Zoekresultaat: 57 artikelen

x
Jaar 2014 x

    In this article the Think-Aloud Method, a method used in problem solving research in Psychology, is used in legal research to gather data on how novices, expert beginners and experts read, structure and analyse legal decisions. In the Dutch legal system decisions by judges are a major source of law. So it is important that law students learn to read, structure and analyse legal decisions. However, reading and understanding a decision does not go without saying, it has to be learned. The data we gather using the Think-Aloud Method are used to improve instruction to support the effective and efficient learning of comprehending legal decisions. We describe the Think-Aloud Method, our experimental design and our approach for analysing the protocols.


Dr. Antoinette Muntjewerff
Dr. A. Muntjewerff is Assistant Professor of Legal Theory at the Faculty of Law at the University of Amsterdam. She has a Masters in Social Science, a Masters in Law, and a PhD in Computer Science & Law; she studied Computer Science (more specifically Artificial Intelligence).
Artikel

Access_open The Experience of Legal Injustice

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden legal injustice, legal subject, law and morality, Fuller, Arendt
Auteurs Wouter Veraart
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper shows that Fuller and Arendt converge on a different point than the point Rundle focuses on. What Fuller and Arendt seem to share in their legal thoughts is not so much an interest in the experience of law-as-such (the interaction between responsible agency and law as a complex institution), but rather an interest in the junction of law and injustice. By not sufficiently focusing on the experience of legal injustice, Rundle overlooks an important point of divergence between Arendt and Fuller. In particular, Arendt differs from Fuller in her conviction that ‘injustice in a legal form’ is an integral part of modern legal systems.


Wouter Veraart
Wouter Veraart is Professor of Legal Philosophy and Director of Research at the Free University Amsterdam; w.j.veraart@vu.nl.
Artikel

Access_open Reply

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden Fuller, Arendt, normativism, methodology, the rule of law
Auteurs Kristen Rundle
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Author’s reply to four commentaries on ‘Legal Subjects and Juridical Persons: Developing Public Legal Theory through Fuller and Arendt.’


Kristen Rundle
Kristen Rundle is Senior Lecturer of Law at the University of New South Wales; k.rundle@unsw.edu.au
Artikel

Access_open Fuller and Arendt: A Happy Marriage? Comment on Rundle

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden Fuller, Arendt, Radbruch, legal certainty
Auteurs Thomas Mertens
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In her paper, Rundle seeks to develop a normative legal theory that is distinctively public. Building on her book, Forms Liberate, she seeks to bring Fuller’s legal theory into conversation with Arendt’s political theory. In this comment, I present some hesitations with regard to the fruitfulness of this conversation. It concludes with the suggestion to explore how Radbruch’s ‘idea of law’ could be fruitful for the overall jurisprudential project Rundle seeks to develop in her work.


Thomas Mertens
Thomas Mertens is Professor of Philosophy of Law at Radboud University Nijmegen; t.mertens@jur.ru.nl
Artikel

Access_open Political Jurisprudence or Institutional Normativism? Maintaining the Difference Between Arendt and Fuller

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden Arendt, Fuller, Hobbes, political jurisprudence, political freedom, authority, legality
Auteurs Michael Wilkinson
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Can jurisprudence fruitfully pursue a synthesis of Arendt’s political theory and Fuller’s normative legal philosophy? Might their ideas of the juridical person and the legal subject be aligned as a result of a shared concern for the value of legality, specifically of an institutional complex which is structured through the stability and predictability of the rule of law? It is doubtful that Arendt's concern for the phenomena of plurality, political freedom and action can usefully be brought into line with Fuller's normativist focus on legality, subjectivity and the inner morality of law. This doubt is explored by juxtaposing Arendt's theory of action and her remarks on the revolution, foundation and augmentation of power and authority with Fuller's philosophy that, however critical of its positivist adversaries, remains ultimately tied to a Hobbesian tradition which views authority and power in abstract, hierarchical and individualist terms.


