Search result: 425 articles

x
Part II Private Justice

Decentralized Justice in the Era of Blockchain

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1-2 2018
Keywords ODR, blockchain, arbitration, decentralization, crowdsourcing
Authors James Metzger
AbstractAuthor's information

    ODR that is built on blockchain technology and infrastructure is championed by supporters as being capable of revolutionizing dispute resolution. Kleros is a decentralized dispute resolution platform built on the Ethereum blockchain that uses cryptoeconomic theories and game theory to recruit and incentivize a worldwide pool of ‘jurors’ to decide the cases arbitrated through the platform. This article discusses some early evaluations of whether this kind of decentralized ODR is likely to succeed by viewing the model through a normative framework, including considering whether crowdsourcing of justice on a decentralized platform is a viable way to conduct ODR. The article then discusses the likelihood of the success of the sub-court model, including whether choice-of-law issues might be problematic for a worldwide, decentralized system. Finally, the article considers whether the cryptoeconomic and game theories that provide the foundation for the Kleros platform are likely to result in a jury pool, much less an actual jury, that could be considered ‘fair.’ The article is informed by the author’s experience with the Kleros platform through participation in its interactive initial coin offering and engaging in its beta-testing phase.


James Metzger
Dr. James Metzger is a lecturer at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law.
Part II Private Justice

Making ODR Human

Using Human-Centred Design for ODR Product Development

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1-2 2018
Keywords online dispute resolution, courts and tribunals, human-centred design, legal tech, legal design, user testing, user-centred design, machine learning, alternative dispute resolution, product development
Authors Luke Thomas, Sarah Kaur and Simon Goodrich
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article discusses what we as human-centred design practitioners have learnt from researching and designing online dispute resolution (ODR) products both for clients and as part of our internal research and development initiatives.


Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is Design Strategist/Legal Researcher at Portable.

Sarah Kaur
Sarah Kaur is Chief Operating Officer at Portable.

Simon Goodrich
Simon Goodrich is Managing Director at Portable.
Article

A Proposal for the International Law Commission to Study Universal Criminal Jurisdiction

Journal African Journal of International Criminal Justice, Issue 1-2 2018
Keywords Universal Criminal Jurisdiction, International Criminal Law
Authors Mr. Charles Chernor Jalloh
AbstractAuthor's information

    The principle of universal jurisdiction is a unique ground of jurisdiction in international law that may permit a State to exercise national jurisdiction over certain crimes in the interest of the international community. This means that a State may exercise jurisdiction regarding a crime committed by a foreign national against another foreign national outside its territory. Such jurisdiction differs markedly from the traditional bases of jurisdiction under international law, which typically require some type of territorial, nationality or other connection between the State exercising the jurisdiction and the conduct at issue. Due to the definitional and other ambiguities surrounding the universality principle, which has in its past application strained and today continues to strain relations among States at the bilateral, regional and international levels, this paper successfully made the case for the inclusion of “Universal Criminal Jurisdiction” as a topic in the long-term programme of work of the International Law Commission during its Seventieth Session (2018). It was submitted that taking up a study of this timely topic, which has been debated by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly since 2010, could enhance clarity for States and thereby contribute to the rule of law in international affairs. It will also serve to continue the ILC’s seminal contributions to the codification and progressive development of international criminal law.


Mr. Charles Chernor Jalloh
Mr. Charles Chernor Jalloh is Professor of Law, Florida International University and Member and Chair of Drafting Committee, 70th Session, International Law Commission.
Article

Access_open Armed On-board Protection of Italian Ships: From an Apparent Hybrid Model to a Regulated Rise of Private Contractors

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 4 2018
Keywords maritime security services, Italian hybrid system, military and private personnel, use of force, relation with the shipmaster
Authors Giorgia Bevilacqua
AbstractAuthor's information

    The sharp increase of piracy attacks in the last two decades was followed by a parallel increase of demand in the maritime security sector. A plenty of flag States around the world have started to authorize the deployment of armed security guards, either military or private, aboard commercial ships. In 2011, Italy also introduced the possibility of embarking armed security services to protect Italian flagged ships sailing in dangerous international waters. Like the other flag States’ legal systems, the newly adopted Italian legislation aims to preserve the domestic shipping industry which was particularly disrupted by modern-day pirates. On the other hand, the doubling of approaches of the Italian legal and regulatory framework, initially privileging military personnel and then opting for the private solution, took the author to investigate the main relevant features of the Italian model of regulation and to analyze the recent developments of the domestic legal practice on counterpiracy armed security services, focusing on the role that customary and treaty obligations of international law played for the realization at national level of on-board armed protection of Italian ships. The use of lethal force at sea and the relationship between the shipmaster and the security guards will receive specific attention in this article.


