Search result: 33 articles

x
Article

Access_open Moet de strafrechter ook de scheidsrechter zijn van het publieke debat?

De scheiding der machten in het licht van de vrijheid van meningsuiting voor volksvertegenwoordigers

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2020
Keywords Freedom of speech, Separation of powers, Criminal law, Hate speech, Legal certainty
Authors Jip Stam
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article contains a critical review of the provisions in the Dutch penal code regarding group defamation and hate speech. It is argued that not only these provisions themselves but also their application by the Dutch supreme court, constitutes a problem for the legitimacy and functioning of representative democracy. This is due to the tendency of the supreme court to employ special constraints for offensive, hateful or discriminatory speech by politicians. Because such a special constraint is not provided or even implied by the legislator, the jurisprudence of the supreme court is likely to end up in judicial overreach and therefore constitutes a potential – if not actual – breach in the separation of powers. In order to forestall these consequences, the protection of particularly political speech should be improved, primarily by a revision of the articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch penal code or the extension of parliamentary immunity.


Jip Stam
Jip Stam is onderzoeker en docent bij de afdeling Encyclopedie van de rechtswetenschap aan de Leidse rechtenfaculteit.
Article

The EU Approach to Consumer ODR

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2019
Keywords consumer alternative/online dispute resolution, European Union, ODR Regulation 524/2013, ADR Directive 2013/11, ODR platform
Authors Emma van Gelder
AbstractAuthor's information

    The EU internal market has undergone several developments in the past decades. One of the main developments is the inclusion of a digital dimension. One of the fields in which these developments are very evident is the consumer market. A further development of e-commerce is however hindered because there are no suitable redress mechanisms for consumers involved in low-value, high volume claims typically arising from e-commerce transactions. In response to the ills of existing redress mechanisms, an emerging trend of consumer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and consumer online dispute resolution (ODR) schemes has been identified throughout the Member States (MS) aimed to offer consumers a swift, cheap and simple procedure through which they can enforce their rightsThis paper outlines the EU approach to Consumer ADR/ODR, gives some observations of the functioning of the legislation in practice and concludes with some thoughts for the future.


Emma van Gelder
PhD Candidate Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open Het 100-jarige bestaan van de Vereeniging voor Wijsbegeerte des Rechts

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2019
Keywords oprichting, doelstelling, band met de rechtspraktijk, rechtsfilosofie en rechtstheorie, internationalisering (van Duits naar Engels)
Authors Corjo Jansen
AbstractAuthor's information

    De Vereeniging voor Wijsbegeerte des Rechts (VWR) is opgericht op 28 december 1918. Zij had tot doel de studie van de rechtsfilosofie en het maatschappelijk leven. Deze studie moest tevens relevant zijn voor de rechtspraktijk. Vanaf haar oprichting kende de VWR een sterke internationale oriëntatie, aanvankelijk gericht op Duitsland, later vooral op het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de VS. In de jaren zeventig en tachtig van de vorige eeuw beleefde de VWR wat betreft belangstelling en ledenaantal haar hoogtepunt. In 2016 besloot zij – na een gestage neergang – de band met de Nederlandstalige (praktijk)jurist weer aan te halen.


Corjo Jansen
Corjo Jansen is hoogleraar Rechtsgeschiedenis en Burgerlijk recht en voorzitter van het Onderzoekcentrum Onderneming & Recht van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.

