Zoekresultaat: 24 artikelen

x
Jaar 2015 x

    In this paper, an attempt is made to work out a methodology for comparative legal research, which goes beyond the ‘functional method’ or methodological scepticism.
    The starting point is the idea that we need a ‘toolbox’, not a fixed methodological road map, and that a lot of published, but largely unnoticed, research outside rule and case oriented comparative law offers varying approaches, which could usefully be applied in comparative research. Six methods have been identified: the functional method, the structural one, the analytical one, the law-in-context method, the historical method, and the common core method. Basically, it is the aim of the research and the research question that will determine which methods could be useful. Moreover, different methods may be combined, as they are complementary and not mutually exclusive.This paper focuses on scholarly comparative legal research, not on the use of foreign law by legislators or courts, but, of course, the methodological questions and answers will largely overlap.


Mark Van Hoecke
Professor of Comparative Law at Queen Mary University of London, and Professor of Legal Theory and Comparative Law at Ghent University
Article

Access_open Austerity in Civil Procedure

A Critical Assessment of the Impact of Global Economic Downturn on Civil Justice in Ghana

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2015
Trefwoorden austerity, small claims, civil justice, civil procedure, Ghana civil procedure
Auteurs Ernest Owusu-Dapaa en Ebenezer Adjei Bediako
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The demand for and availability of civil justice procedures for small claims can neither be disentangled nor extricated from the health of the economic climate of the relevant country concerned. In this article, it is argued that despite not being a developed country, Ghana was not completely insulated from the hardships or implementation of austerity measures that were triggered by the global economic meltdown. The inevitability of behavioural changes on the part of the Government of Ghana as lawmaker and provider of the machinery for civil justice on the one hand and small claims litigants as users of the civil procedure on the other hand are also explored in the article. After properly situating the exploration in the relevant economic context, the article makes recommendations regarding how to minimise the impact of the austerity measures on small claims litigants.


Ernest Owusu-Dapaa
Ernest Owusu-Dapaa is Lecturer in Law at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. Email: eodapaa@yahoo.com.

Ebenezer Adjei Bediako
Ebenezer Adjei Bediako is Principal Research Assistant at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Artikel

Access_open Institutional Religious Accommodation in the US and Europe

Comparative Reflections from a Liberal Perspective

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden European jurisprudence, freedom of religion, religious-based associations, religious accommodation
Auteurs Patrick Loobuyck
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Jean Cohen argues that recent US Supreme Court decisions about institutional accommodation are problematic. She rightly points out that justice and the liberal concept of freedom of consciousness cannot do the work in Hobby Lobby and Hosanna-Tabor: what does the work is a medieval political-theological conception of church immunity and sovereignty. The first part of this commentary sketches how the autonomy of churches and religious associations can be considered from a liberal perspective, avoiding the pitfall of the medieval idea of libertas ecclesiae based on church immunity and sovereignty. The second part discusses the European jurisprudence about institutional accommodation claims and concludes that until now the European Court of Human Rights is more nuanced and its decisions are more in line with liberalism than the US Jurisprudence.


Patrick Loobuyck
Patrick Loobuyck is Associate Professor of Religion and Worldviews at the Centre Pieter Gillis of the University of Antwerp and Guest Professor of Political Philosophy at Ghent University.
Artikel

Access_open Religious Sovereignty and Group Exemptions

A Response to Jean Cohen

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden democracy, exemptions, group rights, religious institutionalism
Auteurs Jonathan Seglow
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This response concurs with Cohen’s critique of the Hobby Lobby and Hosanna-Tabor cases but investigates whether religious accommodation might sometimes be justified in the case of institutions and groups (not just individuals). It suggests that exemptions for associations that are recruited to advance state purposes (e.g., in welfare or education) may be more justifiable than where private associations seek to maintain illiberal – for example, discriminatory – rules in line with their religious ethos. Non-democratic associations with a strong religious ethos might in principle enjoy permissible accommodation on the grounds that its members acquiesced to that ethos by joining the association, but only if other conditions are met. Democratic associations with a religious ethos have in principle a stronger claim for accommodation; in practice, however, few religious associations are internally democratic, especially where they seek to preserve illiberal internal rules.


