This article discusses the main features of the draft version of the new Criminal Code for the Netherlands Antilles, which was completely revised and updated in accordance with the latest case law and applicable international treaties. The draft legislation abolishes the dead penalty and minimum sentences. Also it introduces community services, a travel ban, an extension of self-defense in the direct vicinity of one's house and the obligatory review of life-long jail sentences after twenty years. Furthermore it adapts and modernizes the presently existing fines and criminal law for minors. The draft legislation is pending the recommendations of the Advice Council and will be presented to the Parliament thereafter.

There is a growing consensus among practitioners that independent peer review is the preferred approach to furthering trust in the legal professions. The article draws on experience abroad, as reported in the professional literature, and lessons from comparable arrangements at home, in academia and the medical professions. It formulates an institutional design in which an autonomous agency, independent of the Lawyers' Association and at arms' length from the Minister of Justice, develops methodology and organizes peer reviews by fellow-practitioners. Since professionals, everywhere, like to share experience, it is argued that making site-visits, sampling case-files, and discussing a self-evaluation of the practice under review promotes open innovation and creates scope for shaping rather than controlling professional excellence. It also allows for discretion in catering to the widely diverging needs of large international law firms and small local practices that a system of command and control could not deliver.

In this report the author gives his personal impression of his involvement with the development of mediation in Rumania inter alia by training and educating aspirant mediators.

The distribution of child pornography on the internet is observed as a major social problem. In the Netherlands a lively political-social discussion has emerged concerning the manner in which this can be prevented. The discussion moves between two polarities. On the one hand the dangers of internet censure are emphasised and on the other hand the need for a clamp down in which every measure seems to be justified. The present government wants to combat child pornography and by doing so answer the moral indignation of society. A means that the Dutch government, and on her behalf the police, uses, is blocking websites with child-pornographic content. The possibilities of the Dutch government to filter effectively, however, are restricted. The accuracy of existing filters is low and it is easy to get around filters. In addition, opportunities are restricted by constitutional rights. A filter that stops all websites with child pornography is bound to stop legal internet traffic too. That is at odds with the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and freedom of information gathering. The realisation of a filter that respects fundamental rights and still is able to block child pornography requires a lot of police manpower. This comes at the expense of the tracking down of criminals who produce and distribute child pornography. Furthermore, it is unknown whether the use of the child-pornography filter leads to the purposes for which they are deployed, such as hindering the sale of child pornography or reducing the abuse of children. The police, therefore, is assigned to a task that requires a considerable amount of time, but the benefits of which are unclear.

Met het ontstaan van de praktijk van het digitale duediligenceproces is de vraag gerezen in hoeverre de uitspraken in Rebel/Resim en Dexia van toepassing zijn. Het digitaliseren van het duediligenceonderzoek heeft het mogelijk gemaakt dat het gedrag van potentiële kopers gemakkelijk in kaart kan worden gebracht. Met de VDR is het exact bekend waarvan de wederpartij weet heeft en dat legt een verplichting op.

In een redactioneel artikel geeft de redactie een toelichting op het tijdschriftnummer in kwestie.

EU-regelgeving is ook wetgeving die in Nederland bindend is. Bij de besluitvorming daarover zou de Eerste Kamer dus moeten meebeslissen.Het democratisch tekort in de EU is vooral gelegen in het feit dat er geen parlementair toezicht is op de Raad van Ministers van de EU. Wel kunnen nationale parlementen hun eigen ministers ter verantwoording roepen voor wat zij in de RvM-EU doen. Maar dat gebeurt, ook in Nederland, veel te weinig, en is niet effectief. Vooral sinds de invoering van het instemmingsrecht voor beide Kamers ter zake van optreden van Nederlandse ministers in de Derde Pijler van de EU heeft de Senaat gepoogd hierin verbetering te brengen.De Eerste Kamer zou veel consequenter deze rol moeten gaan vervullen, vooral nu de Tweede Kamer aan toezicht op de regering inzake EU-beleid geen voorrang blijkt te geven. Door een selectie van ontwerpen van EU-regelgeving aan dezelfde parlementaire procedure van beraadslaging te onderwerpen als wetsvoorstellen zou de Senaat zichtbaar kunnen maken dat het Nederlandse parlement – naast het Europees Parlement – werkt aan vermindering van het democratisch tekort.