Giorgia Bevilacqua
Researcher at the Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli.

Albert Dzur
Albert Dzur is Professor, Departments of Political Science and Philosophy, Bowling Green State University, USA. Contact author: awdzur@bgsu.edu.
Article

Access_open Restorative justice as feminist practice

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 3 2018
Keywords Restorative justice, gender-based violence, feminism
Authors Leigh Goodmark
AbstractAuthor's information

    Feminists have viewed the implementation of restorative practices warily, particularly in the context of gender-based harms. Concerns include the devaluing of gender-based harms, the reprivatisation of violence against women and the inability of restorative practitioners to guarantee safety for people subjected to abuse. But this article will argue that restorative justice can be a uniquely feminist practice, growing out of the same mistrust of state-based systems and engagement of the community that animated the early feminist movement. Although some caution is warranted, restorative justice serves the feminist goals of amplifying women’s voices, fostering women’s autonomy and empowerment, engaging community, avoiding gender essentialism and employing an intersectional analysis, transforming patriarchal structures and ending violence against women.


Leigh Goodmark
Leigh Goodmark is Professor of Law and Director of the Gender Violence Clinic at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Baltimore, USA. Contact author: lgoodmark@law.umaryland.edu.

Michael G. DeAntonio PhD
Michael G. DeAntonio, PhD, is Executive Director, Buxmont Academy and Lecturer, International Institute of Restorative Practice (USA). Contact author: mdeantonio@iirp.edu.
Article

Access_open Empirical Legal Research in Europe: Prevalence, Obstacles, and Interventions

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2018
Keywords empirical legal research, Europe, popularity, increase, journals
Authors Gijs van Dijck, Shahar Sverdlov and Gabriela Buck
AbstractAuthor's information

    Empirical Legal research (ELR) has become well established in the United States, whereas its popularity in Europe is debatable. This article explores the popularity of ELR in Europe. The authors carried out an empirical analysis of 78 European-based law journals, encompassing issues from 2008-2017. The findings demonstrate that a supposed increase of ELR is questionable (at best).
    Moreover, additional findings highlight:

    • An increase for a few journals, with a small number of other journals showing a decrease over time;

    • A higher percentage of empirical articles for extra-legal journals than for legal journals (average proportion per journal is 4.6 percent for legal journals, 18.9 percent for extra-legal journals);

    • Criminal justice journals, environmental journals, and economically oriented journals being more likely to publish empirical articles than other journals;

    • More prestigious journals being more likely to publish empirical articles than less-prestigious journals;

    • Older journals being more likely to publish empirical work than younger journals, but not at an increasing rate;

    • Journals being legal/extra-legal, journals in a specific field, journal ranking, or the age of the journal not making it more (or less) likely that the journal will publish empirical articles at an increasing (or decreasing) rate.
      Considering the lack of convincing evidence indicating an increase of ELR, we identify reasons for why ELR is seemingly becoming more popular but not resulting in more empirical research in Europe. Additionally, we explore interventions for overcoming the obstacles ELR currently faces.


Gijs van Dijck
Professor of Private Law at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

Shahar Sverdlov
Law student at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Gabriela Buck
Law student at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Article

Access_open Evidence-Based Regulation and the Translation from Empirical Data to Normative Choices: A Proportionality Test

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2018
Keywords evidence-based, regulation, proportionality, empirical law studies, law and society studies
Authors Rob van Gestel and Peter van Lochem
AbstractAuthor's information

    Studies have shown that the effects of scientific research on law and policy making are often fairly limited. Different reasons can be given for this: scientists are better at falsifying hypothesis than at predicting the future, the outcomes of academic research and empirical evidence can be inconclusive or even contradictory, the timing of the legislative cycle and the production of research show mismatches, there can be clashes between the political rationality and the economic or scientific rationality in the law making process et cetera. There is one ‘wicked’ methodological problem, though, that affects all regulatory policy making, namely: the ‘jump’ from empirical facts (e.g. there are too few organ donors in the Netherlands and the voluntary registration system is not working) to normative recommendations of what the law should regulate (e.g. we need to change the default rule so that everybody in principle becomes an organ donor unless one opts out). We are interested in how this translation process takes place and whether it could make a difference if the empirical research on which legislative drafts are build is more quantitative type of research or more qualitative. That is why we have selected two cases in which either type of research played a role during the drafting phase. We use the lens of the proportionality principle in order to see how empirical data and scientific evidence are used by legislative drafters to justify normative choices in the design of new laws.