Jonathan Seglow
Jonathan Seglow is Reader in Political Theory in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Royal Holloway, University of London.
Artikel

Access_open Freedom of Religion, Inc.: Whose Sovereignty?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden accommodation, freedom of religion, political theology, liberalism, liberty of conscience
Auteurs Jean L. Cohen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article focuses on an expansive conception of religious freedom propagated by a vocal group of American legal scholars – jurisdictional pluralists – often working with well-funded conservative foundations and influencing accommodation decisions throughout the US. I show that the proliferation of ‘accommodation’ claims in the name of church autonomy and religious conscience entailing exemption from civil regulation and anti-discrimination laws required by justice have a deep structure that has little to do with fairness or inclusion or liberal pluralism. Instead they are tantamount to sovereignty claims, involving powers and immunities for the religious, implicitly referring to another, higher law and sovereign than the constitution or the people. The twenty-first century version of older pluralist ‘freedom of religion’ discourses also rejects the comprehensive jurisdiction and scope of public, civil law – this time challenging the ‘monistic sovereignty’ of the democratic constitutional state. I argue that the jurisdictional pluralist approach to religious freedom challenges liberal democratic constitutionalism at its core and should be resisted wherever it arises.


Jean L. Cohen
Jean L. Cohen is the Nell and Herbert M. Singer Professor of Political Thought and Contemporary Civilization at the Department of Political Science of Columbia University (New York) and will be the Emile Noel Fellow at the Jean Monet Center of the NYU Law School from January till June 2016.
Artikel

The legacy and current relevance of Cappelletti and the Florence project on access to justice

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden definition and dimensions access to justice, recommendations, historic context access to justice, current context access to justice
Auteurs Bernard Hubeau
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution explains what access to justice can encompass and how the ideals about access to justice have developed in time. The way to do this is going back to the work of the famous scholars Cappelletti and Garth, who were responsible for a worldwide project on access to justice in the 1970s. Their main issue was to explain access to justice is more than the access to a judge and the organization of courts. Primarily, the system must be equally accessible to all, irrespective of social or economic status or other incapacity. But it also must lead to results that are individually and socially just and fair. Equal access and effective access are the central notions. Their work is put in perspective. The importance of their legacy and the question how we can get along with their work are stressed. Their definition is compared to a few other authoritative definitions. The waves in the history of access to justice are described and putting them in the current context illustrates why a fourth waved can be observed. The major question to be answered is how one can assess the challenges and obstacles of access to justice in the current context. Therefore, some recent dimensions and developments within access to justice are presented: the democratic dimension, the effectiveness of new social rights, the attention for poor and vulnerable people, further juridification, expanding frontiers of and monitoring access to justice, e-justice, and self-help. Finally, a few building blocks for reforms are presented.


Bernard Hubeau
Bernard Hubeau is a full-time Professor in Sociology and Sociology of Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Antwerp. He also teaches at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Antwerp and the Faculty of Law and Criminology of the University of Brussels. He is the former ombudsman of the city of Antwerp and of the Flemish Parliament.
Artikel

Social security and social welfare: barriers and retrograde policies, but cause for optimism?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden social security, legal representation, means-testing, Britain, fees
Auteurs Amir Paz-Fuchs
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution addresses the limits placed on access to justice in the context of social services, with a particular, but not exclusive, focus on the UK, across five central platforms: legal representation, the financial barriers, the structure of the programme, the attitude of the bureaucracy, and the personal attributes of the client. The contribution finds that there exist, for decades, problematic elements that constitute barriers to justice in this area: the means-tested element in the programmes and the bureaucracy’s double role as provider of services and detector of fraud. But to them, in recent years, significant barriers were added: recent cuts in legal aid and the imposition of tribunal fees in the UK are retrograde steps, reverting 40 years of impressive achievements in the field.