Michael Wilkinson
Michael Wilkinson is Associate Professor of Law at the London School of Economics; m.wilkinson@lse.ac.uk
Artikel

Access_open Legal Subjects and Juridical Persons: Developing Public Legal Theory through Fuller and Arendt

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden Fuller, Arendt, legal subject, juridical person, public rule of law theory
Auteurs Kristen Rundle
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The ‘public’ character of the kind of rule of law theorizing with which Lon Fuller was engaged is signalled especially in his attention to the very notion of being a ’legal subject’ at all. This point is central to the aim of this paper to explore the animating commitments, of substance and method alike, of a particular direction of legal theorizing: one which commences its inquiry from an assessment of conditions of personhood within a public legal frame. Opening up this inquiry to resources beyond Fuller, the paper makes a novel move in its consideration of how the political theorist Hannah Arendt’s reflections on the ‘juridical person’ might aid a legal theoretical enterprise of this kind.


Kristen Rundle
Kristen Rundle is Senior Lecturer of Law at the University of New South Wales; k.rundle@unsw.edu.au

    Introduction to this special issue of NJLP.


Morag Goodwin
Morag Goodwin is Associate Professor of International Law at Tilburg University; m.e.a.goodwin@uvt.nl.

Michiel Besters
Michiel Besters is a Ph.D. researcher in Legal Philosophy at Tilburg University; m.besters@uvt.nl.

Rudolf Rijgersberg
Rudolf Rijgersberg is Assistant Professor of Foundation and Methods of Law at Maastricht University; rudolf.rijgersberg@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Artikel

Access_open Lawyers Doing Philosophy

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden human agency, legal doctrine, command theory of law, Fuller, Arendt
Auteurs Pauline Westerman
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Rundle criticizes the command conception of law by means of Fuller’s and Arendt’s concept of human agency. However, neither of these two authors derive law from human agency, as Rundle seems to think. Instead they stress that personhood can only be attributed to physical human beings on the basis of law. Moreover, their theories cannot be understood as answers to Rundle’s question – whatever that may be – but as answers to their own questions and concerns. In the case of Arendt and Fuller, these concerns were so different that the enterprise to reconcile them seems futile. Rundle’s approach can be understood as the attempt to deal with philosophy as if it were legal doctrine.


Pauline Westerman
Pauline Westerman is Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University of Groningen; p.c.westerman@rug.nl
Hoofdartikel

The Challenge of Empirical Method to Labour Law Theory and Practice

Tijdschrift Arbeidsrechtelijke Annotaties, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden Empirical research, Shaping of labour law, Methodology
Auteurs Simon F. Deakin
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The aim of the paper is to consider the significance for labour law theory and practice of empirical research into the operation and effects of this branch of law. It will be argued that empirical research has an important role to play in the methodology of labour law, even if it is ancillary, much of the time, to doctrinal approaches. Secondly, and relatedly, the paper will address the historical role of empirical research in the shaping of labour law as a field distinct from both private law and public law, and, in particular, as transcending the categories of property and contract that were inherited from the individualist private law of the nineteenth century. The third and last theme of the paper is that of the role of empirical research in addressing contemporary issues of labour law doctrine and policy.


Simon F. Deakin
Simon F. Deakin is prof. of law at the University of Cambridge.
Article

Access_open Legal Advice in Police Custody: From Europe to a Local Police Station

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2014
Trefwoorden legal advice, police interrogation, European Union, England and Wales, France
Auteurs Anna Ogorodova en Taru Spronken
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In October 2013, the European Union adopted a Directive, which guarantees, inter alia, the right of access to a lawyer to suspects of criminal offences from the outset of police custody and during police interrogation. However, adoption of the relevant legislation is not sufficient to ensure that this right becomes effective in practice. A range of practical measures will have to be taken by the Member States’ authorities and the legal profession to effectuate the implementation of the right to custodial legal advice. This article aims to identify the practical factors that may influence the implementation of the Directive, based on the findings of a recent normative and empirical study conducted by the authors. The research was carried out in four European jurisdictions (England and Wales, France, the Netherlands and Scotland), and it consisted of analysis of regulations, observations of daily practice in police stations, accompanying lawyers who provided custodial legal advice, and interviews with criminal justice practitioners. The article provides a range of recommendations on the practical measures to be undertaken by the EU Member States and national Bar associations aiming at improving the protection of suspects’ rights in police custody in practice.


Anna Ogorodova
Anna Ogorodova, LLM is PhD researcher at the University of Maastricht.