Rob van Gestel
Rob van Gestel is professor of theory and methods of regulation at Tilburg University.

Peter van Lochem
Dr. Peter van Lochem is jurist and sociologist and former director of the Academy for Legislation.
Article

Smart Enforcement

Theory and Practice

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2018
Keywords regulatory inspections, regulatory enforcement, environmental regulations, smart regulation
Authors Dr. Florentin Blanc and Prof. Michael Faure
AbstractAuthor's information

    There is an increasing attention both on how inspections and enforcement efforts with respect to regulatory breaches can be made as effective as possible. Regulatory breaches refer to violations of norms that have been prescribed in public regulation, such as, for example, environmental regulation, food safety regulation or regulation aiming at occupational health and safety. The enforcement of this regulation is qualified as regulatory enforcement. It has been claimed that inspections should not be random, but based on risk and target-specific violators and violations. Such a “smart” enforcement policy would be able to increase the effectiveness of enforcement policy. Policy makers are enthusiastic about this new strategy, but less is known about the theoretical foundations, nor about the empirical evidence. This article presents the theoretical foundations for smart enforcement as well as some empirics. Moreover, the conditions under which smart enforcement could work are identified, but also a few potential limits are presented.


Dr. Florentin Blanc
Dr. Florentin Blanc is a consultant to the World Bank Group, OECD, and governments on investment climate and business environment.

Prof. Michael Faure
Prof. Michael Faure is Academic Director Maastricht European institute for Transnational Legal Research (METRO), Maastricht University, Professor of Comparative and International Environmental Law, Maastricht University and Academic Director of Ius Commune Research School, Maastricht University. He is also Professor of Comparative Law and Economics at Erasmus Law School (Rotterdam).
Article

Plain Language

A Promising Tool for Quality Legislation

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2018
Keywords plain language, clarity, precision, accessibility, interpretation
Authors Kally K.L. Lam LLB
AbstractAuthor's information

    The hypothesis of this article is that plain language drafting with innovative drafting techniques can improve the quality of legislation. Further to this, the article tries to prove that quality legislation can also make the law more accessible to its general audience. With regard to quality, the article assesses plain language drafting with innovative drafting techniques using Helen Xanthaki’s criteria of quality in legislation, i.e. that it should be clear, precise and unambiguous. With regard to accessibility, it is defined broadly as to include readability. I will first assess whether plain language drafting with innovative drafting techniques can meet the expectations of its general audience and second discuss whether legislation drafted in plain language with innovative techniques passes the usability tests.


Kally K.L. Lam LLB
Kally K.L. Lam, LLB (University of Hong Kong), LLM (University of London) is Solicitor (Hong Kong).

Marie Keenan
Marie Keenan is a lecturer and researcher at the School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, University College Dublin, a forensic and systemic psychologist and a restorative justice practitioner, Dublin, Ireland. Contact author: marie.keenan@ucd.ie.
Article

Introducing and theorising an in-prison restorative justice programme: the second-generation Sycamore Tree Project

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018
Keywords Sycamore Tree Project, in-prison restorative justice programming, human condition, liminality, narrative
Authors Jane Anderson
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article introduces an in-prison restorative justice programme: the second-generation Sycamore Tree Project (STP-2). The programme brings together crime victims and unrelated offenders in a prison setting to discuss and address the harm of crime to their lives. In the first part of the article, description is given to how STP-2 has evolved in Australia from a ‘faith-based’ programme to one that is restorative. In the second part, three anthropological theories are used to provide explanation and prediction of the transformative effects of in-prison restorative justice programming on prisoners as informed by STP-2. The prisoner-participant is viewed as a ‘person’ who, in liminal conditions, is afforded agency to create a meaningful narrative that is directed to revising how one is to associate with others in morally acceptable ways. The article concludes with a comparison between STP-1 and STP-2, and some proposals for research beyond this theoretical excursion.