Amir Paz-Fuchs
Amir Paz-Fuchs (D. Phil Oxford) is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, University of Sussex, where he teaches employment law, public law, and legal theory. In addition, he is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies and a Research Associate at Wolfson College, both at the University of Oxford. He is also Co-Director of the ‘The Limits of Privatization’ research project, based at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem. He also served on the board of several human rights and social justice NGOs.
Artikel

Merits testing in the English legal aid system: exploring its impact in asylum cases

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden access to justice, asylum seekers, merits testing, English legal aid system
Auteurs Tamara Butter
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In recent years, there has been much discussion on the legal aid cuts and reforms in England and Wales, and the possible consequences this would have on access to justice for vulnerable groups in society, including immigrants and asylum seekers. This contribution focuses on one element of the English legal aid system: merits testing by legal aid providers in asylum cases. It explores whether and, if so, how this aspect may affect the access to justice for asylum seekers lacking the financial means to pay privately for legal assistance and representation. The findings indicate that a merits test which makes access to legal aid on appeal conditional upon a case having at least 50% prospect of success and makes legal aid providers responsible for conducting this assessment may compromise asylum seekers’ ability to achieve justice both within and outside the existing body of law.


Tamara Butter
Tamara Butter is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Sociology of Law/Centre for Migration Law of the Radboud University of Nijmegen. Her research consists of a comparative case study into the professional decision making of asylum legal aid lawyers in the Netherlands and England.
Artikel

De seksuele tiener en de sociale orde

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden youth, sex, transgression, criminal law
Auteurs Mr. drs. Juul Gooren
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A taboo serves the social order for it facilitates social control. This article will focus on taboos related to sexual contact by youngsters. The way authorities guard sexual taboos is indicative of the way authorities envision the organization of society. It is this organization through the control of youth and sex which will receive attention. In the classic study by Mary Douglas on pollution and taboo dirt is understood as ‘matter out of place’. The sexual teenager is an illustration of this ‘matter out of place’ because it is difficult to categorize sexual teenagers on the basis of asexual children and sexual adults as an organizing principle for society. In criminal law lewd conduct by youngsters refers to wrong sex at the wrong age. By criminalizing these sexual transgressions the proper place of youth and sex is once again restored. This is necessary for it will be argued that the interests of society are somewhat under pressure because of transgressions when it comes to children as asexual and when it comes to sex as something for within a relationship. The perpetrator of lewd conduct should be understood as a scapegoat reestablishing when and how sex should take place. By restoring the asexual child and the sexual relationship it is hoped sex and youngsters can once again offer some guidance in a social order lacking these clear markers.


Mr. drs. Juul Gooren
Mr. drs. Juul Gooren is docent voor Safety & Security Management Studies aan De Haagse Hogeschool.

