Search result: 42 articles

x
Article

Access_open Schade in de virtuele wereld: de casus virtuele grooming

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2017
Keywords Virtuele grooming, Schade, Strafbaarstelling, Uitlokverbod
Authors Jeroen ten Voorde
AbstractAuthor's information

    As part of a package of legislative measures concerning cybercrime, the Dutch State Secretary for Security and Justice proposes to criminalize virtual grooming, that is the grooming of a person of minor age who, for example, does only exist as an online creature. The legislator’s principle argument for criminalization is based on the harm principle. This article examines the possibility of founding the criminalization of virtual grooming on this principle.


Jeroen ten Voorde
Jeroen ten Voorde is bijzonder hoogleraar strafrechtsfilosofie (leerstoel Leo Polak) aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en universitair hoofddocent straf- en strafprocesrecht aan de Universiteit Leiden.
Article

Access_open Over verplichte excuses en spreekrecht

Wat is er mis met empirisch-juridisch onderzoek naar slachtoffers?

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2017
Keywords empirical legal studies, apologies, procedural justice, humiliation, victim rights
Authors Vincent Geeraets and Wouter Veraart
AbstractAuthor's information

    The central question in this article is whether an empirical-legal approach of victimhood and victim rights could offer a sufficient basis for proposals of legal reform of the legal system. In this article, we choose a normative-critical approach and raise some objections to the way in which part of such research is currently taking place in the Netherlands, on the basis of two examples of research in this field, one dealing with compelled apologies as a possible remedy within civil procedural law and the other with the victim’s right to be heard within the criminal legal procedure. In both cases, we argue, the strong focus on the measurable needs of victims can lead to a relatively instrumental view of the legal system. The legal system must then increasingly be tailored to the wishes and needs of victims. Within this legal-empirical, victim-oriented approach, there is little regard for the general normative principles of our present legal system, in which an equal and respectful treatment of each human being as a free and responsible legal subject is a central value. We argue that results of empirical-legal research should not too easily or too quickly be translated into proposals for legal reform, but first become part of a hermeneutical discussion about norms and legal principles, specific to the normative quality of legal science itself.


Vincent Geeraets
Vincent Geeraets is universitair docent aan de afdeling Rechtstheorie en rechtsgeschiedenis van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Wouter Veraart
Wouter Veraart is hoogleraar rechtsfilosofie aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    I will argue that it is possible to give a neutral or antiperfectionist legitimation for state support for religion, which I consider a perfectionist good that is not in the common interest. I will argue that state support for perfectionist goods (and thus also for religion) can, in some circumstances and under certain conditions, be allowed as a second-best option in order to guarantee an adequate range of valuable options to choose among - and this range of options is a necessary condition for autonomy. Subsequently, I will argue that the bottom line - which is also the limit - for support is a sufficient range of valuable options. Furthermore, I will argue that state support for religion is only allowed if there is a democratic consensus about the value of that particular perfectionist good. Finally, I will claim that state support for religion is only allowed under certain conditions.


Leni Franken
Leni Franken is als doctor-assistente verbonden aan het Centrum Pieter Gillis (Universiteit Antwerpen), waar zij levensbeschouwing doceert in de faculteiten Rechten en Toegepaste Ingenieurswetenschappen.

    In this article, we inquire the merits of criminalizing blasphemy. We argue that religious views do not warrant a separate treatment compared to nonreligious ones. In addition, freedom of speech must be balanced against the interest of those who may be aggrieved by blasphemous remarks. We conclude that penalizing blasphemy is undesirable. It is fortunate, in that light, that acts of blasphemy have recently been decriminalized in The Netherlands by removing blasphemy as an offense from the Criminal Code. Still, other provisions appear to leave enough room to reach the same result, making the removal a possibly virtually aesthetic change. In the international context, it would be regrettable for The Netherlands to forgo the opportunity to take a leading role.


Jasper Doomen
Jasper Doomen is verbonden als docent/onderzoeker aan de afdeling Encyclopedie van de Rechtswetenschap van de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Leiden.