Jane Anderson
Jane Anderson is Honorary Research Fellow, Anthropology and Sociology, Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. Contact author: jane.anderson@uwa.edu.au.

Carolyn Hoyle
Carolyn Hoyle is Professor of Criminology, University of Oxford (UK).

Diana Batchelor
Diana Batchelor is a DPhil candidate, Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford (UK). Contact author: carolyn.hoyle@crim.ox.ac.uk.
Article

Measuring the restorativeness of restorative justice: the case of the Mosaica Jerusalem Programme

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018
Keywords Restorative justice, criminal justice, criminal law taxonomy, victims, offenders
Authors Tali Gal, Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg and Guy Enosh
AbstractAuthor's information

    This study uses a Jerusalem-based restorative justice programme as a case study to characterise community restorative justice (CRJ) conferences. On the basis of the Criminal Law Taxonomy, an analytical instrument that includes seventeen measurable characteristics, it examines the procedural elements of the conferences, their content, goals and the role of participants. The analysis uncovers an unprecedented multiplicity of conference characteristics, including the level of flexibility, the existence of victim-offender dialogue, the involvement of the community and a focus on rehabilitative, future-oriented outcomes. The findings offer new insights regarding the theory and practice of CRJ and the gaps between the two.


Tali Gal
Tali Gal is Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer, School of Criminology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg
Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg is Visiting Professor, UC Berkeley School of Law (2017-2018) and Associate Professor, Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Guy Enosh
Guy Enosh is Associated Professor, Faculty of Welfare and Health Sciences, School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. Contact author: tgal1@univ.haifa.ac.il. Note: The first two authors have contributed equally; the third author contributed to the methodology. Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Gali Pilowsky-Menkes and Rotem Spiegler for outstanding data collection assistance. We are also grateful to Caroline Cooper, Netanel Dagan and Adi Libson for insightful comments. We are particularly indebted to the Mosaica workers and volunteers who provided us access to their materials while ensuring the privacy of all parties involved.

    De Ruiter en Van Pol (2017) presenteren als vaststaand feit dat slechts 10% of minder van alle beschuldigingen van kindermishandeling in echtscheidingsconflicten vals is. Sociale en juridische professionals die in een enquête een hoger percentage invulden, hebben volgens de auteurs te weinig kennis. De zekerheid die De Ruiter en Van Pol suggereren bestaat niet. Ten eerste verzuimen zij om de kernbegrippen ‘vals’, ‘beschuldiging’, ‘kindermishandeling’ en ‘echtscheidingsconflicten’ te definiëren. Ten tweede kan het onderzoek waar De Ruiter en Van Pol naar verwijzen hun conclusies niet dragen. Canadese maatschappelijk werkers registreerden slechts in een klein aantal gevallen dat een beschuldiging opzettelijk vals was. De Canadese auteurs wijzen expliciet op het subjectieve karakter van de bron van onderzoek. In meer dan de helft van alle onderzochte zaken was het onzeker gebleven of de beschuldiging op waarheid berust. Ten derde gaat het om onderzoeken naar de praktijk van de kinderbescherming in Canada en Australië van 20 jaar geleden. Dat wil zeggen: een andere tijd in andere landen, met een ander systeem dan vandaag in Nederland. Sociale en juridische professionals moeten werken met een aanzienlijke marge van onzekerheid, ook wanneer er grondig onderzoek naar de feiten gedaan is. Door deze onzekerheid te negeren mist de kritiek van De Ruiter en Van Pol op grote groepen professionals onderbouwing.
    ---
    De Ruiter & Van Pol (2017) present as a fact, that only 10% or less of all allegations of child abuse and neglect in divorce disputes is false. They state that social workers and lawyers who in a survey estimated a higher percentage have a lack of knowledge. With this position De Ruiter & Van Pol claim a grade of certainty that does not exist in child protection practice. First, the authors fail to define the key concepts ‘false’, ‘allegation’, ‘child abuse’ and ‘divorce disputes’. Second, the research De Ruiter & Van Pol refer to does not carry the conclusions they draw. The Canadian researchers report that child protection workers had classified a small percentage of cases as ‘intentionally fabricated’. However, the researchers make reservations about this finding since the source is the clinical judgment of the social workers. Moreover the researches emphasize that custody disputes is a context in which there is a high rate of unsubstantiated allegations. In fact, over 50% of all cases were not substantiated.
    Third, the three publications De Ruiter & Van Pol point at describe the practice in Australia and Canada twenty years ago. That is a different time in different countries with different systems compared to The Netherlands today. Social workers and judicial professionals work in a context of uncertainty about allegations and facts in many cases, even after thorough investigation in a particular case. In overlooking this uncertainty De Ruiter & Van Pol unfairly criticize large groups of professionals.