    Dit is een verslag van het symposium over de knelpunten van de invoering van de beperkte gemeenschap van goederen, dat op 22 mei 2015 aan de Universiteit Utrecht werd gehouden. Het wetsvoorstel houdt - kort samengevat - in, dat voorhuwelijks vermogen, erfenissen en giften niet langer in de huwelijksgoederengemeenschap vallen. Op dit symposium werd het wetsvoorstel besproken en de daarop gerichte kritiek samengevat in 4 knelpunten. Ook werd het wetsvoorstel in internationaal perspectief geplaatst door sprekers uit Duitsland, Zweden en België. In internationaal opzicht is de algehele gemeenschap uniek en zowel in binnen- als buitenland wordt zij als ouderwets beschouwd.
    Als probleem van het voorgestelde stelsel wordt ervaren dat men tijdens het huwelijk geen administratie bijhoudt en dat dat bij de afwikkeling na ontbinding problemen gaat opleveren. Echter, het huidige bewijsvermoeden, zoals dat is neergelegd in art. 1:94 lid 6 BW, blijft van kracht in het wetsvoorstel. De zaaksvervangingsregel van 1:95 lid 1 BW wordt ook gehandhaafd. Besproken is de Belgische oplossing voor mogelijke problemen, inhoudende dat een goed dat voor meer dan de helft van de prijs uit eigen vermogen is gefinancierd alleen dan buiten de gemeenschap valt als partijen dat verklaren bij notariële akte.
    Het wetsvoorstel geeft een regeling om de echtgenoot mee te laten profiteren van het ondernemingsvermogen dat de ander buiten de gemeenschap opbouwt. De moeilijkheid hierbij is hoe de vergoeding jegens de niet-werkende echtgenoot berekend moet worden. Ten slotte is in het nieuwe wetsvoorstel geprobeerd tegemoet te komen aan het probleem dat een echtgenoot geconfronteerd wordt met schuldeisers van de andere echtgenoot. Om dit te bereiken zijn art. 1:96 BW en art. 61 Fw gewijzigd met als gevolg dat de positie van de schuldeiser tot normale proporties wordt teruggebracht.
    Een grote meerderheid van de aanwezigen bleek positief te zijn over het nieuwe wetsvoorstel: ongeveer 90 procent was voor invoering in Boek 1 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek.
    This is a conference report on a symposium held at the University of Utrecht on the 22nd of May on the legislative proposal for the introduction of a limited community of property in the Netherlands. The legislative proposal entails – in a nutshell – that pre-matrimonial property, inheritances and gifts no longer form a part of the community of property. During this symposium, the legislative proposal was discussed and the critique was summarized into four key issues. The legislative proposal was also placed in an international perspective by speakers from Germany, Sweden and Belgium. In the international perspective the Dutch community of property regime is unique and it is regarded as outdated in both the Netherlands and abroad. In the proposed new regime it is considered that spouses do not keep an administration of their assets during their marriage, which can cause problems after dissolution of the community. However, the rebuttal presumption of Article 1:94 para. 6 Dutch Civil Code, is upheld in the new proposal. The current rule of substitution as stated in Article 1:95 Dutch Civil Code is also maintained. The Belgian solutions to possible difficulties is discussed, in which property is only excluded from the community of property when more than half of the price has been financed by personal assets and this is declared in a notarial deed.Furthermore, the legislative proposal allows the non-working spouse to share in the profits of the business assets acquired by the work of the other spouse which are built up outside the community. The remaining difficulty is how the reimbursement claim should be calculated. Lastly, the legislative proposal attempts to prevent a spouse from being confronted by creditors of the other spouse. In order to achieve this, Article 1:96 Dutch Civil Code and Art. 61 Insolvency Law are amended in such a way that the position of the creditor is brought back tonormal proportions.A great majority of those present appeared to be positive about the legislative proposal; 90 percent voted in favour of incorporating it into Book 1 of the Dutch Civil Code.


Bas Legger
Bas Legger is student Notarial and Civil Law at the University of Groningen.

Tiddo Bos
Tiddo Bos is research master student Notarial and Civil Law at the University of Groningen.
Artikel

Liefde met hindernissen

Over ongewenste relaties in het verleden

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 4 2015
Trefwoorden marriage, partner choice, incest, homosexuality, cohabitation
Auteurs Prof. dr. J. Kok
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This articles offers an overview of four centuries of ‘forbidden relations’ in The Netherlands. From the late sixteenth century onwards, the dominant Calvinist church tried to ‘purify’ the Dutch nation by persecuting all forms of fornication, adultery, incest, and sodomy. The French period (1795-1813) separated church and state, and removed several forms of forbidden relations from the penal code. But social control on relations remained intense. An ‘ideal’ marriage was based on equality of the spouses in terms of social background, religion and age. Parents as well as the local community made sure young people made the ‘right’ choice. Competition between religious groups intensified in the late nineteenth century and mixed marriages became even more problematic. In the 1960s and 1970s all this began to change, and many rules and norms regarding partner choice were relaxed. An example of the changes over time are unmarried cohabitations which transformed from a crime (sanctioned by banishment) to deviant behaviour (sanctions through withholding poor relief) to a more or less normative ‘trial marriage’.