Mirjam van Schaik
Mirjam van Schaik is verbonden als docent/onderzoeker aan de afdeling Encyclopedie van de Rechtswetenschap van de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Leiden.

Anna Johannes
Anna Johannes is Lecturer at the Department of Legal Theory, VU University Amsterdam.

Jaap Zwart
Jaap Zwart is Lecturer at the Department of Legal Theory, VU University Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open ‘God hath given the world to men in common’

Grenzen aan privé-eigendom in geval van nood en verspilling in het middeleeuwse en vroegmoderne natuurrecht

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2013
Keywords natural law, property, rights of the poor, extreme necessity, necessitas urgens et evidens
Authors Marc de Wilde
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article examines what limitations to private property John Locke recognizes to protect the rights of the poor. As has been pointed out in the literature, Locke’s ideas on the limitations to private property have been influenced by medieval discussions about the rights of the poor and the principle of extreme necessity. Confirming this interpretation, the article shows that Locke borrows the distinction between ‘ordinary need’ and ‘evident and urgent necessity’ from Thomas Aquinas. Taking position in a debate among Grotius and Pufendorf, Locke argues that the poor have a natural right to the ‘surplus’ of somebody else’s possessions, and that this right becomes legally enforceable in case of ‘evident and urgent necessity.’


Marc de Wilde
Marc de Wilde is Professor of Legal Theory at the University of Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open De liberale canon: argumenten voor vrijheid

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2012
Keywords enforcement of morals, liberalism, liberty, political liberalism, Rawls
Authors Alex Bood
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article examines how a liberal public morality can be most successfully defended against perfectionism. First of all the five most important liberal arguments for freedom are taken from what is called the liberal canon: a number of characteristic works of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Isaiah Berlin, Joseph Raz, Ronald Dworkin, and John Rawls. These five arguments are identified as: social and political realism, respect for autonomy, fallibility of ideas, pluralism, and respect for reasonableness. Next, the persuasiveness of these arguments is assessed, starting with the argument of respect for reasonableness, which is at the heart of Rawls’s political liberalism. It is concluded that in itself this argument is not strong enough to persuade perfectionists. A powerful defence of a liberal public morality needs the other arguments for freedom as well. Finally, the paper outlines how these other arguments can strengthen the argument of respect for reasonableness in a coherent manner.


Alex Bood
Alex Bood is Research Manager at the Dutch Public Prosecution’s Office for Criminal Law Studies (WBOM).
Miscellaneous

Access_open Strafrecht en liberalisme

Ontwikkelingen rond strafrecht waarover liberalen zich zorgen zouden moeten maken

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2012
Authors Anne Ruth Mackor
Author's information

Anne Ruth Mackor
Anne Ruth Mackor is Professor of Professional Ethics, in particular of legal professions, at the Faculty of Law and Socrates Professor of Professional Ethics at the Faculties of Theology and Philosophy at the University of Groningen.
Miscellaneous

Access_open Monotheïsme kan uw staat ernstige schade toebrengen

Paul Cliteur, The Secular Outlook & Het monotheïstisch dilemma

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2011
Authors Wouter de Been
AbstractAuthor's information

    Book review of Paul Cliteur, The Secular Outlook & Paul Cliteur, Het monotheïstisch dilemma


Wouter de Been
Wouter de Been is postdoctoral researcher in legal theory at the Erasmus School of Law (Rotterdam).

Rob Schwitters
Rob Schwitters is Associate Professor of Sociology of Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open Over de klassieke oorsprong van de rechten van de mens

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2011
Keywords human rights, natural law, perfectionism, Stoa, Cicero
Authors René Brouwer
AbstractAuthor's information

    In this article I reconstruct the contribution of some central Hellenistic political thinkers to a theory of human rights. Starting point is the traditional Stoic conception of the law of nature as a power in which only perfect human beings actively participate. In the 2nd century BC the Stoic Panaetius adjusted this traditional high-minded theory by also allowing for a lower level of human excellence. This second-rate human excellence can be achieved just by following ‘proper functions’, which are derived from ordinary human nature and can be laid down in rules. From here, it was only a small, yet decisive step – presumably to be attributed to one of Cicero’s teachers – to discard the highest level of human perfection altogether. This step, I argue, paved the way for an understanding of the rules of natural law in terms of human rights.


