Zoekresultaat: 17 artikelen

x
Jaar 2015 x
Article

Access_open Brazilian Civil Procedure in the ‘Age of Austerity’?

Effectiveness, Speed, and Legal Certainty: Small Claims, Uncontested Claims, and Simplification of Judicial Decisions and Proceedings

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2015
Trefwoorden austerity, civil procedure, access to justice, Brazil, small claims
Auteurs Antonio Gidi en Hermes Zaneti, Jr.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The current debate in Brazilian Civil Procedure revolves around efficiency, legal certainty, and access to justice, not austerity. As a matter of fact, the debate over austerity is nonexistent in Brazil so far. By expanding the access to justice to a broader portion of the society, the legal system increased the number of cases and the costs associated with the judicial system. But the excess litigation and expense associated with the expansion of access to justice has contradictorily curtailed access to justice. This new situation demands new efforts to increase efficiency and legal certainty, while still increasing access to justice.


Antonio Gidi
Antonio Gidi is Visiting Assistant Professor at the Syracuse University. SJD, University of Pennsylvania Law School; LLM and PhD, PUC-SP University; LLB, Federal University of Bahia.

Hermes Zaneti, Jr.
Hermes Zaneti, Jr. is Professor of Law at the Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo and Prosecutor. PhD in Philosophy and Theory of Law, Università degli Studi di Roma Tre; LLM and PhD in Civil Procedure, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRS).
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.

    Access to justice for those who cannot afford it remains a serious and intractable problem. Financial shortfalls and austerity cuts have caused much of the free legal advice sector to contract. Recent gains in the economy have not been distributed to the poorest in society, many of whom view lawyers as expensive and inaccessible. The result has been a widening of the justice gap – one which can only be filled if new models based on digitalization and internet based technologies fulfill their potential and allow both law firms and major brands to provide more affordable services. A broader market based response to the coming shortfall in legal assistance is possible if unbundling can become standard among legal practitioners. Technology will enable citizens to be supported with targeted advice and information should they need it. It will also bring solicitor managed services to an increasingly wide segment of the public.


Richard Cohen
Richard Cohen founded Landau & Cohen Solicitors before joining Epoq in 1998 as Joint CEO and is now Executive Chairman and Head of Partnerships. He served on the Solicitors Regulation Authority working group for the introduction of alternative business structures and contributed to the Legal Services Institute’s study on the Legal Services Act and the Legal Services Consumer Panel relating to referrals. In 2011, Richard was nominated for the FT Innovative Lawyers Legal Innovator of the Year Award.

Humphrey Clarke
Humphrey Clarke has worked in business development and market research for both Epoq’s UK and US operations. He has over nine years’ experience working in the legal and insurance sectors and has contributed numerous research papers and articles for industry publications.
Artikel

Challenges and obstacles to access to justice in health care

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden patients’ rights, disciplinary law, medical negligence, right to complain
Auteurs Aart Hendriks
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the Netherlands, patients have a large number of options to express their dissatisfaction about the services provided by health care providers and can institute all kind of (quasi) legal procedures. None of these procedures was however introduced to ensure patients’ right to access to justice. Access to justice for health care providers confronted with complaints by patients is even less guaranteed. An analysis of Dutch law and practice learns that the access to justice has not found an inroad in the health care sector yet. This is not to suggest that patients lack legal rights, but if access to justice was taken as a yardstick to measures laws against the health care sector, they would have looked differently.


Aart Hendriks
Aart Hendriks is Professor in Health Law at Leiden University, the Netherlands, legal advisor to the Royal Dutch Medical Association, and substitute judge at the District Court of Rotterdam. He has published extensively on health and human rights issues. He serves as advisor to various national and international organizations, is board member of a number of administrative bodies, and is editor of several scientific journals in the field of health, medicine, and human rights.
Artikel

De 3 uit 6-voorwaarde voor export van Nederlandse studiefinanciering door niet-actieve EU-burgers

Tijdschrift Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, Aflevering 8 2015
Trefwoorden Europees burgerschap, studiefinanciering, Export van studiefinanciering, 3 uit 6-voorwaarde
Auteurs Mr. R.H. van Ooik
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Het Hof van Justitie had al beslist dat Nederland door een woonplaatsvereiste voor te schrijven, de zogenoemde 3 uit 6-voorwaarde, voor migrerende werknemers en hun gezinsleden om Nederlandse financiering voor buiten Nederland gevolgd hoger onderwijs te kunnen verkrijgen, zijn verplichtingen krachtens artikel 45 VWEU en artikel 7 lid 2 van Verordening (EEG) nr. 1612/68 betreffende het vrije verkeer van werknemers niet was nagekomen. In de hier besproken uitspraak Martens is het de vraag of deze 3 uit 6-voorwaarde ook voor economisch niet-actieve EU-burgers verboden is, vanwege strijd met de bepalingen over het Europees Burgerschap (art. 20 en 21 VWEU).
    HvJ 25 februari 2015, zaak C-359/13, B. Martens/Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap,


Mr. R.H. van Ooik
Mr. R.H. (Ronald) van Ooik is als Universitair hoofddocent Europees recht verbonden aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.