Taru Spronken
Dr Taru Spronken is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at Maastricht University and Advocate General at the Supreme Court in the Netherlands.
Article

Access_open Juveniles’ Right to Counsel during Police Interrogations: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of a Youth-Specific Approach, with a Particular Focus on the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2014
Trefwoorden legal representation, counsel, juvenile justice, police interrogations, children’s rights
Auteurs Prof. Dr. Ton Liefaard Ph.D. LL.M en Yannick van den Brink
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The right to counsel of juveniles at the stage of police interrogations has gained significant attention since the Salduz ruling of the European Court on Human Rights in 2008. The legislative and policy developments that have taken place since then and that are still ongoing – both on a regional (European) and domestic (Dutch) level – reveal a shared belief that juvenile suspects must be awarded special protection in this phase of the criminal justice proceedings. This calls for a youth-specific approach as fundamentally different from the common approach for adults. At the same time, there seems to be ambivalence concerning the justification and concrete implications of such a youth-specific approach. This article aims to clarify the underlying rationale and significance of a youth specific approach to the right to counsel at the stage of police interrogations on the basis of an interdisciplinary analysis of European Court on Human Rights case law, international children’s rights standards and relevant developmental psychological insights. In addition, this article aims to position this right of juveniles in conflict with the law in the particular context of the Dutch juvenile justice system and provide concrete recommendations to the Dutch legislator.


Prof. Dr. Ton Liefaard Ph.D. LL.M
Prof. Dr. T. Liefaard is Professor of Children’s Rights (UNICEF Chair) at Leiden Law School, Department of Child Law; t.liefaard@law.leidenuniv.nl.

Yannick van den Brink
Y.N. van den Brink, LL.M, MA, is PhD researcher at Leiden Law School, Department of Child Law; y.n.van.den.brink@law.leidenuniv.nl.
Article

Access_open Legal Assistance and Police Interrogation

(Problematic Aspects of) Dutch Criminal Procedure in Relation to European Union and the Council of Europe

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2014
Trefwoorden Legal assistance, police interrogation, Dutch Criminal Proceedings, EU Directive
Auteurs Paul Mevis en Joost Verbaan
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper discusses the rise of a fundamental issue in Dutch criminal proceedings. The presence of a lawyer prior to and during police interrogations has for a long time been a matter open for debate in the Netherlands. Allowing legal assistance during and prior to police interrogations has been researched on several occasions in the previous century and the beginning of this century. In the Netherlands, one of the most important reasons for not admitting legal assistance was and is founded in the confident reliance on the professionalism and integrity of police officers and justice officials in dealing with the interests of suspects. However, after the Salduz case (ECHR 27 November 2008, Appl. No. 36391/02, Salduz v. Turkey), the Dutch government was compelled to draft legal provisions in order to facilitate legal assistance during and prior to police interrogations. The initial drafts still contained a hesitant approach on admitting the lawyer to the actual interrogation. The EU-Directive of November 2013 (Pb EU 2013, L249) set out further reaching standards compelling the Dutch government to create new drafts. In a ruling of April 2014, the Dutch Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:2014:770) argued that the judgements of the ECtHR were too casuistic to derive an absolute right to have a lawyer present during police interrogation. However, they urged the legislator to draft legislation on this matter and warned that its judgement in this could be altered in future caused by legal developments. The Dutch legislator already proposed new draft legislation in February. In this paper it is examined whether the provisions of the new drafts meet the standards as set out in the EU-Directive as well as by the ECtHR.


Paul Mevis
Paul Mevis is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at the Faculty of Law of the Erasmus. He has been a visiting professor at the universities of Münster, Mmabato (South Africa) and in Moldavia, the Ukrain and in Frankfurt an der Oder. Besides his academic activities, Paul Mevis is Honorary Judge at the Criminal Court of Rotterdam and Honorary Judge at the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, since 1994 and 1998 respectively. He has been parttime Judge at the Court of Arnhem (1990-1994) and is member of the Commission of Supervision of prisons (2006-2008). Paul Mevis is also member of the board of editors of several journals in the field of criminal law and human rights law and commentator for the journal ‘Nederlandse Jurisprudentie’ on criminal cases. He was chairman of the ‘Commissie Strafvordelijke gegevensvergaring in de informatiemaatschappij’ (2000-2001), of which the report has lead to the Bill of the same name. He is a member of the School of Human Rights Research and the Research School on Safety and Security in Society.