Prof. dr. J. Kok
Prof. dr. Jan Kok is als hoogleraar Economische, Sociale en Demografische geschiedenis verbonden aan de Radboud Universiteit in Nijmegen.

    Op 11 februari 2015 heeft het Comité van Ministers van de Raad van Europa de Recommendation on preventing and resolving disputes on child relocation aangenomen. Dit is het eerste Europese instrument over het verhuizen met kinderen na scheiding. De Recommendation heeft een duidelijk tweeledig doel: het voorkomen van conflicten over verhuizingen met kinderen en, indien een conflict is gerezen, het bieden van richtsnoeren voor het oplossen daarvan. In deze bijdrage staan in de eerste plaats de inhoud van de Recommendation en de daarbij gemaakte keuzes centraal. Daarnaast wordt ingegaan op de vraag wat deze Recommendation kan betekenen voor het Nederlandse recht en de toepassing daarvan in verhuiszaken. In de Recommendation worden enige, naar het oordeel van de auteur verstandige keuzes gemaakt. Zo verdient het stevig inzetten op alternatieve geschiloplossing steun. Daarnaast is de aanbevolen afzonderlijke beoordeling van het belang van het kind, zonder dat dit belang echter de doorslag hoeft te geven, in overeenstemming met vaste rechtspraak van de Hoge Raad in verhuiszaken. Ook het pleidooi voor een neutrale, kind-gecentreerde, casuïstische benadering door de rechter strookt met de wijze waarop Nederlandse rechters tot hun beslissingen in verhuiszaken komen. Specifieke verhuiswetgeving op deze punten, zoals de Recommendation voorstelt, acht de auteur dan ook niet nodig. Wel zou de wettelijke verankering van de in de Recommendation voorgestelde formele notificatieplicht kunnen bijdragen aan het voorkomen van verhuisconflicten. Krachtens deze plicht dient de ouder met een verhuiswens de andere ouder – schriftelijk en binnen een redelijke termijn – te informeren over de voorgenomen verhuizing. Hoewel de verwachtingen van het daadwerkelijke effect van de Recommendation als niet-bindend instrument niet al te hoog gespannen moeten zijn, draagt deze bij aan de erkenning van verhuizing met kinderen als een (hoog)potentieel conflictueuze aangelegenheid.
    On the 11th February 2015 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Recommendation on preventing and resolving disputes on child relocation. This is the first European instrument on child relocation. The aim of the Recommendation is twofold: preventing relocation disputes, and in case of a dispute, providing guidelines for solving them. This contribution firstly intends to examine the principles of the Recommendation and the choices that has been made during the drafting process. Secondly, it will look at the question of to what extent the Recommendation could lead to any adjustments of Dutch law and its application in relocation cases. In the opinion of the author, a number of prudent choices have been made in the Recommendation. In the first place, the encouragement of alternative dispute resolution ought to be supported. Secondly, the recommended individual and separate assessment of the best interests of the child (whose interests are, however, not decisive) is in accordance with the case law of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in relocation cases. The plea for a neutral, child centered, case-by-case approach by the court is also consistent with the way in which Dutch courts make their decisions in relocation cases. Specific relocation legislation in this regard is not necessary in the opinion of the author. However, a legislative provision requiring the relocating parent to inform the other parent prior to the intended relocation might contribute to the prevention of disputes on child relocation. Although expectations concerning the actual effect of the Recommendation as a non-binding instrument should not be too high, it nevertheless contributes to the recognition of child relocation as an issue with a high potential for conflict.