René Brouwer
René Brouwer is Lecturer in Legal Theory at the University of Utrecht.
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.

Stefan Rummens
Stefan Rummens is Assistant Professor of Political Theory at the Institute of Management Research of the Radboud University Nijmegen.
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 Paul Scholten en Herman Dooyeweerd: het gesprek dat nooit plaatsvond

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2010
Keywords Scholten, Dooyeweerd, legal principles, legal reasoning, religion
Authors Bas Hengstmengel
AbstractAuthor's information

    The legal scholars Paul Scholten (1875-1946) and Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) had much in common. The most significant agreement is their emphasis on the influence of a (religious) worldview on legal scholarship and practice. Unfortunately, they never met to discuss the similarities and differences of their jurisprudential ideas. In this article I try to reconstruct this conversation which never took place. Scholten’s legal thought is specifically oriented to the practice and difficulties of judging. Dooyeweerd above all was a philosopher whose specific philosophy of the modal aspects of reality is the basis for his thinking about the law. Both scholars emphasized the importance of legal principles. They also identified several fundamental legal categories and concepts. However, their methodology is different. The way religion and morality influence their legal thought is also different. A discussion of the contemporary relevance of their work completes the paper.


Bas Hengstmengel
Bas Hengstmengel is a PhD-candidate at Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam. He writes a dissertation on procedural justice.
Article

Access_open Wetenschappelijke rechtsgeleerdheid

Commentaar op het preadvies van Carel Smith

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2009
Keywords law and hermeneutics, law and normativity, one right answer thesis, legal jurisprudence, legal doctrine
Authors Prof. dr. Arend Soeteman
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article is a comment on Carel Smith’s paper. Smith rightly argues that the study of law has a hermeneutic character. But his interpretation of legal hermeneutics includes the thesis that in hard cases there is no right or true legal decision. This seems to have negative implications for the scholarly character of the study of law: in hard cases any solution goes. This paper argues, against Smith, that the study of law defends right answers for hard cases. It is also normative in another sense: legal answers, in easy cases as well as in hard cases, always presuppose a normative interpretation of the legal sources. This contributes to the differences of opinion under lawyers. But it is no obstacle to the scholarly character of the study of law, as long as a rational debate about these legal answers and the underlying values and principles is possible. Smith’s rejection of the right answer thesis, however, prevents the possibility of such a rational debate.


Prof. dr. Arend Soeteman
Arend Soeteman is professor at the 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.
Article

Access_open Het normatieve karakter van de rechtswetenschap: recht als oordeel

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2009
Keywords legal theory, science, methodology, normativity, knowledge
Authors Prof. mr. Carel Smith
AbstractAuthor's information

    Propositions of law are based upon normative judgement. The interpretation and application of legal provisions rest upon a judgement that determines which weight must be attributed to some point of view or perspective. In this respect, legal theory has a normative character. Its normative character does not preclude legal theory from being a scientific discipline. The scientific character of legal theory is not located in the possibility of testing the correctness of its theories. Rather, legal theory owes it scientific character to the shared standards of production and evaluation of legal arguments: the grammar of justice.


Prof. mr. Carel Smith
Carel Smith is associate professor at the Department of Metajuridica, Faculty of Law, Leiden University.

    Book review of Martin Buijsen (ed.), Wrongful Life? Essays on the Baby-Kelly-case [Onrechtmatig leven. Opstellen naar aanleiding van Baby Kelly], Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers 2006, 234 p.


Britta van Beers
Britta van Beers is universitair docent Rechtsfilosofie aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open Het voorzorgbeginsel: over ideologie en onzekerheid

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2008
Keywords voorzorgsbeginsel, schade, risico, milieubescherming, milieurecht, bedreiging, idee, noodzakelijkheid, pleidooi
Authors R. Pieterman and T. Arnoldussen

R. Pieterman

T. Arnoldussen
Showing 1 - 20 of 42 found texts
« 1 3
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.