de thema’s collectieve actie, massaschade, rechtspleging en conflictoplossing.

Prof. dr. Koen Van Aeken
Koen Van Aeken is senior hoofddocent aan de Faculteit Rechten van de Universiteit Antwerpen. Hij doceert rechtssociologie in de eerste Bachelor en de Master, en Legal Research Methodology en Empirical Research Methods in Law in de LLM. Zijn onderzoek situeert zich op het terrein van wetsevaluatie, regulering en governance, recht en digitalisering, en juridische en empirische onderzoeksmethodologie.
Werk in uitvoering

The role of attitudes in the professional judicial decision-making progress: a work in progress

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden Professional judicial decision-making process, Attitudes, Impartiality, Semi-structured interviews, Scenario-survey
Auteurs Mr. Elke Olthuis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In our daily decision-making processes, attitudes play an important role. An attitude is an evaluative judgement of a person, object or an issue on a scale of favorability. A large amount of research has been done on the role of attitudes in our daily decision-making processes. There is, however, a gap in empirical knowledge when it concerns the role of attitudes in the professional judicial decision-making process. It has been accepted that the professional judicial decision-making process has a subjective element, but this subjective element remains unexplained. Attitudes are inherently personal and subjective, and they can make our decision-making process easier. They can, however, also be the basis for biases and prejudices. Herein lies a potential risk, especially in the professional judicial decision-making process. If attitudes play a role in the decision-making process of judges there is a possibility that impartiality, one of the judiciary’s core professional values, might be unobtainable. To see whether attitudes play a role in the professional judicial decision-making process semi-structured interviews will be conducted among judges, who will also be asked to fill in a scenario survey. Hopefully the obtained data will lead to a start in filling this gap in empirical knowledge.


Mr. Elke Olthuis
Elke Olthuis is een promovenda bij de Universiteit van Amsterdam. In haar onderzoek integreert ze recht en psychologie. Ze is verbonden aan het PPLE College en het Paul Scholten Centre for Jurisprudence.
Artikel

Vertrouwen in het notariële tuchtrecht

Ervaren procedurele rechtvaardigheid onder het notariaat

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden Notarieel tuchtrecht, Procedurele rechtvaardigheid, Vertrouwen, Tuchtrecht, Notarieel recht
Auteurs Dr. Kees van den Bos, Mr. Dr. Jan Biemans en Mr. Dr. Eddy Bauw
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This quantitative empirical research project describes how notaries evaluate disciplinary jurisdiction. Findings show that perceived procedural justice matters for notaries’ trust in the disciplinary jurisdiction of their cases. For example, those respondents who had been involved in a disciplinary case themselves, rated the disciplinary judge with a 5.3 on a 10-point scale when procedural justice was perceived by them to be relatively low. In contrast, when respondents who had been involved in a disciplinary case perceived procedural justice to be relatively high they rated the disciplinary judge with 7.6 on the same 10-point scale. This suggests that perceived procedural justice matters among an interesting type of professionals (notaries) who are involved in an interesting procedure in their profession (a disciplinary evaluation of their professional handling) in which important decisions are made. The current paper can contribute to the development of a barometer of notary disciplinary law.


Dr. Kees van den Bos
Kees van den Bos is hoogleraar Sociale Psychologie en hoogleraar Empirische Rechtswetenschap aan de Universiteit Utrecht en verbonden aan het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtsstaat en Rechtspleging van de Universiteit Utrecht.

Mr. Dr. Jan Biemans
Jan Biemans is kernhoogleraar Burgerlijk recht, i.h.b. Goederenrecht en Notarieel recht aan de Universiteit Utrecht en verbonden aan het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtsstaat en Rechtspleging van de Universiteit Utrecht.

Mr. Dr. Eddy Bauw
Eddy Bauw is hoogleraar Privaatrecht, i.h.b. Aansprakelijkheidsrecht en Rechtspleging aan de Universiteit Utrecht en verbonden aan het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtsstaat en Rechtspleging van de Universiteit Utrecht.
Artikel

Responsibilities of the state and legal professions

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden responsibilities, the state, lawyers, the judiciary and judges
Auteurs Mies Westerveld en Ashley Terlouw
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution, which is based on the Dutch legal system, deals with the responsibilities of the State and legal professions in ensuring access to justice. The responsibilities of the four main players involved in bringing justice to the citizen are discussed: the legislator, the executive, the judiciary, and the legal profession. Responsibilities for access to justice do not only stem from the law, they do also evolve from societal problems and discussions. The contribution deals with both. Several actors share some of the responsibilities. One can think of responsibilities for information, for financing, and for being aware of vulnerabilities and other obstacles. What are the legal responsibilities and what other responsibilities are felt by the actors involved and how do they deal with them? And as a result: do they contribute to access to justice, do they form an obstacle, or both?


Mies Westerveld
Mies Westerveld is Professor Legal aid by special appointment and Professor in Labour Law (social insurance) at the University of Amsterdam. Her research concentrates on current issues of access to justice and state-financed legal aid on the one hand and the decreasing role of social insurance on a fragmented labour market on the other hand.

Ashley Terlouw
Ashley Terlouw is Professor in Sociology of Law at the Radboud University of Nijmegen. She is responsible for the Centre for Migration Law of the Radboud University. Besides she is part-time Judge at the District Court of Gelderland. Her research concentrates on legal and societal issues of asylum and equal treatment and on the working of the judiciary.
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.
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.