Zoekresultaat: 4 artikelen

x
Jaar 2017 x
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

Access_open Over verplichte excuses en spreekrecht

Wat is er mis met empirisch-juridisch onderzoek naar slachtoffers?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden empirical legal studies, apologies, procedural justice, humiliation, victim rights
Auteurs Vincent Geeraets en Wouter Veraart
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The central question in this article is whether an empirical-legal approach of victimhood and victim rights could offer a sufficient basis for proposals of legal reform of the legal system. In this article, we choose a normative-critical approach and raise some objections to the way in which part of such research is currently taking place in the Netherlands, on the basis of two examples of research in this field, one dealing with compelled apologies as a possible remedy within civil procedural law and the other with the victim’s right to be heard within the criminal legal procedure. In both cases, we argue, the strong focus on the measurable needs of victims can lead to a relatively instrumental view of the legal system. The legal system must then increasingly be tailored to the wishes and needs of victims. Within this legal-empirical, victim-oriented approach, there is little regard for the general normative principles of our present legal system, in which an equal and respectful treatment of each human being as a free and responsible legal subject is a central value. We argue that results of empirical-legal research should not too easily or too quickly be translated into proposals for legal reform, but first become part of a hermeneutical discussion about norms and legal principles, specific to the normative quality of legal science itself.


Vincent Geeraets
Vincent Geeraets is universitair docent aan de afdeling Rechtstheorie en rechtsgeschiedenis van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Wouter Veraart
Wouter Veraart is hoogleraar rechtsfilosofie aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Pursuing Legal Research

Tijdschrift Law and Method, juni 2017
Auteurs Synne Sæther Mæhle
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    By conducting methodological assessments, legal researchers decide which lines of inquiry are worth pursuing. Two aspects of such assessments are highlighted in this article. The first aspect is to construct promising lines of inquiry. The second aspect is to clarify provisionally the potential of various promising lines of inquiry. Clarifying and calibrating such potential through discourse with fellow researchers are essential. Increased awareness of how legal researchers decide which lines of inquiry are worth pursuing is vital to contemporary discourse about legal methodology.


Synne Sæther Mæhle
Associate professor, Faculty of Law, University of Bergen, Norway

Hilke Grootelaar
Hilke Grootelaar is promovenda bij het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing van de Universiteit Utrecht. Ze doet onderzoek naar ervaren procedurele rechtvaardigheid en vertrouwen in instituties. Daarnaast is ze redactiesecretaris van dit tijdschrift.
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.