Search result: 181 articles

x
Year 2011 x

Carl Q. Christol
Member, International Institute of Space Law, Distinguished Emiritus Professor of International Law and Political Sciencie, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Souichirou Kozuka
Gakushuin University (souichirou.kozuka@gakushuin.ac.jp)

Fuki Taniguchi
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Japan (taniguchi.fuki@jaxa.jp)

Nie Jingjing
Civil Aviation University of China, China, jjnie@cauc.edu.cn

Victor Veshchunov
Executive Director, Intersputnik International Organization of Space Communications, Russia, veshchunov@intersputnik.com

Elina Zaytseva
Head of International & Legal Service, Intersputnik International Organization of Space Communications, Russia, zaytseva@intersputnik.com
Miscellaneous

Access_open De onschuld voorbij

Jeff McMahans Killing in War

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2011
Keywords just war, non-combatant immunity, self-defense
Authors Koos ten Bras and Thomas Mertens
AbstractAuthor's information

    Jeff McMahan, one of the leading contemporary writers on ‘just war thinking’, argues in the book under review, Killing in War, that one of the central tenets of the ‘ius in bello’, namely the moral equality of combatants, is both conceptually and morally untenable. This results from a reflection upon and a departure from two basic assumptions in Walzer’s work, namely the idea that war itself isn’t a relation between persons, but between political entities and their human instruments and the idea that the ‘ius ad bellum’ and ‘ius in bello’ are and should be kept distinct. This book merits serious reflection. However, the disadvantages of McMahan’s position are obvious. If the rights of combatants during war depend on the justice of their cause, the immunity of the civilians on the side of the supposed ‘unjust’ enemy is seriously endangered.


Koos ten Bras
Koos ten Bras is a recent university graduate from the Radboud University Nijmegen with a master degree in International & European Law, and a student in Philosophy of Law at the Radboud University Nijmegen.

Thomas Mertens
Thomas Mertens is Professor of Legal Philosophy at the Faculty of Law at Radboud University Nijmegen, and Professor of Human Rights and Human Responsibilities at the Institute of Philosophy at Leiden University.
Article

Access_open Legitimiteit, gemeenschap en rechtvaardigheid

Een kritiek op Dworkins verklaring voor legitimiteit

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2011
Keywords legitimacy, associative obligations, justice, community, Dworkin
Authors Thomas Decreus
AbstractAuthor's information

    In Law’s Empire Ronald Dworkin offers a specific answer to the age old question of political legitimacy. According to Dworkin, legitimacy originates in a ‘true community’ that is able to generate associative obligations among its members. In this article I illustrate how this answer contrasts with the moral and political principle of justice. The question remains how a conceptual link can be found between a community-based view on legitimacy and a more universal demand for justice. I try to answer this question by offering a close reading of Law’s Empire and other basic essays in Dworkin’s philosophy of law. In my attempt to solve this problem I propose an alternative view on community and legitimacy. In opposition to Dworkin I claim that legitimacy is prior to the community.


Thomas Decreus
Thomas Decreus is PhD student in political philosophy at the KULeuven Institute of Philosophy.

Stefan Rummens
Stefan Rummens is Assistant Professor of Political Theory at the Institute of Management Research of the Radboud University Nijmegen.
Article

Access_open Law in the twilight of environmental Armageddon

A response to Han Somsen

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2011
Keywords environmental catastrophe, legitimacy, geo-engineering, phenomenology
Authors Luigi Corrias
AbstractAuthor's information

    This paper argues that Somsen’s article, though brave in approach and daring in ideas, suffers from some fundamental flaws. First of all, it remains unclear how Somsen conceptualises the relationship between legitimacy and effectiveness, and what this means for his position towards the argument of a state of exception. Secondly, a plea for regulation by code has serious consequences for the claim to attain justice. Finally, geo-engineering poses some profound difficulties, both because of its consequences and because of its presuppositions.