Prof. mr. Lieke Coenraad
Prof. mr. Lieke Coenraad is Professor of Private Law and Dispute Resolution at the law faculty of VU University Amsterdam. She is also deputy judge at the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open Draagmoederschap naar Belgisch en Nederlands recht

Tijdschrift Family & Law, mei 2015
Auteurs Dr. Liesbet Pluym Ph.D.
Samenvatting

    Zowel in België als in Nederland komt draagmoederschap voor. Deze bijdrage heeft tot doel om de houding van de twee buurlanden ten aanzien van dit controversiële fenomeen te onderzoeken en te vergelijken.
    De wensouders en draagmoeders ervaren meerdere juridische obstakels. Zo blijkt in beide landen de draagmoederschapsovereenkomst niet geldig en evenmin afdwingbaar te zijn. Hoewel in Nederland de mogelijkheid bestaat om het ouderlijk gezag over te dragen van draagmoeder naar wensouders, is het ook daar, net zoals in België, allesbehalve evident om de band tussen kind en wensouders juridisch te verwezenlijken. Noch de oorspronkelijke, noch de adoptieve afstamming is aan het fenomeen aangepast. Vooral voor Nederland is dit vreemd aangezien de Nederlandse wetgeving uitdrukkelijk bepaalt onder welke voorwaarden medisch begeleid draagmoederschap toegelaten is. De wet schept met andere woorden een gezondheidsrechtelijk kader, maar regelt niet de gevolgen van het draagmoederschap. In België is er daarentegen geen enkele wetgeving betreffende draagmoederschap. Dit betekent dat de onaangepaste wetgeving betreffende medisch begeleide voortplanting van toepassing is op draagmoederschap. Over deze toepassing en de gevolgen ervan bestaat evenwel onduidelijkheid. Commercialisering van draagmoederschap leidt ook tot problemen. In Nederland is professionele bemiddeling en het openbaar maken van vraag en aanbod met betrekking tot draagmoederschap strafbaar gesteld. Daarnaast kunnen de omstandigheden van een zaak waarin het kind als het ware verkocht wordt aan de wensouders zowel in België als in Nederland leiden tot andere misdrijven. Gelet op dit alles begeven sommige wensouders zich naar het buitenland om daar beroep te doen op draagmoederschap. Wensen zij terug te keren met het kind naar het land van herkomst, dan leidt dit in beide buurlanden tot internationaalprivaatrechtelijke problemen.
    Door het gebrek aan een algemeen wettelijk kader, is het draagmoederschapsproces in beide landen vaak een calvarietocht. Dit leidt tot rechtsonzekerheid. Oproepen tot een wettelijk ingrijpen bleven tot nu toe echter onbeantwoord.
    Surrogacy is practiced in Belgium and the Netherlands. The aim of this contribution is to compare the many legal aspects of the phenomenon. In both countries legal problems surround surrogacy: the surrogacy contract is unenforceable; it is difficult for the intended parents to become the legal parents; commercial surrogacy can result in criminal sanctions and cross-border surrogacy leads to limping legal relations. The main differences between the two legal systems are that in Belgium there is no regulation at all, while in the Netherlands, professional mediation and advertising in surrogacy are explicitly forbidden and Dutch law provides a limited health law regulation. In both countries scholars have pressed the need for legal change.


Dr. Liesbet Pluym Ph.D.