Joost Verbaan
Mr. J.H.J. (Joost) Verbaan is an assistant-professor at the Erasmus School of Law of the Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. He teaches Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure law. Mr. Verbaan is the Managing Director of the Erasmus Center for Police Studies (ECPS). The ECPS organises courses on criminal and criminal procedure law for law enforcement agencies as well as the prosecution. Mr. Verbaan has been involved in many researches in the practical field of investigation. He has taken part in the research for the Governmental Institute of Scientific Research and Documentation on the effects of the presence of an attorney during the first police interrogation.For the same institute together with professor Mevis he researched the Modalities of Serving in comparative law perspective.He served the secretary of the Committee to draft a new Dutch Antillean Criminal Code and served the secretary of the Committee to draft a new Criminal Code for Aruba, Sint Maarten and Curacao. He served the secretary of the Committee to Draft a common Criminal Procedure Code in the Caribbean regions of Aruba, Curacao , Sint Maarten and the BES-territories. In the republic of Surinam Mr. Verbaan has worked in the legal advisory board of the Committee founded in order to codify a new Criminal Code for the republic of Surinam.

    ADR in Kenya is traceable to the pre-colonial era. Before colonial rule, African communities applied traditional justice systems in the resolution of disputes. Some of these traditional justice systems are what are formally called ADR. It is through the imposition of formal justice systems by the British that certain ADR mechanisms were recognised in Kenya. In recent times, ADR is one of the commonly used avenues in accessing justice in Kenya. ADR in Kenya is growing at an unprecedented rate courtesy of its recognition in law, inaccessibility of courts and tribunals, backlog of cases and increased commercial activities requiring the use of ADR processes. Consequently, there are efforts by government and the private sector aimed at promoting ADR in Kenya. These efforts suggest that the future of ADR in Kenya is promising. In this article, the authors discuss the growth, development and practice of ADR in Kenya highlighting some of the likely challenges and opportunities in its use.


Francis Kariuki
Francis Kariuki is a Lecturer at Strathmore University Law School.

Linet Muthoni
Linet Muthoni is the Executive Officer of the Strathmore Dispute Resolution Centre.

    Colombia has been a territory with some social and political difficulties which have affected several dynamics of the community as well as the legal security in almost all levels of the Colombian society. The alternative dispute resolution mechanisms arise as a response for all the gaps that such circumstances produce in the country and as useful tools to solve numerous disputes in different fields. The Chamber of Commerce of Bogotá, through its Arbitration and Conciliation Center founded in 1983, is making a permanent bet to support the Colombian citizens’ coexistence in the schools, in the neighbourhoods, in the companies that provide jobs as well as benefits to the city and to the whole country. Clever strategies have been developed through the years with three purposes: change the culture about the alternative dispute resolution methods, provide confidence in using them and change the way the people manage their conflicts.


Rafael Bernal Gutiérrez
Rafael Bernal Gutiérrez is director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Center of the Chamber of Commerce of Bogotá. His expertise in ADR counts more than 30 years. He has participated in the construction of legal frameworks for ADR in different countries all across Latin America. He is lecturer in ADR topics in Colombia and as well internationally.

    The Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations contains several provisions aimed explicitly at the protection of ‘weaker’ contracting parties, such as consumers and employees. However, in addition to this, the interests of weaker parties are sometimes also safeguarded through the application of ‘overriding mandatory provisions’, which are superimposed on the law applicable to the contract to protect a fundamental interest of a Member State. This article is an attempt to clarify the extent to which the concept of overriding mandatory provisions may serve as a vehicle for weaker party protection. To do this, it examines the definition and limitations of the concept and its relation to conflict of laws rules based on the protective principle. Finally, the article seeks to establish whether the doctrine of overriding mandatory provisions remains relevant in the case of harmonisation of substantive law at the EU level, for which it will differentiate between full and minimum harmonisation.


