Zoekresultaat: 8 artikelen

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

mE=rR2

Twee vliegen in één klap?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Auteurs dr. Albert Klijn
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    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.


dr. Albert Klijn
Albert Klijn is rechtssocioloog en voormalig wetenschappelijk adviseur van de Raad voor de rechtspraak (2002-2011).
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.

Dr. Peter van Wijck
Peter van Wijck is universitair hoofddocent rechtseconomie aan de Universiteit Leiden en lid van de redactie van Recht der Werkelijkheid.
Praktijk

Wat gebeurt er op de gang? Een kwalitatief empirisch onderzoek naar schikkingsonderhandelingen tijdens civielrechtelijke procedures

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Settlement negotiations, Distributive negotiations, Qualitative empirical research, Biases, Heuristics
Auteurs Mr. Lucas Lieverse
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    There is little known on settlement negotiations during civil lawsuits in the Netherlands. Settlement negotiations take place during a (suspension of the) public court hearing. The public hearing takes place in the majority of the civil lawsuits in the Netherlands. The qualitative empirical research I am carrying out, intents to give insight in these settlement negotiations and questions what lawyers actually do during these negotiations. The research intents to contribute to the effectiveness of settlement negotiations in the sense that (i) the number of settlements increases and of compulsory settlements decreases, (ii) the perceived fairness of procedure and outcome in settled cases increases, and (iii) the number of resolved underlying conflicts increases.
    I expect to find that most settlement negotiations can be qualified as distributive negotiations (as opposed to integrative negotiations). Furthermore, based on a literature review on biases and heuristics I hypothesized that settlement could be more effective than they actually are. The paper touches on the methodology and on both hypotheses.


Mr. Lucas Lieverse
Lucas Lieverse is docent en onderzoeker bij Zuyd Hogeschool en voor zijn PhD-onderzoek als buitenpromovendus verbonden aan het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing van de Universiteit Utrecht. Hij heeft als gewezen advocaat ervaring met en is geïnteresseerd in civiel (proces)recht en (juridische) conflictoplossing, waarbij hij inzichten uit verschillende disciplines verbindt.
Artikel

The need for an integrated comparison of the effectiveness of international sustainable forestry, coffee and cocoa initiatives

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden effectiveness, private sustainability standards, certification, FSC, UTZ Certified
Auteurs Martijn Scheltema
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    To date the effectiveness of private sustainability standards has been assessed from different angles which attribute different meanings to effectiveness. This contribution compares the effectiveness of two international certification initiatives (i.e. sustainable forestry (Forest Stewardship Council, FSC) and sustainable coffee and cacoa (UTZ Certified)) from three different angles (legal, impact, acceptance/legitimacy/governance). Based on publicly available data, it is shown that FSC scores better on some dimensions of these three angles (e.g. enforcement, cost and price premium, and government acceptance), while UTZ Certified scores better on others (e.g. verifiable evaluation criteria, regular evaluation, innovation). Hence, this analysis shows that a comparative evaluation of both initiatives would have been biased if it would have been based on a single angle approach. There is all the more reason to use such an integrated approach, since the different angles are intertwined. Therefore, it has been established that in order to establish the effectiveness of private certification initiatives an integrated approach is needed which combines different angles. This contribution shows such an approach is feasible.


Martijn Scheltema
Martijn Scheltema is professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam (the Netherlands). He researches the effectiveness of international private regulation in the CSR arena. He is board member of ACCESS Facility (www.accessfacility.org.) Beside this, he is board member of the CSR committee of the International Bar Association and attorney at law/partner with Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn (The Hague, the Netherlands).
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

Comparitierechters in eenzelfde zaak vergeleken: de individuele aanpak van rechters

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2011
Trefwoorden civil hearing, courts, dispute resolution, individual approach
Auteurs Silke Praagman
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the Netherlands, the way in which judges behave and communicate during hearings is increasingly being emphasized. This is related to the implementation of post-defence appearance in Dutch civil hearings (comparitie na antwoord) and a more general, albeit cautious, shift from dispute resolution, focused solely on resolving the legal aspects of a case, towards broader conflict resolution, in which other aspects of a case are considered too. This article compares how six judges managed a civil hearing of the same case. It seeks to explain the different outcomes that resulted from these judges’ hearings (i.e. settlement/judgement/referral to mediator) and seeks to identify what different ways of managing hearings imply for a possible shift from dispute resolution to conflict resolution. The empirical study found that the judges’ preparation of the case and their way of beginning and structuring the hearing were very similar; they also discussed similar subjects. Differences were found in how the judges interacted with the parties; the skills they used during hearings; how they used a specific skill; and in how they guided parties in the decision-making process about the outcome. No strong correlation emerged between a specific type of hearing management and the type of outcome selected. Interviews with the judges suggest that the explanation for the different outcomes lies partly in the judges’ personal views (on the appropriate outcome). Such beliefs influence how the judges manage a civil hearing, and indirectly the outcome of a case as well. These findings imply that for a shift from dispute resolution to conflict resolution to materialize, this will require judges to develop a common understanding of their responsibilities and to enhance their skills. They will also need to verify their assumptions more, so that the parties’ needs and the judge’s personal beliefs are better matched.


Silke Praagman
Silke Praagman heeft de VSR-scriptieprijs 2010 gewonnen. Zij studeerde rechtsgeleerdheid aan de Universiteit Utrecht en de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Tijdens haar studie werkte zij als junior medewerker bij het Landelijk bureau Mediation naast rechtspraak. In dit kader was zij betrokken bij onderzoek naar de verwijzingsvoorziening naar mediation en de werkwijze van rechters. Ook heeft zij tijdens het schrijven van haar scriptie als buitengriffier bij de Rechtbank Rotterdam binnen de sector civiel gewerkt.
Boekbespreking

Rechters van de straat

Veel hoop en geloof maar weinig zichtbare baat

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2010
Auteurs Albert Klijn
Auteursinformatie

Albert Klijn
Albert Klijn is rechtssocioloog en werkzaam bij de Raad voor de rechtspraak als adviseur wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Hij is tevens eindredacteur van het door de Raad uitgegeven periodiek Rechtstreeks. Hij redigeerde met M. Barendrecht de bundel Balanceren en vernieuwen. Een kaart van sociaal-wetenschappelijke kennis voor de fundamentele herbezinning procesrecht, Raad voor de rechtspraak, 2004.
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.