Zoekresultaat: 9 artikelen

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

The preliminary reference procedure: challenge or opportunity?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden preliminary reference procedure, empowerment, EU law, Court of Justice EU
Auteurs Jos Hoevenaars
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution approaches the theme of access to justice from an EU law perspective and deals with the question: to what extent can the preliminary reference procedure serve as an empowering tool for individuals and civil society? The first part of the contribution deals with the structure of the EU legal system and the theoretically empowering function of preliminary references. Based on interviews with litigants and their counsellors, the second part deals with this notion from a sociological and empirical perspective. The analysis reveals the practical obstacles to realizing ones rights by preliminary references, and thus nuances the empowerment thesis found both among legal- and political sciences theories as well as in the legitimating rhetoric by propagators of the EU legal system.


Jos Hoevenaars
Jos Hoevenaars holds a Master’s degree in Sociology from the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Sociology of Law/Centre for Migration Law of the Radboud University of Nijmegen. In his research, he studies individual litigation in the European legal system, with a specific focus on the preliminary reference procedure.
Praktijk

Understanding knowledge sharing between judges

A quantitative analysis

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2014
Trefwoorden knowledge exchange, knowledge sharing behavior, knowledge management system, judicial knowledge
Auteurs Sandra Taal PhD
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Over the last two decades, there has been a growing interest in the development and implementation of knowledge management systems. In the judicial context, these knowledge management systems are designed to support judges in the decision-making process by providing them with the knowledge that they need in order to deal with doubts or uncertainties in complex cases. However, less attention has been given to the related process of knowledge sharing between judges. In order to optimally benefit from the knowledge available in the organization, this process should be better understood and acted upon. The aim of this research project is to gain a better insight into the interactive process of knowledge sharing between judges. To this end, a research model has been developed which will be quantitatively tested on the basis of survey responses from judges.


Sandra Taal PhD
PhD Candidate
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.
Redactioneel

Introduction

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2012
Auteurs Rob Schwitters en Bert Niemeijer
Auteursinformatie

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.

Bert Niemeijer
Bert Niemeijer is part-time professor of sociology of law at the VU University of Amsterdam and coordinator of strategy development at the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice. His research interests concern family law, evaluation of law, the social working of rules and courts, trust and confidence in law and courts and the development of legal disputes.
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.
Discussie

Erasmus Law College: active academic learning

Met recht goed onderwijs

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2012
Trefwoorden legal education, Erasmus Law College, problem based learning, academic learning
Auteurs Suzan Stoter
Auteursinformatie

Suzan Stoter
Suzan Stoter is als hoogleraar rechtssociologie verbonden aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, waar ze enige jaren daarvoor als postdoc rechtssociologie heeft gewerkt. Momenteel is ze fulltime werkzaam als onderwijsdecaan om de invoering van het vernieuwende programma van het Erasmus Law College, dat de komende drie jaar per bachelorjaar wordt uitgerold, zo goed mogelijk te kunnen begeleiden.
Discussie

De waarde van een Europees mensenrechtenhof

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2011
Trefwoorden European Court of Human Rights, judicial review, fundamental rights, supranational protection of human rights
Auteurs Janneke Gerards
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Over the last few months, the European Court of Human Rights has been heavily criticised in the Dutch media and by Dutch politicians. Although the criticism is mainly directed at the perceived overextension of the Court’s fundamental rights protection, it also concentrates on fundamental issues such as the interference with national sovereignty that is affected by supranational adjudication and the anti-democratic character of supranational judicial review. In this contribution to the debate, it is argued that the present criticism of the Court is largely misconceived. Although the Court and its case law should certainly not be accepted uncritically, the arguments on which the criticism is based either lack nuance or disregard the Court’s specific function as a protector of fundamental rights. To provide a better basis for sensible and relevant criticism of how the Court functions, this contribution therefore aims to revisit the main roles of the European Convention on Human Rights and of international human rights protection, as well as the classic debate on judicial review.


Janneke Gerards
Janneke Gerards is als onderzoekshoogleraar fundamentele rechten verbonden aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Deze bijdrage is een uitwerking van de bijdrage die zij leverde aan een debatbijeenkomst over de rol van het EHRM die op 12 mei 2011 plaatsvond aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Alex Jettinghoff
Alex Jettinghoff is als onderzoeker verbonden aan het Instituut voor Rechtssociologie van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Hij doet onderzoek naar geschilhantering door bedrijven en het beroep op de rechter, contractuele relaties in het bedrijfsleven, juristen en rechtsontwikkeling en recht en oorlog.
Discussie

Technologische en juridische normativiteit: het tekort van het reguleringsparadigma

Een respons op Leenes’ ‘Technoregulering’

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2011
Trefwoorden regulation by technology, code as law, legitimacy, rule of law, regulation
Auteurs Mireille Hildebrandt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Mireille Hildebrandt responds to the article of Ronald Leenes. She largely agrees with Leenes’ objection that technoregulation threatens to conflate rule-making (a task of the legislator) with administration (a task of the executive). In her reply she rejects the external perspective that is inherent in regulation as behaviour-modification, arguing that legal subjects are not to be seen as mere objects of regulation. At the same time she calls for a reflection on the normative implications of technological infrastructures for existing legal rights, e.g., on privacy, even if these implications were not intended by a regulator.


Mireille Hildebrandt
Mireille Hildebrandt is hoogleraar ICT en rechtsstaat aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, hoofddocent rechtstheorie aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam en senior onderzoeker aan Law Science Technology and Society Studies (LSTS) aan de Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Haar onderzoek richt zich in het bijzonder op de implicaties van slimme (proactieve) omgevingen voor rechtsstaat en democratie. Zij was deelprojectleider van het Europese KP6-project the Future of Identity in Information Society (FIDIS) en is momenteel betrokken bij het Europese KP7-project Security Impact Assessment Measurement (SIAM). Zij is naar Brussel gedetacheerd op het fundamenteel onderzoeksproject Law and Autonomic Computing. Mutual Transformations, redigeerde samen met Serge Gutwirth Profiling the European citizen. Cross-disciplinary perspectives (Springer: Dordrecht 2008) en samen met Antoinette Rouvory Law, human agency and autonomic computing. The philosophy of law meets the philosophy of technology (Routledge: New York 2011).
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.