Luigi Corrias
Luigi Corrias is Assistant Professor of Legal Philosophy at VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

    Afshin Ellian, Timo Slootweg en Carel Smith (red.), Recht, beslissing en geweten
    Beschouwingen naar aanleiding van Paul Scholten


Harry Groenenboom
Harry Groenenboom obtained degrees in law and philosophy at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam and is Interim Professional Legal at Yacht.
Article

Access_open When regulators mean business

Regulation in the shadow of environmental Armageddon

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2011
Keywords ecological catastrophe, regulatory legitimacy, regulatory effectiveness, geo-engineering
Authors Han Somsen
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article considers the question how knowledge of an impending ecological catastrophe is likely to impact on regulatory legitimacy and regulatory effectiveness. If the ultimate aim to safeguard meaningful human life on earth is in acute danger, this is likely to translate into zero tolerance towards non-compliance with environmental rules designed to avert catastrophe. This, in turn, will persuade regulators to employ normative technologies that do not engage with the moral reason of regulatees at all, but leave no option but to comply. In addition, regulators may turn to panoptic surveillance techniques that allow no breaches of rules to remain undetected. Finally, it is argued that if and to the extent that impending ecological catastrophe marks the end of maintaining the status quo as a plausible policy goal, regulators will be more sympathetic towards potentially apocalyptic technologies that carry greater promise for future gain than otherwise would be the case.


Han Somsen
Han Somsen is Professor of Regulation & Technology at the Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society, and Dean of Research of Tilburg Law School.
Article

Access_open Burgerlijk procesrecht en ideologie

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2011
Keywords civil procedure, ideology, principles of procedural law
Authors Remme Verkerk
AbstractAuthor's information

    This contribution offers a partial explanation of the differences between procedural systems. In most jurisdictions, civil procedural regulations constitute a carefully designed system. Generally, a number of underlying principles, guidelines, theories and objectives can be identified that clarify and justify more specific rules of procedure. It will be argued that the main differences between legal systems flow from different political and theoretical views of those who determine and shape the form of the legal process. This contribution identifies the ideological influences on the rules of procedure in a number of influential jurisdictions.


Remme Verkerk
Remme Verkerk was Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University. Presently he practices law at Houthoff Buruma.

    Edwin Nijhof, book review of Roland Pierik en Wouter Werner, Cosmopolitanism in Context


Edwin Nijhof
Edwin Nijhof has earned degrees in the studies of both law and philosophy at Leiden University.

Ellen Hey

Andria Naudé Fourie

Daniel D. Bradlow
SARCHI Professor of International Development Law and African Economic Relations, University of Pretoria; Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law; and Chair, Roster of Experts, Independent Review Mechanism, African Development Bank. The views expressed in this article are his personal views, and should not be attributed to any organisation with which he is affiliated.

Megan S. Chapman
Independent Consultant; B.A. University of Chicago; J.D. American University Washington College of Law. The authors wish to thank Anoush Begoyan, Andria Naude Fourie, Werner Kiene, Ellen Hey, David Hunter, Henrik Linders, Per Eldar Sovik, and our anonymous reviewers for comments on various sections and drafts.

Jonas Ebbesson
Professor of environmental law at Stockholm University, and Chairperson of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. The views in this article are those of the author personally and are not intended to represent those of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

Jeroen Temperman
Assistant Professor of Public International Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Erasmus Fellow; and Editor-in-Chief of Religion & Human Rights: An International Journal.

Dr. Ulrike M. Bohlmann
European Space Agency, Paris, France, Ulrike.Bohlmann@esa.int

Professor Dr Maureen Williams
University of Buenos Aires / CONICET (Argentina), Chair ILA Space Law Committee (HQ, London), maureenw777@yahoo.co.uk

Steven Freeland
Professor of International Law, University of Western Sydney, Australia; Permanent Visiting Professor of International Law, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Director, International Institute of Space Law; Member of the Space Law Committee, International Law Association; Member of Faculty, London Institute of Space Policy and Law.

Donna Lawler
Commercial Satellite Lawyer, Sydney, Australia.

Mahulena Hofmann
SES Chair in Satellite Communications and Media Law, University of Luxembourg/Faculty of Law, Charles University Prague, mahulena.hofmann@uni.lu
Showing 61 - 80 of 181 results
1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10
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.