Mr. dr. Adri van Montfoort
Adri van Montfoort is jurist en pedagoog. Hij werkte in de jeugdzorg als hulpverlener, onderzoeker en leidinggevende. Hij promoveerde op een proefschrift over de aanpak van kindermishandeling in ons land. Hij heeft ruime ervaring in advisering en in het ontwerpen en leiden van projecten. Adri publiceerde sinds 1983 artikelen en boeken over kinderbescherming, aanpak van kindermishandeling, jeugdzorg en jeugdbeleid alsook over de veranderende verhoudingen tussen burgers, markt, gesubsidieerde instellingen en overheid. Hij was van 2007 tot 2015 lector Jeugdzorg en Jeugdbeleid bij Hogeschool Leiden. Sinds 1997 is Adri raadsheer plaatsvervanger in de familiekamer van het gerechtshof in Den Haag.
Article

Rights in the Australian Federation

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords Australian Constitution, bill of rights, constitutional rights, democracy, federalism, freedom of interstate trade, freedom of religion, implied rights, judicial independence, property rights, right to trial by jury, separation of powers
Authors Nicholas Aroney and James Stellios
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Australian Constitution is unique among constitutional instruments. It was primarily designed to federate self-governing British colonies within the British constitutional tradition and to establish institutions of federal government. As such, the constitutional instrument does not contain an entrenched bill of rights. Yet Australia has been a stable federal democracy since its establishment in 1901 and, by international standards, it is consistently assessed as maintaining high levels of personal freedom, political rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. This article considers the place of rights in the Australian federation against Australian constitutional history and its constitutional context.


Nicholas Aroney
Nicholas Aroney is Professor of Constitutional Law, The University of Queensland. The support of Australian Research Council grant FT100100469 is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to Terry East for his very capable research assistance. James Stellios is Professor, Law School, Australian National University. Part of this article benefited from the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme: DP140101218. Part of this article benefited from the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme: DP140101218. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.

James Stellios
Editorial

The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States

Comparative Perspectives of Europe’s Human Rights Deficit

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Authors Csongor István Nagy
Author's information

Csongor István Nagy
Professor of law and head of the Department of Private International Law at the University of Szeged, research chair and the head of the Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and an attorney-at-law admitted to the Budapest Bar. He serves as a recurrent visiting Professor at the Central European University (Budapest/New York), the Riga Graduate School of Law (Latvia) and the Sapientia University of Transylvania (Romania). This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Article

Access_open Crisis in the Courtroom

The Discursive Conditions of Possibility for Ruptures in Legal Discourse

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2018
Keywords crisis discourse, rupture, counterterrorism, precautionary logic, risk
Authors Laura M. Henderson
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article addresses the conditions of possibility for the precautionary turn in legal discourse. Although the precautionary turn itself has been well-detailed in both legal and political discourse, insufficient attention has been paid to what made this shift possible. This article remedies this, starting by showing how the events of 9/11 were unable to be incorporated within current discursive structures. As a result, these discursive structures were dislocated and a new ‘crisis discourse’ emerged that succeeded in attributing meaning to the events of 9/11. By focusing on three important cases from three different jurisdictions evidencing the precautionary turn in legal discourse, this article shows that crisis discourse is indeed employed by the judiciary and that its logic made this precautionary approach to counterterrorism in the law possible. These events, now some 16 years ago, hold relevance for today’s continuing presence of crisis and crisis discourse.


Laura M. Henderson
Laura M. Henderson is a researcher at UGlobe, the Utrecht Centre for Global Challenges, at Utrecht University. She wrote this article as a Ph.D. candidate at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Showing 21 - 40 of 425 results
« 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 21 22
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.