    This article is part of a broader discussion about attaining a full-fledged child-friendly (criminal) justice. Attaining that goal is particularly challenging in cases of international parental abduction, due to the involvement of two branches of law. It is examined to what extent the current interaction guarantees a decision in the best interests of the child. More specifically, the implications of the adage le criminel tient le civil en état are scrutinised from a children’s rights perspective.
    The central research question reads: “to what extent can the adage le criminal tient le civil and état be upheld when further elaborating the best interests of the child in criminal law, more specifically in the interaction between civil and criminal law?” The research wants to contribute to the debate of the difficult triangular relationship between civil law, criminal law and children's rights law.
    In cases of child abduction, the link and interaction between the two procedures goes beyond the traditionally accepted scope of civil damages arising from a criminal offense. Nevertheless, both procedures following a parental abduction are based on the same facts and are inextricably linked, which means that they have to be assessed together, which means that they should be judged together. The question arises as to how the two parallel procedures can be coordinated better, now that it is clear that they may significantly influence each other.
    A full-fledged application of the adage means that a decision concerning the return of the child can only be handed down from the moment when the criminal proceeding (concerning the prosecution of the parent) is completed. It is immediately clear that this cannot be in the best interests of the child.
    It is argued that the adage must be abandoned or reversed to guarantee article 3 CRC. This statement is substantiated with arguments of both practical (referring to the time course) and fundamental (importance of the child best interets as a first consideration) nature. Thereby counterarguments are anticipated.
    ---
    Dit artikel kadert binnen de bredere discussie inzake het streven naar een kindvriendelijk (straf)rechtssysteem. In zaken van internationale parentale ontvoering, waarbij twee rechtstakken betrokken zijn, is dit bijzonder uitdagend. Er wordt onderzocht in welke mate de huidige interactie tussen beide rechtstakken het belang van het kind waarborgt. Concreet wordt het adagium le criminel tient le civil en état vanuit een kinderrechten-perspectief aan een kritische blik onderworpen.
    De centrale onderzoeksvraag luidt: “in welke mate is het adagium le criminel tient le civil and état houdbaar in de verdere uitwerking van het belang van het kind in het strafrecht, meer bepaald in de wisselwerking tussen burgerlijk en strafrecht?” Het artikel wil aan het belang van het kind een duidelijkere positie geven in de moeilijke driehoeksverhouding tussen burgerlijk recht, strafrecht en kinderrechten.
    In zaken van kinderontvoering gaat het de toepassing van het adagium verder dan de traditioneel aanvaarde reikwijdte van civielrechtelijke schadevergoedingen die voortvloeien uit een strafbaar feit. Niettemin zijn beide procedures, volgend op een parentale ontvoering, gebaseerd op dezelfde feiten en onlosmakelijk verbonden met elkaar, wat betekent dat ze samen moeten worden beoordeeld. De vraag rijst hoe de twee parallelle procedures beter gecoördineerd kunnen worden, nu duidelijk is dat ze elkaar op een significante manier kunnen beïnvloeden.
    Onverkorte toepassing van het adagium betekent dat de burgerlijke beslissing betreffende de terugkeer van het kind pas kan plaatsvinden vanaf het moment dat de strafrechtelijke procedure (betreffende de vervolging van de ouder) is voltooid. Het is meteen duidelijk dat dit niet in het belang van het kind kan zijn.
    Er wordt geargumenteerd dat het adagium moet worden verlaten dan wel omgedraaid om artikel 3 IVRK te garanderen. Argumenten van zowel praktische (verwijzend naar de tijdsverloop) als fundamentele (belang van het kind als eerste overweging) aard onderbouwen dit standpunt. Daarbij wordt geanticipeerd op tegenargumenten.


Elise Blondeel MSc
Doctoraal onderzoekster Strafrecht & Rechten van het Kind (BOF-mandaat). Onderzoeksdomein: Internationale Parentale Ontvoering. Lid van het IRCP (Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy) en het HRC (Human Rights Centre).

prof. dr. Wendy De Bondt
Professor Strafrecht/Rechten van het Kind/Jeugdrecht aan Universiteit Gent. Onderzoeksdomein: (Europees) strafrecht(elijk beleid) & Rechten van het Kind. Lid van het IRCP (Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy) en het HRC (Human Rights Centre).
Article

Access_open Broken rules, ruined lives

Een verkenning van de normativiteit van de onrechtservaring

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2019
Keywords onrecht, Slachtofferrechten, Benjamin, Shklar
Authors Nanda Oudejans and Antony Pemberton
AbstractAuthor's information

