Search result: 11 articles

x
Year 2010 x
Article

Introduction, Problem and Finalists Briefs

19th Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition, 2010: Case Concerning Suborbital Tourism, Definition of Outer Space and Liability (Aspirantia v. Republica)

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 12 2010
Article

Access_open Constitutionalism and the Incompleteness of Democracy: An Iterative Relationship

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2010
Keywords constitutionalism, globalization, democracy, modernity, postnational
Authors Neil Walker
AbstractAuthor's information

    The complexity of the relationship between democracy and modern constitutionalism is revealed by treating democracy as an incomplete ideal. This refers both to the empirical incompleteness of democracy as unable to supply its own terms of application – the internal dimension – and to the normative incompleteness of democracy as guide to good government – the external dimension. Constitutionalism is a necessary response to democratic incompleteness – seeking to realize (the internal dimension) and to supplement and qualify democracy (the external dimension). How democratic incompleteness manifests itself, and how constitutionalism responds to incompleteness evolves and alters, revealing the relationship between constitutionalism and democracy as iterative. The paper concentrates on the iteration emerging from the current globalizing wave. The fact that states are no longer the exclusive sites of democratic authority compounds democratic incompleteness and complicates how constitutionalism responds. Nevertheless, the key role of constitutionalism in addressing the double incompleteness of democracy persists under globalization. This continuity reflects how the deep moral order of political modernity, in particular the emphasis on individualism, equality, collective agency and progress, remains constant while its institutional architecture, including the forms of its commitment to democracy, evolves. Constitutionalism, itself both a basic orientation and a set of design principles for that architecture, remains a necessary support for and supplement to democracy. Yet post-national constitutionalism, even more than its state-centred predecessor, remains contingent upon non-democratic considerations, so reinforcing constitutionalism’s normative and sociological vulnerability. This conclusion challenges two opposing understandings of the constitutionalism of the global age – that which indicts global constitutionalism because of its weakened democratic credentials and that which assumes that these weakened democratic credentials pose no problem for post-national constitutionalism, which may instead thrive through a heightened emphasis on non-democratic values.


Neil Walker
Neil Walker is Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Discussion

Access_open The Co-originality of Law and Democracy in the Moral Horizon of Modernity

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2010
Keywords co-originality, deliberative democracy, Habermas, Lefort, modernity
Authors Stefan Rummens
AbstractAuthor's information

    This paper argues that Neil Walker’s analysis of the complementary relationship between democracy and constitutionalism remains one-sided. It focuses only on the incompleteness of democracy and the democracy-realizing function of constitutionalism rather than also taking into account the reverse complementary and constitution-realizing function of democracy. In this paper, I defend a fuller account that takes into account this mutual complementarity between democracy and constitutionalism. Such an alternative approach is consequential for Walker’s argument in two respects. In terms of the general analysis of the relationship between democracy and constitutionalism, my adjusted approach leads to a defence of the Habermasian thesis of the co-originality of constitutionalism and democracy which is too quickly dismissed by Walker himself. A fuller appreciation of this co-originality suggests that the relationship between constitutionalism and democracy is perhaps, after all, more singularly complementary (as opposed to being both complementary and oppositional) than Walker recognizes. In terms of the more specific analysis of the impact of globalization, this adjusted approach tilts the argument in favour of the critics of current practices of postnational constitutionalism. Without complementary postnational democratic structures, this constitutionalism remains problematic and potentially oppressive.


Stefan Rummens
Stefan Rummens is Assistant Professor of Political Theory at the Institute for Management Research of the Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
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.
Miscellaneous

Access_open Everything we do is tentative. An interview with Prof. Frederick Schauer

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2010
Keywords Schauer, rule priority, legal principles, legal positivism, generality
Authors Bo Zhao
AbstractAuthor's information

    Professor Schauer covers many topics in this interview. On a general note, the interview covers themes pertaining to his experience in engaging with legal philosophy as a trained lawyer; his views on the present and the future of legal philosophy and how we shall cope with its development; his new book Thinking like a Lawyer; the role of legal philosophers in law and society; and some sincere suggestions to young legal philosophers. It also covers more specific topics, including discussions about his insistence on rule priority; differences between legal principles and rules; his opinion of legal positivism; and the pros and cons of analytical tools like spectrum, continuum and generality.


Bo Zhao
Bo Zhao is a post-doc researcher at the History Department, Faculty of Arts, and the Legal Theory Department, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen.
Article

Access_open ‘Wat is waarheid?’ De rol van deskundigen bij waarheidsvinding in de strafrechtspraak

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2010
Keywords Legitimation durch Verfahren, criminal law, expert-witnesses, truth, reliability of evidence
Authors Anne Ruth Mackor
AbstractAuthor's information

    Huls has argued that the idea that judges are truth-finders is misleading. In the first part of the paper I put his claim to the test. Against Huls I argue that the aim of procedures in criminal lawsuits is not only to guarantee binding decisions but also to help to find the truth. In the second part of the paper I investigate the role expert-witnesses play in truth-finding. Cleiren and Loth have argued that experts fail to understand the differences between legal and scientific ways of truth-finding. It turns out that Cleiren does not offer an argument for her claim and that Loth’s claim fails too, since it confuses coherence as truth and coherence as epistemic justification. I conclude that legal scholars, rather than experts, fail to understand the nature of legal and scientific truth-finding.


