Zoekresultaat: 5 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid x Jaar 2016 x
Artikel

Framing labor contracts: Contract versus network theories

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden contract theory, Network theory, Labor regulation, subjectivity, performativity
Auteurs Robert Knegt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since the 18th century the ‘contractual model’ has become both a paradigm of social theories (f.i. ‘rational choice’) and a dominant model of structuring labour relations. Its presupposition of the subjectivity of individual actors as a given is criticized with reference to network-based theories (Latour, Callon) and to analyses of Foucault. The current contract model of labour relations is analyzed from a historical perspective on normative regimes of labour relations, that imply different conceptions of ‘subjectivity’. Research into the regulation of labour relations requires an analysis in terms of an entanglement of human beings, technologies and legal discourse.


Robert Knegt
Senior researcher at Hugo Sinzheimer Institute, University of Amsterdam
Artikel

Autonomy of law in Indonesia

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden Rule of law, Indonesia, Socio-legal studies, Legal scholarhip, Judiciary
Auteurs Professor Adriaan Bedner
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article seeks to answer how useful the theoretical approaches developed in Europe and the United States are for explaining or understanding the autonomy of law in Indonesia – a nation that is on the verge of becoming a lower-middle-income country and whose legal system presents many of the features found in other developing countries’ legal systems. The article first sketches three lines of theoretical thought that have dominated the inquiry into autonomy of law in (Western) sociology and then assesses to what extent they are represented in the socio-legal studies of Indonesian law. The conclusion is that although socio-legal scholars studying developing countries need supplementary concepts and theories, they can use the Western ones as their point of departure in understanding the functioning of law in a setting that is very different from the one in which these theories were developed.


Professor Adriaan Bedner
Adriaan Bedner is professor of law and society in Indonesia at the Van Vollenhoven Institute (Leiden Law School). He has worked on many different subjects within this field, including family law, administrative courts, and environmental law. His present focus is on the Indonesian Ombudsman and on legal education.
Discussie

KEI en ODR: hand in hand vooruit

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden ODR, online courts, access to justice, ADR
Auteurs Mr. dr. Jin Ho Verdonschot
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Is online dispute resolution (ODR) the way to organise 100% access to justice? Or is it more of a bubble-solution looking for a problem? Experiences are mixed but there are reasons to be optimistic. A Dutch example of an online divorce platform show how technology can better serve the justice needs of citizens. But for that we need to stop thinking in terms of ADR, ODR and court litigation but rather design more hybrid processes.


Mr. dr. Jin Ho Verdonschot
Jin Ho Verdonschot is directeur HiiL Rechtwijzer Technology en een van de grondleggers van het Rechtwijzer platform.
Discussie

KEI voorbij met ODR

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden ODR, Courts, court users, dispute resolution, digital court
Auteurs Dory Reiling
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    ‘I felt so sorry for you, such a lovely tool, and then you have no users!’ This was one of the comments after my presentation of the eKantonrechter at ODR 2016, organized by HiiL in The Hague in May 2016. ODR, online dispute resolution, was presented as a tool to solve all problems in the 4th Trend Report by HIIL after the conference. Arno Lodder, in a weblog, commented that ODR had raised hopes in its early promoters, but had not really taken off.
    ODR is a tool to help parties in the dispute resolve their problem. There are various examples of ODR tool: supporting double blind bidding to determine a sum of money, working out divorce settlements, negotiating a solution and taking a case to court.
    Interesting research questions abound in the area of ODR and its users: What paths do people take when trying to resolve a problem? How can people have ownership of their court procedure? How can solutions, ODR and court procedures, best be tailored to the type of problem?
    ODR and its users is a field in which law and society researchers can effectively contribute to improving digital problem solving and dispute resolution procedures in court.


Dory Reiling
Dory Reiling is senior rechter in Amsterdam, en product owner van KEI Civiel. Ze promoveerde op “Technology for Justice, how IT can support judicial reform”. Ze blogt over IT en rechtspraak op mr-online en haar Technology for Justice-blog. Ze twittert op @doryontour, haar publicaties staan op www.doryreiling.com.
Artikel

Understanding judges’ choices of sentence types as interpretative work: An explorative study in a Dutch police court

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2016
Trefwoorden Judicial decision-making, sentencing type, (ir)redeemability, whole case approach
Auteurs Peter Mascini, Irene van Oorschot PhD, Assistant professor Don Weenink e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article critically evaluates the prevailing factor-oriented (e.g. a priori defined legal and extralegal characteristics of defendants) approach in analyses of judicial decision-making. Rather than assuming such factors, we aim to demonstrate how Dutch judges engage in interpretative work to arrive at various sentence types. In their interpretative work, judges attempt to weigh and compare various legal and extralegal features of defendants. Importantly, they do so in the context of the case as a whole, which means that these features do not have independent or fixed meanings. Judges select and weigh information to create an image of defendants’ redeemability. However, extralegal concerns other than redeemability also inform judges’ decisions. We argue that studying the naturally occurring interpretative work of judges results in a better understanding of judicial decision-making than outcome-oriented studies, which view criminal cases as collections of independent legal and extralegal factors.


Peter Mascini
Peter Mascini holds a chair in Empirical Legal Studies at the Erasmus School of Law of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, where he is also associate professor of sociology at the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. His research focuses on the legitimization, implementation, and enforcement of laws and policies.

Irene van Oorschot PhD
Irene van Oorschot is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of the Social Sciences at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and will soon start as a postdoctoral researcher at the Anthropology Department of the University of Amsterdam. Drawing on actor network theory and feminist studies of knowledge, her research focuses on legal and scientific modes of truth-production.

Assistant professor Don Weenink
Don Weenink is assistant professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. He has published work on, among other subjects, ethnic inequalities in judicial sentencing.

Gratiëlla Schippers
Gratiëlla Schippers has studied Sociology at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. For her master thesis she has done research about the understanding of judges’ choices of sentence types.
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.