Search result: 7 articles

x
Year 2014 x
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

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 4 2014
Keywords legal representation, counsel, juvenile justice, police interrogations, children’s rights
Authors Prof. Dr. Ton Liefaard Ph.D. LL.M and Yannick van den Brink
AbstractAuthor's information

    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 Samenlevingsovereenkomsten in de notariële praktijk

Journal Family & Law, November 2014
Authors Petra Kuik, Wendy Schrama and Prof. dr. Leon Verstappen
Abstract

    In deze bijdrage worden de resultaten van een empirisch onderzoek dat in 2013 is verricht naar de inhoud van gemaakte samenlevingsovereenkomsten gepresenteerd. De beroepsgroep die zich met het maken van samenlevingsovereenkomsten bezig houdt - het notariaat - is bevraagd over deze praktijk aan de hand van een digitale vragenlijst. Daarmee is het qua opzet een verkennend onderzoek, dat een eerste beeld geeft van de notariële praktijk. In deze bijdrage worden de resultaten van een empirisch onderzoek dat in 2013 is verricht naar de inhoud van gemaakte samenlevingsovereenkomsten gepresenteerd. De beroepsgroep die zich met het maken van samenlevingsovereenkomsten bezig houdt - het notariaat - is bevraagd over deze praktijk aan de hand van een digitale vragenlijst. Daarmee is het qua opzet een verkennend onderzoek, dat een eerste beeld geeft van de notariële praktijk. De inhoud van de doorsnee samenlevingsovereenkomst verschilt aanzienlijk van die van huwelijkse voorwaarden. Bedingen waaruit vermogensrechtelijke solidariteit tussen ongehuwd samenwonenden blijkt (inkomens- of vermogensverrekening of alimentatiebedingen), komen slechts zeer beperkt voor in samenlevingsovereenkomsten, terwijl die juist in huwelijkse voorwaarden zeer frequent voorkomen. Ook op andere onderdelen verschaft dit onderzoek interessante bevindingen. Nader onderzoek is gewenst om meer inzicht te krijgen in de praktijk van het maken van samenlevingsovereenkomsten. --- In this paper, the authors present an empirical research on the content of cohabitation contracts in the Netherlands, conducted in 2013. The legal professionals who mostly deal with cohabitation contracts - the notaries - have been asked to fill in a digital questionnaire. The format of this research is exploratory, painting a first picture of legal practice on making cohabitation contracts. The content of the average cohabitation contract differs very much compared to the content of the average marriage contract. Clauses that express solidarity between cohabitants (sharing income or property values or maintenance) are rare in cohabitation contracts, whereas they are rather popular in matrimonial property contracts. Further research is necessary to gain more insight into the legal practice of making cohabitation contracts.


Petra Kuik

Wendy Schrama

Prof. dr. Leon Verstappen
Article

Access_open Private International Law: An Appropriate Means to Regulate Transnational Employment in the European Union?

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 3 2014
Keywords private international law, applicable law, overriding mandatory provisions, transnational employment relations, posting of workers
Authors Prof.dr. Aukje A.H. Ms van Hoek
AbstractAuthor's information

    The regulation of transnational employment in the European Union operates at the crossroads between private international law and internal market rules. The private international law rules are currently laid down in the Rome I Regulation. This regulation is complemented by the Posted Workers Directive, a directive based on the competences of the EU in the field of free movement of services. The current contribution first describes the rules which determine the law applicable to the employment contract under Article 8 Rome I Regulation and the way these rules are interpreted by the CJEU before critically analysing these rules and the reasoning that seems to lie behind the court’s interpretation (section 2). The law applying to the contract is, however, only of limited relevance for the protection of posted workers. This is due inter alia to the mandatory application of certain rules of the country to which the workers are posted, even if a different law governs their contract. This application of host state law is based on Article 9 Rome I Regulation in conjunction with the Posted Workers Directive. Section 3 describes the content of these rules and the – to some extent still undecided – interaction between the Rome I Regulation and the PWD. The conclusion will be that there is an uneasy match between the interests informing private international law and the interests of the internal market, which is not likely to be resolved in the near future.


Prof.dr. Aukje A.H. Ms van Hoek
Aukje van Hoek is Professor at the University of Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open Irreconcilable Differences?

An Analysis of the Standoff between the African Union and the International Criminal Court

Journal African Journal of International Criminal Justice, Issue 0 2014
Keywords International Criminal Court, African Union, Kenya investigation, immunity, Heads of state
Authors Mia Swart and Karin Krisch
AbstractAuthor's information

    From initial African support for the establishment of the International Criminal Court to recent proposals that African states should withdraw from it, the article traces the history of the relationship between the African Union and the Court and the reasons for its deterioration. The discussion is focussed on the issue of immunity for sitting heads of state, which has emerged as a major sticking point between the two organisations. The disagreement is illustrated with reference to the ICC’s efforts to prosecute the Kenyan President and his deputy. We examine the legal position on head-of-state immunity at international law, and proceed to evaluate the AU’s proposal that the ICC should amend the Rome Statute to provide for immunity for sitting heads of state, as well as the amendment to the Protocol of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, in light thereof.


Mia Swart
Mia Swart is Professor of International Law at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

Karin Krisch
Karin Krisch is LLM candidate at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. The authors thank Prof. Charles Jalloh for his insightful comments and guidance.

    In Denemarken en Nederland is sprake geweest van wetgeving die tot doel had, in het belang van het kind, de gelijkheid van ouders ten opzichte van hun kinderen verder te bevorderen. Voor beide landen werd al tijdens de parlementaire behandeling van de wetsvoorstellen toegezegd dat de wetten binnen een termijn van drie jaar zouden worden geëvalueerd. Inmiddels heeft de evaluatie van de Deense wet op de ouderlijke verantwoordelijkheid ook tot wetswijziging geleid. In dit artikel worden de achtergrond van de Deense wetsevaluatie, de evaluatie zelf en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen behandeld. Daarna wordt kritisch gekeken naar de interactie tussen de wetsevaluatie en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen. De vragen die hier rijzen, betreffen de doelstellingen van de wetsevaluatie. Wat werd beoogd? Moest de wet zich bewijzen of werd alleen beoogd de eventuele scherpe randjes van de wet af te halen? In hoeverre zijn de bevindingen verwerkt in de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen? Ten slotte wordt het gezamenlijk ouderschap na evaluatie in perspectief gebracht.
    ---
    Recent developments in Danish and Dutch legislation have provided norms which were directed at furthering equality between parents, in the interest of the child. In both countries, it was promised in the course of the parliamentary deliberations that the enacted legislation would be evaluated within a period of three years. The Danish evaluation led to new legislation being enacted. In this article the background for the Danish evaluation, the findings in the evaluation en the resulting legislative changes are deliberated. Subsequently, the interaction between the evaluation and the resulting changes is critically analysed. An essential question concerns the purpose of the evaluation. What was envisaged? That the stated aims were realised? Or just the elimination of sharp edges of the legislation? To what extent were the findings in the evaluation taken into account in the subsequent legislative changes? Finally, joint parenting after evaluation will be brought into perspective.


Dr. Christina G. Jeppesen de Boer
Christina Jeppesen de Boer is a lecturer on comparative law at the Molengraaff Institute for Private Law (Utrecht University). She is also part of the Utrecht Centre for European Research into Family law (UCERF).

Stefan Rummens
Stefan Rummens is Associate Professor of Moral Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy of the KU Leuven (Belgium).
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.
Showing all 7 results
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.