Anne Ruth Mackor
Anne Ruth Mackor is professor of professional ethics, in particular of the legal professions, at the Faculty of Law of Groningen, and Socrates professor of professional ethics at the Faculties of Philosophy and Theology of Groningen.

    Contemporary literature on the use of force has been saturated with arguments and counter arguments relating to the extant regime of the use of force as it should relate to non-state actors. The discussions have however proceeded on the assumption that the problem of the unregulated use of force by non-state entities is limited to group of persons – unorganised non-state actors – pursuing legitimate or non-legitimate agenda. The arguments seems to overlook the existence of a group of States (organised non-state actors) – international organisations – which pose even greater threat to the Charter paradigm of the use of force than unorganised non-state actors. This article discusses the Charter regime on the use of force with particular attention to organised non-state actors and the challenges they posed to the prohibition of the use of force.


Amos O. Enabulele
Amos O. Enabulele LL.M, BL is Lecturer at the Department of Jurisprudence & International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Benin, Nigeria and a Ph.D. candidate at Brunel University, West London.
Article

The Politics of Demand for Law: The Case of Ukraine’s Company Law Reform

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 3-4 2010
Keywords company law, Ukraine, legislative process, veto players, external pressures
Authors Dr. Rilka Dragneva and Dr. Antoaneta Dimitrova
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article explores the dynamics between external and domestic factors in legal reform in transition countries as demonstrated by the case of Ukrainian company law reform. Contrary to theoretical explanations pointing to the primacy of external supply and incentives, we locate the determinants of legal change firmly in the domestic arena. We conceptualise domestic factors using a political science framework regarding the role of veto players parliamentary factions and related informal business actors. The analysis supports the critical law and development literature in underlying the importance of the demand for law by such players. This demand, however, affects not just the implementation process but is critically expressed in the strategic use of formal legislative reform.


Dr. Rilka Dragneva
Rilka Dragneva is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the School of Law of University of Manchester, United Kingdom.

Dr. Antoaneta Dimitrova
Antoaneta Dimitrova is a Senior Lecturer at Institute for Public Administration at Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Article

Establishing Protection Mechanisms for Bureaucrats

The Case of the Independent Oversight Board of Civil Service of Kosovo

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1-2 2010
Keywords Kosovo Civil Service, Civil service, Oversight Board, law, reform
Authors Dren Doli, Fisnik Korenica and Artan Rogova
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article discusses the position and powers of Kosovo’s Civil Service Oversight Board, mainly from a legal perspective. The article describes the reforms undertaken upon the Board and the civil service in Kosovo, while illustrating the central pillars of concern in regard to both the international presence and domestic institutions in Kosovo. The article then explains the three reforms and reviews each of the main legal changes the Board and the civil system have experienced, respectively. The last section of the article comprises an institutional review of the powers and the position of the current framework on the Civil Service Oversight Board, while allowing a part of the article to question its independence and pluralism. The article culminates with policy suggestions that would make the work of the Board, and the entire civil service, more independent and accountable to its mission.


Dren Doli
Dren Doli is a Senior Research Fellow at the Group for Legal and Political Studies, and a Senior Lecturer on Law Principles at Universum University College, having served earlier as a Senior Legal Executive for Integration to the Kosovo Prime Minister.

Fisnik Korenica
Fisnik Korenica is a Lecturer on the Theory of State and Law at the University of Prishtina, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Group for Legal and Political Studies.

Artan Rogova
Artan Rogova is a Senior Research Fellow at the Group for Legal and Political Studies, as a Lecturer on Economics of European Integration at Universum University College.
Article

Access_open Slapende rechters, dwalende rechtspsychologen en het hypothetische karakter van feitelijke oordelen

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2010
Keywords psychology of law, criminal law, miscarriages of justice, hypothetical reasoning
Authors Klaas Rozemond
AbstractAuthor's information

    In their book De slapende rechter (The sleeping judge) Dutch legal psychologists W.A. Wagenaar, H. Israëls and P.J. van Koppen claim that Dutch judges wrongfully convict suspects in certain cases because these judges generally fail to understand the way hypothetical reasoning works in relation to empirical evidence. This article argues that Wagenaar, Israëls and Van Koppen are basically right in their claim that reasoning on evidence in criminal cases should have the form of hypothetical reasoning. However, they fail to apply this form of reasoning to their own analysis of Dutch criminal cases and the causes of wrongful convictions. Therefore, their conclusion that a form of revision of convictions outside of the criminal law system should be introduced does not meet their own methodological standards.


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

Gerhard Wagner
Dr. Gerhard Wagner LL.M. is Professor of Fundamentals of Private Law at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, as well as, Professor of German and European Private Law and Civil Procedure at the University of Bonn.
Showing all 11 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 journal, category or year.