    Hoewel de rechtspositie van slachtoffers de afgelopen decennia verstevigd lijkt, blijft de relatie tussen slachtoffer en strafrecht ongemakkelijk. Rechtswetenschappers tonen zich bezorgd dat de toenemende aandacht voor de belangen van slachtoffers uitmondt in ‘geïnstitutionaliseerde wreedheid.’ Deze zorg wordt echter gevoed door een verkeerd begrip van slachtofferschap en heeft slecht begrepen wat het slachtoffer nu eigenlijk van het recht verlangt. Deze bijdrage probeert de vraag van het slachtoffer aan het recht tot begrip te brengen. Wij zullen de onrechtservaring van het slachtoffer conceptualiseren als een ontologisch alleen en verlaten zijn van het slachtoffer. Het aanknopingspunt om de relatie tussen slachtoffer en recht opnieuw te denken zoeken wij in deze verlatenheid. De kern van het betoog is dat het slachtoffer (mede) in het recht beschutting zoekt tegen deze verlatenheid, maar ook altijd onvermijdelijk tegen de grenzen van het recht aanloopt. Van een rechtssysteem dat zich volledig uitlevert aan de noden van slachtoffers kan dan ook geen sprake zijn. Integendeel, het recht moet zijn belang voor slachtoffers deels zien in de onderkenning van zijn eigen beperkingen om onrecht te keren, in plaats van de onrechtservaring van het slachtoffer weg te moffelen, te koloniseren of ridiculiseren.


Nanda Oudejans
Nanda Oudejans is universitair docent rechtsfilosofie aan de Universiteit Utrecht.

Antony Pemberton
Antony Pemberton is hoogleraar victimologie aan Tilburg University.

Rinus van Schendelen
Rinus van Schendelen is emeritus hoogleraar politicologie op de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, adviseur EU-beïnvloeding bij Bureau Brussels in Brussel en publiceerde onder meer ruim 40 boeken op het brede terrein van beïnvloeding van besluitvorming.
Article

Access_open Dworkin’s Rights Conception of the Rule of Law in Criminal Law

Should Criminal Law be Extensively Interpreted in Order to Protect Victims’ Rights?

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2017
Keywords Klaas Rozemond, Ronald M. Dworkin, Legality in criminal law, Rights conception of the rule of law, Legal certainty
Authors Briain Jansen
AbstractAuthor's information

    The extensive interpretation of criminal law to the detriment of the defendant in criminal law is often problematized in doctrinal theory. Extensive interpretation is then argued to be problematic in the light of important ideals such as democracy and legal certainty in criminal law. In the Dutch discussion of this issue, Klaas Rozemond has argued that sometimes extensive interpretation is mandated by the rule of law in order to protect the rights of victims. Rozemond grounds his argument on a reading of Dworkin’s distinction between the rule-book and the rights conception of the rule of law. In this article, I argue that Dworkin’s rights conception, properly considered, does not necessarily mandate the imposition of criminal law or its extensive interpretation in court in order to protect victims’ rights.


Briain Jansen
Briain Jansen is als promovendus rechtstheorie verbonden aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open Wat is juridisch interactionisme?

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2014
Keywords interactionism, Lon Fuller, interactional law, legal pluralism, concept of law
Authors Wibren van der Burg
AbstractAuthor's information

    Two phenomena that challenge theories of law in the beginning of the twenty-first century are the regulatory explosion and the emergence of horizontal and interactional forms of law. In this paper, I develop a theory that can address these two phenomena, namely legal interactionism, a theory inspired by the work of Fuller and Selznick. In a pluralist approach, legal interactionism recognizes both interactional law and enacted law, as well as other sources such as contract. We should aim for a pluralistic and gradual concept of law. Because of this pluralist and gradual character, legal interactionism can also do justice to global legal pluralism and to the dynamic intertwinement of health law and bioethics.