    Pragmatism has become an established academic topic focused on an accepted canon of works and a number of seminal authors. There is something ironic about this fixation of the Pragmatist tradition. An anticipation of transience and embrace of adaptability runs through many of the classic works of Pragmatism. Nevertheless, there seems to be a tendency to fixate Pragmatism and freeze it in its classic iterations, especially with respect to its philosophy of scientific inquiry. The article seeks to retrieve the dynamics and adaptability the classical Pragmatists built into their notion of scientific inquiry. It seeks to illustrate the need for such flexibility with recent developments in the field of economics. When the financial crisis struck in 2007-2008, this involved more than the insolvency of a number of large banks. The crisis, at the very least, also involved the bankruptcy of a dominant economic model. It raised questions about the rationality of markets and the widespread faith in soft-touch regulation. It cast doubt on decades of neo-classical economic dogma that counseled small government, privatisation, and free markets. Neo-classical economics did not float free from other concerns. It informed notions about the role of the state, the limits of public policy, and the scope of democratic decision-making. Indeed, faith in rational, self-correcting markets affected debates in disparate disciplines like law, political science, philosophy, ethics, and history in many non-trivial ways. Hence, the financial crisis is also a crisis of scientific research.


Wouter de Been
Wouter de Been is assistant professor at the Erasmus School of Law, the Netherlands.
Artikel

Gedragsprofiling: het bepalen van kwade bedoelingen en het meten van effectiviteit

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden gedragsprofiling, afwijkend gedrag, psychologie, effectiviteitsmetingen, beveiligingspersoneel
Auteurs Helma van den Berg, Remco Wijn en Dianne van Hemert
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Is behavioural profiling a viable alternative to more traditional approaches to profiling, viewed from the perspectives of underlying theoretical assumptions and measures of effectiveness? In this article we describe behaviour profiling in relation to other types of profiling, we review relevant psychological mechanisms that underpin behaviour profiling, and discuss effectiveness of this type of profiling as well as methodological aspects of measuring effectiveness. Behaviour profiling is a method largely used to select potential offenders before the offence is committed by observing and giving meaning to behaviours preceding incidents. Deviant behaviours exhibited by suspects can be either part of a modus operandi related to the offence, the consequence of increased stress, or an atypical response to prodding actions by security officers. Relevant psychological mechanisms to explain ways behaviour profiling works include direct characteristics of deception as well as indirect indicators of deception, such as a criminal being more self-focused and more cognitively engaged. Effectiveness of behaviour profiling is increased by training, including learning more about modi operandi and related behaviours, awareness of biases in general, specific relevant biases, and techniques to correct for these biases.


Helma van den Berg
Helma van den Berg is werkzaam bij TNDO Earth, Life, and Social Sciences. Helma.

Remco Wijn
Remco Wijn is research scientist bij TNO Earth, Life, and Social Sciences

Dianne van Hemert
Dianne A. van Hemert is werkzaam bij TNO Earth, Life, and Social Sciences en redacteur van dit tijdschrift.
Artikel

Maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen in Nederland

Hoe vrijwillig/verplicht* is dat? (* doorhalen wat niet van toepassing is)

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Omgevingsrecht, Aflevering 1 2015
Trefwoorden Maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernenmen, Duurzaamheid, Verplichting
Auteurs mr. H.J. Zwalve-Erades
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In dit artikel bespreekt de auteur de juridische status van MVO in Nederland aan de hand van de volgende twee vragen: in hoeverre wordt het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven (dat wil zeggen: ondernemingen waarvan de hoofdvestiging statutair in Nederland is gevestigd) door middel van wet- en regelgeving gedwongen tot (bepaalde aspecten van) MVO en zo er al sprake is van een wettelijke verplichting, wie draagt in dat geval zorg voor de handhaving van deze regels?


mr. H.J. Zwalve-Erades
Mr. H.J. (Jeanine) Zwalve-Erades is werkzaam bij Royal HaskoningDHV als senior legal consultant op het gebied van duurzaamheid en omgevingsrecht.

    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.
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.

    This article studies the significance of insights from non-legal disciplines (such as political science, economics, and sociology) for comparative legal research and the methodology connected with such ‘interdisciplinary contextualisation’. Based on a theoretical analysis concerning the nature and methodology of comparative law, the article demonstrates that contextualisation of the analysis of legal rules and case law is required for a meaningful comparison between legal systems. The challenges relating to this contextualisation are illustrated on the basis of a study of the judicial use of comparative legal analysis as a source of inspiration in the judgment of difficult cases. The insights obtained from the theoretical analysis and the example are combined in a final analysis concerning the role and method of interdisciplinary contextualisation in comparative legal analysis conducted by legal scholars and legal practitioners.


Elaine Mak Ph.D.
Endowed Professor of Empirical Study of Public Law, in particular of Rule-of-Law Institutions, at Erasmus School of Law. Contact: mak@law.eur.nl.