    Those who talk can be heard. Those who are allowed to talk may be listened to. This study is an attempt to give legal voice to those who cannot talk or are usually not listened to: children. This study is about the attention given to their interests, the best interests of the child. When these interests are immersed in a minority context, children may be overlooked for different reasons, including discriminatory attitudes or prejudice regarding their families. Law and its interpretation must be changed in order to include the difference. This study discusses the best interests of the child principle with special attention to its legal relevance in cases where lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) are, or want to be, parents. The authoritative source for the interpretation of the principle is the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The analysis focuses on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and its case law. The study aims to explore the Court’s approach to the best interest of the child and identify whether the principle is being consistently applied in cases involving LGBT families, given the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are still sensitive issues in Europe. This is done by comparing these cases to cases lodged by applicants who were not identified as an LGBT person. The margin of appreciation doctrine and the lack of European consensus on sexual minorities’ rights are confronted with the urgent paramount consideration that has to be given to children’s best interests. The analysis explores whether there is room for detecting a possible Court’s biased approach towards the concept of the best interests of the child. This study challenges the Court’s decisions in the sense that the focus should not only be at the LGBT parents’ rights to private and family life, but also at the interests of their daughters and sons. This is an attempt to call upon the ECtHR and all states not only to actively fight discrimination against LGBT persons, but, ultimately, to stop interpreting the concept of the best interests of the child in an arguably biased way, and to consider the principle’s legal value in any decision, regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or any other distinction.


Mr. Gabriel Alves de Faria
Gabriel Alves de Faria is a Brazilian lawyer, LGBTI activist and human rights specialist who holds a Law degree from the Federal University of Espirito Santo and a European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation (E. MA/EIUC - Utrecht University). Among other legal and social experiences in the human rights field, Gabriel has worked as a researcher in comparative sexual orientation Law at Leiden University and most recently as a Fellow and consultant lawyer at the LGBTI Rapporteurship of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC. His latest project is a documentary on the situation of LGBTI persons in Southeast Asia.

    This paper raises two methodological questions from a philosophical perspective: (i) what is involved in a functionalist approach to law and (ii) what should be the focus of such an approach? To answer these questions, I will take two steps with both. To begin with, I argue that Pettit’s view on functionalist approaches may be made relevant for law; functionalist accounts target a virtual mechanism that explains why a system will be resilient under changes in either the system or its environment. Secondly, I make a distinction between two interpretations of his key-concept ‘resilience’, one in mechanical, the other in teleological terms. With regard to the second question I will take two steps as well. I argue why it does not make sense to ascribe wide functions to law, followed by a plea for a limited view on the function of law. This limited view is based on a teleological understanding of the law’s resilience. I argue that these two modes are interrelated in ways that are relevant for the interdisciplinary study of law.


Bert van Roermund

    The article considers the role of the liberal public-private divide in protecting religious minorities against national-majoritarian assault. It links the defence of the public-private divide to liberal neutrality and argues that it rests on two distinct propositions: that the distinction between the ’public sphere’ and the ’private sphere’ is a meaningful way to cognize and structure modern pluralistic societies; and that there is a meaningful way to distinguish what is or ought to be ‘public’ from what is or ought to be ‘private.’ While the latter proposition cannot be defended on grounds of liberal neutrality, the former proposition provides the institutional framework for conducting liberal politics by enabling the negotiation of the public and the private between national majorities and religious minorities as members of the same political community.


Daniel Augenstein
Daniel Augenstein is Associate Professor at the Department of European and International Public Law at Tilburg University.
Artikel

Slachtoffer-daderoverlap bij partnergeweld in Nederland: implicaties voor de Wet tijdelijk huisverbod

Tijdschrift PROCES, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden Slachtoffer-daderoverlap, Partnergeweld, Wet tijdelijk huisverbod
Auteurs Dr. Karlijn F. Kuijpers
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Although there is evidence for a victim-offender overlap for various crimes, specific empirical research into a victim-offender overlap for intimate partner violence is scarce. The current study empirically examines the presence of a victim-offender overlap among 156 victims of partner violence recruited at Dutch service organizations. Results show a clear victim-offender overlap, especially for behaviors of psychological partner violence and to a lesser degree for physical partner violence. Implications of these findings for the Dutch law on temporary restraining orders are discussed.