Laura Maria van Bochove Ph.D.
Assistant professor in the Department of Private International and Comparative Law at the Erasmus School of Law. The author would like to thank the reviewers for their comments.
Article

Access_open Faith and Scepticism in Private International Law: Trust, Governance, Politics, and Foreign Judgments

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden private international law, conflict of laws, foreign judgments, European Union, United States
Auteurs Christopher Whytock M.S., Ph.D., J.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), the law governing the enforcement of foreign judgments is evolving, but in different directions. EU law, especially after the elimination of exequatur by the 2012 ’Recast’ of the Brussels I Regulation, increasingly facilitates enforcement in member states of judgments of other member states’ courts, reflecting growing faith in a multilateral private international law approach to foreign judgments. In US law, on the other hand, increasingly widespread adoption of state legislation based on the 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (2005 Act), which adds new case-specific grounds for refusing enforcement, suggests growing scepticism. In this essay, I explore possible reasons for these diverging trends. I begin with the most obvious explanation: the Brussels framework governs the effect of internal EU member state judgments within the EU, whereas the 2005 Act governs the effect of external foreign country judgments within the US. One would expect more mutual trust – and thus more faith in foreign judgment enforcement – internally than externally. But I argue that this mutual trust explanation is only partially satisfactory. I therefore sketch out two other possible explanations. One is that the different trends in EU and US law are a result of an emphasis on ’governance values’ in EU law and an emphasis on ’rights values’ in US law. Another explanation – and perhaps the most fundamental one – is that these trends are ultimately traceable to politics.


Christopher Whytock M.S., Ph.D., J.D.
Christopher Whytock is Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.
Article

Access_open The Role of Private International Law in Corporate Social Responsibility

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden CSR, conflicts of law, Kiobel, Shell
Auteurs Geert Van Calster Ph.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution firstly reviews developments in the EU and in the United States on corporate social responsibility and conflict of laws. It concludes with reference to some related themes, in particular on the piercing of the corporate veil and with some remarks on compliance strategy, and compliance reality, for corporations.


Geert Van Calster Ph.D.
Geert van Calster is professor at the University of Leuven and Head of Leuven Law's department of European and international law.
Article

Access_open Global Citizens and Family Relations

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden global governance, family relations, nationality, habitual residence, party autonomy
Auteurs Professor Yuko Nishitani Ph.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    As globalisation progresses, cross-border movements of people are becoming dynamic and multilateral. The existence of different groups and minorities within the community renders the society multiethnic and multicultural. As individuals acquire new affiliation and belonging, the conventional conflict of laws methods may no longer be viable and should be subject to a thorough re-examination. Against this background, this paper analyses appropriate conflicts rules in international family relations to reflect an individual’s identity. Furthermore, in light of the contemporary law fragmentation, this study also analyses interactions between state law and non-state cultural, religious or customary norms.


Professor Yuko Nishitani Ph.D.
Professor at Kyushu University Faculty of Law, Japan. This work was supported by the JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (Grant Number 26380063). The author sincerely thanks Professor Carol Lawson (Nagoya University) and Ms. Nettie Dekker for their devoted editing work.

Laura Carballo Piñeiro
Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Santiago de Compostela.

Xandra Kramer
Professor at Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, visiting scholar at Stanford Law School.
Artikel

National variations in the implementation and enforcement of European food hygiene regulations

Comparing the structure of food controls and regulations between Scotland and the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden food regulation, official controls, EU food law, implementation, enforcement
Auteurs Tetty Havinga
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Over the course of time the European Union has increased its powers considerably. Currently, almost all food safety regulations in the member states rest on European law. Despite this common legal base, several differences between member states still exist. This article compares the way Scottish and Dutch authorities deal with a particular item of European food law: the development of national guides to good practice for hygiene and for the application of HACCP principles by the food industry. The results of this investigation are consistent with the conclusion of Falkner et al. that the implementation of EU law in both the Netherlands and the UK depends on domestic issues. The dominant issue in Scotland (and the UK) is the FSA objective to bring consistent food controls and independency from industry which results in the development of governmental guidance. The prevailing issue in the Netherlands is making industry responsible for food safety which helps explain the extensive use of industry guides. This study shows that in order to understand what happens on the ground it is important to look beyond transposition or direct effect and also to investigate the implementation of regulations and to dig deeper than just their transposition.


Tetty Havinga
Tetty Havinga is Associate Professor at the Institute for the Sociology of Law, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. She has published on the regulation of food safety, policy implementation and law enforcement, equal opportunities law, asylum migration and migrant workers. Her recent research projects deal with the development and effects of private regulation of food safety, oversight and official controls in the food industry, and the experiences of large companies with Dutch special courts. She is co-editor of The Changing Landscape of Food Governance (to be published by Edward Elgar, 2015).
Toont 1 - 20 van 57 gevonden teksten
« 1 3
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.