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

Access_open Constitutionele toetsing in een democratie zonder volk

Een kelseniaanse rechtvaardiging voor het Europees Hof van Justitie

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2010
Keywords Kelsen, Democracy, Legitimacy, European Union, European Court of Justice
Authors Quoc Loc Hong
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article draws on Hans Kelsen’s theory of democracy to argue that, contrary to conventional wisdom, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the democratic legitimacy of either the European Union (EU) or the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The legitimacy problems from which the EU in general and the ECJ in particular are alleged to suffer seem to result mainly from our rigid adherence to the outdated conception of democracy as popular self-legislation. Because we tend to approach the Union’s political and judicial practice from the perspective of this democracy conception, we are not able to observe what is blindingly obvious, that is, the viability and persistence of both this mega-leviathan and the highest court thereof. It is, therefore, imperative that we modernize and adjust our conception of democracy in order to comprehend the new reality to which these bodies have given rise, rather than to call for ‘reforms’ in a futile attempt to bring this reality into accordance with our ancient preconceptions about what democratic governance ought to be. Kelsen is the democratic theorist whose work has enabled us to venture into that direction.


Quoc Loc Hong
Quoc Loc Hong was a FWO Postdoctoral Fellow from 2007 to 2009 at the University of Antwerp. He is currently an independent researcher.
Article

Access_open De droom van Beccaria

Over het strafrecht en de nodale veiligheidszorg

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2010
Keywords Beccaria, criminal law, nodal governance, social contract
Authors Klaas Rozemond
AbstractAuthor's information

    Les Johnston and Clifford Shearing argue in their book, Governing Security, that the state has lost its monopoly on the governance of security. Private security arrangements have formed a networked governance of security in which the criminal law of the state is just one of the many knots or ‘nodes’ of the security network. Johnston and Shearing consider On Crimes and Punishment, written by Cesare Beccaria in the 18th century, as the most important statement of the classical security program which has withered away in the networked governance of the risk society. This article critizes the way Johnston and Shearing analyze Beccaria’s social contract theory and it formulates a Beccarian theory of the criminal law and nodal governance which explains the causes of crime and the rise of nodal governance and defends the central role of the state in anchoring security arrangements based on private contracts and property rights.


Klaas Rozemond
Klaas Rozemond is associate professor at the Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, VU University Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open Lettres Persanes 14

Oorlog is natuurlijk erger dan een zoekgeraakte koffer. Staking, geweld en rechtsorde

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2009
Keywords law and politics, right to strike, exceptionalism, Benjamin, political action
Authors Dr. mr. Klaas Tindemans
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article discusses the right to strike, with special regard to Belgium. Referring to Walter Benjamin, Tindemans argues that strikes are rechtsetzend rather than rechtserhaltend; they constitute a legal order rather than preserve one. Strikes are exceptional phenomena within any legal system, as they do not fit normal criteria of legal validity. According to Tindemans, strikes are to be considered primarily as extralegal phenomena, as means in a political struggle, confronting the “police” of the core institutions of the state and the legal order. Strikes are political actions, moments of collective aspiration towards political equality, and as such threaten the “pureness” of the legal order in favour of a fragmented politics.


Dr. mr. Klaas Tindemans
Klaas Tindemans is Doctor of Laws and a playwright. He teaches at the RITS, school for audiovisual and performing arts, Erasmushogeschool Brussels.

    In an editorial article the editors supply a commentary on the topics covered in the journal.


Jaap Hage
Jaap Hage is hoogleraar Algemene Rechtsleer aan de Universiteit Maastricht.
Article

Access_open Autonomie als voorwaarde tot legaliteit

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2009
Keywords autonomie, legaliteit, Brouwer, Fuller, certificering
Authors Pauline Westerman
AbstractAuthor's information

    Brouwer defended the view that the autonomy of the individual citizen is furthered by articulated, precise and clear legislation. The question arises whether all kinds of rules can be said to enhance such autonomy. It is argued that a distinction should be drawn between rules that dictate desirable outcomes, on the one hand, and rules that determine the way the game is played, on the other. Rules of the game often reflect the way they were drafted and can be seen as the embodiment of power relations between rule-makers. Rules that dictate outcomes, on the other hand, are often drafted by experts who analyse the goals to be reached. The view is defended that only rules of the game – potentially – enhance the autonomy of the citizen, whereas outcome-rules are potentially manipulative, tending to exclude those who are ill-equipped to realize the prescribed outcomes. The virtues of rules therefore do not merely reside in their clear and precise nature, but are largely derived from their capacity to regulate the relations amongst citizens who were included in the process of rulemaking.