Dr. Karlijn F. Kuijpers
Dr. Karlijn F. Kuijpers is universitair docent Criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht & Criminologie van de Universiteit Leiden. Gegevens voor dit onderzoek zijn verzameld toen de auteur nog in dienst was bij het International Victimology Institute Tilburg van de Universiteit van Tilburg.
Diversen

Sociology of law in European civil law countries

Some remarks and correspondent proposals

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2015
Trefwoorden socio-legal studies, high theory, research, achievements and gaps
Auteurs Vincenzo Ferrari
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In continental Europe, post-war sociology of law passed through diverse phases, swinging between grand theorizing and empirical research. In the last two decades, socio-legal studies have shown a more balanced approach with respect to these models. Neo-functionalism à-la Luhmann still takes the lead in high theory, although some more eclectic voices make themselves heard and some signs of renaissance of conflict theories have become visible again. Through an overview of the recent editorial policy of three influential journals in France, Germany and Italy, the author highlights that middle range socio-legal theory has successfully dealt with some relevant aspects of legal change of the last decades, in such fields as criminal justice, migrations, or family law. Yet, it has left aside other and no less important aspects, such as commerce and property laws, common goods, environment, and other crucial questions of our times. Thus, there is a risk for sociology of law not to perform its critical and pioneering task that belongs to its own tradition.


Vincenzo Ferrari
Vincenzo Ferrari is emeritus professor of philosophy and sociology of law. He has taught in the Universities of Cagliari, Bologna and Milan, and has been a visiting professor in diverse world’s academic institutions. He chaired the ISA Research Committee on Sociology of Law and was among the founders of the IISL, Oñati.

John Griffiths
John Griffiths is oud-hoogleraar rechtssociologie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Naast onderzoek naar de totstandkoming van bezoekregelingen na echtscheiding, de verdeling van rechtshulp, het functioneren van de bezwaarschriftenprocedure in het bestuursrecht, de rol van het recht bij de bescherming van het tropisch bos, en de werking van het euthanasie-recht, heeft hij zich vooral toegelegd op enkele theoretische vraagstukken: het ontstaan en de levensloop van geschillen, rechtspluralisme, en de sociale werking van (rechts)regels. Momenteel werkt hij aan een soort theoretisch credo met als titel ‘What is sociology of law?’, waarin onderwerpen zoals wat is een feit?, wat is theorie?, wat is ‘recht’? en wat is sociologie? systematisch worden behandeld.
Diversen

Sociology of law in search of a distinct identity

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2015
Trefwoorden sociology of law, legal sociology, socio-legal studies, interdisciplinary study of law, law & society
Auteurs Koen Van Aeken
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Rechtssociologie en recht-en-samenlevingstudies hebben behoefte aan de ontwikkeling van een eigen identiteit, die hen onder meer onderscheidt van het groeiende juridisch onderzoek waarbij empirische methoden gehanteerd worden. Deze identiteit kent vijf verbindende elementen: excellente (primaire of secundaire) empirische methodologie, kritisch, nuttig, blijvend geïnformeerd door theorie uit een inclusieve sociologie, en afwijzend tegenover reductionistische benaderingen van de werkelijkheid. Als een van deze eigenschappen ontbreekt, is er geen sprake van volwaardige rechtssociologie. Als alle eigenschappen aanwezig zijn, is de rechtssociologie bijzonder goed uitgerust om de actuele veranderingen in recht en samenleving te bestuderen. In die context kan de ontwikkeling en verspreiding van een eigen identiteit, die de vijf eigenschappen incorporeert, kansen bieden om de rechtssociologie een meer centrale positie toe te kennen in de rechtenfaculteiten.


Koen Van Aeken
Koen Van Aeken studeerde politieke en sociale wetenschappen en methodologie en promoveerde op een rechtssociologisch proefschrift over wetsevaluatie aan de Universiteit Antwerpen. Sinds 2006 is hij verbonden aan Tilburg Law School. Zijn onderwijs en onderzoek situeren zich op het terrein van de interdisciplinaire benadering van het recht, met bijzondere aandacht voor reguleringsvraagstukken.
Toont 1 - 20 van 24 gevonden teksten
« 1
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.