    The seriousness of the incorporation problem in interdisciplinary legal research, this article argues, depends on how legal research is understood. If legal research is understood as a single, inherently interdisciplinary discipline, the problem largely falls away. On this view, the incorporation of other disciplines into legal research is what legal academics have for the last 40 years already successfully been doing. If, on the other hand, legal research is best conceived as a multi-disciplinary field, consisting of a core discipline – doctrinal research – and various other types of mono-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, the incorporation of other disciplines presents real difficulties. For legal academics engaged in socio-legal research, in particular, two problems arise: the practical problem of trying to address a legal professional and academic audience at the same time and the philosophical problem of trying to integrate the internal perspective of doctrinal research with the external perspective of other disciplines. In the final part of the article, these practical and philosophical difficulties are illustrated by reference to the author’s research on the politics of judicial review in new democracies.


Theunis Robert Roux
Theunis Robert Roux is Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Article

Access_open Introduction: The Incorporation Problem in Interdisciplinary Legal Research

Part 1: Theoretical Discussions

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2015
Auteurs Sanne Taekema en Wibren van der Burg
Auteursinformatie

Sanne Taekema
Sanne Taekema is Professor of Jurisprudence at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.

Wibren van der Burg
Wibren van der Burg is Professor of Legal Philosophy and Jurisprudence at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.

    The paper offers a legal theoretical analysis of the disciplinary character of the contemporary practice of legal scholarship. It is assumed that the challenges of interdisciplinary engagement are particularly revealing about the nature of legal scholarship. The paper argues for an understanding of legal scholarship that revolves around cultivating doctrinal knowledge about law. Legal scholarship is characterised as a normative and interpretive discipline that offers an internalist and non-instrumentalist perspective on law. The paper also argues that interdisciplinary engagement is sometimes necessary for legal scholars because some concepts and ideas built into the doctrinal structures of law cannot be made fully intelligible by way of pure normative legal analysis. This point is developed with the help of an epistemological clarification of doctrinal knowledge and anchored in an account of the practice of legal scholarship. The paper explores the implications of this account by way of analysing three paradigms of interdisciplinary engagement that respond to distinctive challenges facing legal scholarship: (1) understanding better the extra-legal origins of legal ideas, (2) managing discursive encounters that can generate frictions between disciplinary perspectives, and (3) building the knowledge base to handle challenge of validating policy initiatives that aim at changing the law. In different ways, all three challenges may require legal scholars to build competence in other disciplines. The third paradigm has particular relevance for understanding the methodological profile of legal scholarship. Legal scholarship is the only discipline with specific focus on how the social environment affects the doctrinal structures of law.


Matyas Bodig
Dr Matyas Bodig is Senior lecturer at the University of Aberdeen School of Law, Aberdeen, UK.

    This article sets out to contribute to the special issue devoted to multi-disciplinary legal research by discussing first the limits of purely doctrinal legal research in relation to a particular topic and second the relevant considerations in devising research that (inter alia) draws on non-legal, auxiliary disciplines to ‘fill in’ and guide the legal framework. The topic concerned is the (analysis of the) fundamental rights of minorities.
    The article starts with a long account of the flaws in the current legal analysis of the European Court of Human Rights regarding minorities’ rights, particularly the reduction in its analysis and the related failure to properly identify and weigh all relevant interests and variables. This ‘prelude’ provides crucial insights in the causes of the flaws in the Court’s jurisprudence: lack of knowledge (about the relevant interests and variables) and concerns with the Court’s political legitimacy.
    The article goes on to argue for the need for multi-disciplinary legal research to tackle the lack of knowledge: more particularly by drawing on sociology (and related social sciences) and political philosophy as auxiliary disciplines to identify additional interests and variables for the rights analysis. The ensuing new analytical framework for the analysis of minorities’ rights would benefit international courts (adjudicating on human rights) generally. To operationalise and refine the new analytical framework, the research should furthermore have regard to the practice of (a selection of) international courts and national case studies.


Kristin Henrard
Professor of minorities and fundamental rights at the Erasmus School of Law.
Article

Access_open Expounding the Place of Legal Doctrinal Methods in Legal-Interdisciplinary Research

Experiences with Studying the Practice of Independent Accountability Mechanisms at Multilateral Development Banks

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2015
Auteurs Andria Naudé Fourie
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    There is a distinct place for legal doctrinal methods in legal-interdisciplinary research methodologies, but there is value to be had in expounding that place – in developing a deeper understanding, for instance, of what legal doctrinal analysis has to offer, wherein lies its limitations, and how it could work in concert with methods and theories from disciplinary areas other than law. This article offers such perspectives, based on experiences with an ‘advanced’ legal-interdisciplinary methodology, which facilitates a long-term study of the growing body of practice generated by citizen-driven, independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs) that are institutionally affiliated with multilateral development banks. The article demonstrates how legal doctrinal methods have contributed towards the design and development of a multipurpose IAM-practice database. This database constitutes the analytical platform of the research project and also facilitates the integration of various types of research questions, methods and theories.


Andria Naudé Fourie
Research Associate, Erasmus University Rotterdam, School of Law.
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.