Pauline Westerman
Pauline Westerman is hoogleraar Rechtsfilosofie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Article

Access_open Op de bres voor rechtszekerheid

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2009
Keywords rechtszekerheid, in dubio pro libertate, Brouwer, rechtspositivisme, constructivisme
Authors Marc Loth
AbstractAuthor's information

    This paper addresses the principle of legal certainty, which was central in the work of Bob Brouwer. He both regretted and disputed the decline of this principle in the theory and practice of law, trying to defend it against the spirit of the time. I argue that this attempt was in vain, because it opposes recent developments in law, as is illustrated by a notorious case of the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, these developments invoke a constructivist account of legal certainty, which opposes Brouwer’s legal positivist account. Additionally, this meta-level shows that legal certainty in its classical form is indefensible, which – of course – does not mean that it is senseless altogether. On the contrary, the principle of legal certainty does have meaning in current legal systems, and it is the task of new generations of young scholars to try to get a grip on it. In doing so, they will undoubtedly make use of Brouwer’s work, which excels both in the depth of thinking and the clarity of writing.


Marc Loth
Marc Loth is raadsheer in de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.
Article

Access_open Democratie als heteronome autonomie?

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2008
Keywords raad van state, democratie, lidstaat, autonomie, verdrag, claim, Europees recht, innovatie, rechtsstaat, referendum
Authors H. Lindahl

H. Lindahl
Book Review

Access_open Ronald Janse, Sanne Taekema & Ton Hol (red.), Rechtsfilosofische annotaties.

Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri 2007, 172 p.

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2008
Keywords redelijkheid en billijkheid, kwaliteit, rechterlijke uitspraak, zorgplicht, ambtenaar, bestanddeel, confrontatie, Europees hof voor de rechten van de mens, gebrek, vrijheid van meningsuiting
Authors J. Zwart and F. Storm

J. Zwart

F. Storm
Article

Access_open The Paradox of Politics from a Constitutional Perspective: The Constituent Power of the People and the Representation of the General Will

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2008
Keywords leasing, claim, binding, contract, making, democratie, know-how, Europese unie, idee, legaliteit
Authors G. Hoogers

G. Hoogers
Book Review

Access_open R. Burchill (red.), Democracy and International Law.

Aldershot: Ashgate 2006,632 p. S.A. Scheingold (red.), Legality and Democracy: Contested Affinities, Aldershot:Ashgate 2006, 691 p. T. Campbell & A. Stone (red.), Law and de

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2008
Keywords democratie, gerechtelijke procedure, legaliteit, idee, aanvaarding, auteur, claim, constitutie, legitimiteit, verkiezing
Authors H. Gribnau

H. Gribnau
Book Review

Access_open Maurice Adams & Willem Lemmens (red.), Hobbes. In de schaduw van Leviathan.

Kapellen: Uitgeverij Pelckmans 2007, 191 p.

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2008
Keywords politieke filosofie, contract, legaliteit, geweld, menselijke gedraging, auteur, noodzakelijkheid, dwang, machine, overeenkomst
Authors L. Logister

L. Logister

    The doctrine of benevolent empire posits that unilateral security governance has become a necessary and legitimate form of global governance. After first assessing if imperial governance can even be considered an instance of global governance, its claim of legitimacy is scrutinised. It is argued, with reference to the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, that its strategy of legitimation is eventually doomed to fail because benevolent empire appears to downplay both the importance of education in forging legitimacy and the context-specific nature of legitimacy.


Jacobus Delwaide
Jacobus Delwaide is als politicoloog verbonden aan de KUB/HUB.

Jorg Kustermans
Jorg Kustermans is verbonden aan de vakgroep Europese en Internationale Politiek van de Universiteit Antwerpen.
Showing 1 - 20 of 33 results
« 1
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.