The ongoing debate on the necessity of EU legislation on gender balanced company boards gives rise to interesting questions in respect of the concepts of equality and subsidiarity. After the Council recently reached a common position on the matter, the renewed topicality of the draft directive of 2012 is cause for an analysis of both the original and amended draft text in view of these concepts. Do the originally proposed quota measures for private company boards meet the requirements of the principles of equality and subsidiarity? Following an analysis of the changes to the directive as proposed by the Council, this contribution will successively review in what manner controversies appear to have been addressed and with what probable implications for the directive’s effectiveness.
{"title":"Gender Quota for Corporate Directors: a Task for the European Union? The Revival of the Directive on Gender Balanced Company Boards","authors":"Albertine Veldman","doi":"10.36633/ulr.913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.913","url":null,"abstract":"The ongoing debate on the necessity of EU legislation on gender balanced company boards gives rise to interesting questions in respect of the concepts of equality and subsidiarity. After the Council recently reached a common position on the matter, the renewed topicality of the draft directive of 2012 is cause for an analysis of both the original and amended draft text in view of these concepts. Do the originally proposed quota measures for private company boards meet the requirements of the principles of equality and subsidiarity? Following an analysis of the changes to the directive as proposed by the Council, this contribution will successively review in what manner controversies appear to have been addressed and with what probable implications for the directive’s effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135008847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The scholarship on legitimacy of dispute settlement institutions has largely ignored community mediation institutions operating in the global south. This article aims to remedy that gap, through a case study of community mediation groups in South Sudan, a state emerging from large-scale conflict where formal courts are only marginally able to fulfill their assigned roles and the rule of law needs to be built almost from the ground-up. The article studies both the empirical legitimacy of the community mediation groups and how they relate to the rule of law building project in the country. Is the empirical legitimacy of formal and informal dispute settlement institutions as a zero-sum relationship, where increasing popularity and use of informal dispute settlement institutions detract from the popularity and empirical legitimacy of formal institutions, inhibiting the maturation of the legal system and a rule of law? Or could informal dispute settlement institutions – with proper linkages to the formal system – strengthen formal institutions, both judicial and administrative? These are highly relevant questions for post-conflict states where building a well-functioning legal system is seen as a precondition for sustainable peace and development.
{"title":"Community Mediators in South Sudan: Empirical Legitimacy and Post-conflict Rule of Law Building","authors":"J. Ubink, Bernardo Ribeiro de Almeida","doi":"10.36633/ulr.861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.861","url":null,"abstract":"The scholarship on legitimacy of dispute settlement institutions has largely ignored community mediation institutions operating in the global south. This article aims to remedy that gap, through a case study of community mediation groups in South Sudan, a state emerging from large-scale conflict where formal courts are only marginally able to fulfill their assigned roles and the rule of law needs to be built almost from the ground-up. The article studies both the empirical legitimacy of the community mediation groups and how they relate to the rule of law building project in the country. Is the empirical legitimacy of formal and informal dispute settlement institutions as a zero-sum relationship, where increasing popularity and use of informal dispute settlement institutions detract from the popularity and empirical legitimacy of formal institutions, inhibiting the maturation of the legal system and a rule of law? Or could informal dispute settlement institutions – with proper linkages to the formal system – strengthen formal institutions, both judicial and administrative? These are highly relevant questions for post-conflict states where building a well-functioning legal system is seen as a precondition for sustainable peace and development.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69671599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reconceptualizing Empirical Legitimacy for Situations of Severely Conflicting Social Interests","authors":"M. Boone, Mieke Kox","doi":"10.36633/ulr.865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.865","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69671608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Ante Novokmet, Igor Martinović
{"title":"Judgment Based on Agreement of the Parties: Analysis from the Perspective of Practitioners’ Experience in Croatia","authors":"Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Ante Novokmet, Igor Martinović","doi":"10.36633/ulr.850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.850","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69671551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper uses the case of Italy during the Covid-19 pandemic to critically assess the EU legal framework on third-country national migrants’ equal access to social benefits. In Italy, migrants are structurally excluded from core social protections, a situation that during the pandemic led to a worsening of existing patterns of inequality; migrants have been more exposed than citizens to poverty, unemployment, and destitution. The first part of the paper looks for the EU legal root of this situation: it examines the EU legal framework in the migration field, showing that it is affected by fragmentation and inconsistencies. These problems become even more acute at the national level, where the Italian legislature mis-transposed the EU migration directives, thus affecting the use of discretionary clauses therein and severely curtailing migrants’ equal treatment rights. Then, the second part of the paper asks whether adopting a mainstreaming approach to enhance equality could improve the situation of migrants. The paper argues that equality mainstreaming in the migration field shows good potential, while also encountering some structural limits. Therefore, it can hardly be considered a silver bullet against the problem of migrants’ discrimination.
{"title":"Migrants’ Equal Access to Social Benefits under EU Law: Fragmentation and Exclusion during the Covid-19 Crisis in Italy","authors":"Virginia Passalacqua, Lorenzo Grossio","doi":"10.36633/ulr.897","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.897","url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses the case of Italy during the Covid-19 pandemic to critically assess the EU legal framework on third-country national migrants’ equal access to social benefits. In Italy, migrants are structurally excluded from core social protections, a situation that during the pandemic led to a worsening of existing patterns of inequality; migrants have been more exposed than citizens to poverty, unemployment, and destitution. The first part of the paper looks for the EU legal root of this situation: it examines the EU legal framework in the migration field, showing that it is affected by fragmentation and inconsistencies. These problems become even more acute at the national level, where the Italian legislature mis-transposed the EU migration directives, thus affecting the use of discretionary clauses therein and severely curtailing migrants’ equal treatment rights. Then, the second part of the paper asks whether adopting a mainstreaming approach to enhance equality could improve the situation of migrants. The paper argues that equality mainstreaming in the migration field shows good potential, while also encountering some structural limits. Therefore, it can hardly be considered a silver bullet against the problem of migrants’ discrimination.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135010030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As EU institutions are increasingly being asked to address societal challenges, the legitimacy need of the EU becomes more evident. With the aim of complementing the already rich literature on normative EU legitimacy and ultimately enabling evidence-based legitimation strategies, this contribution identifies and addresses gaps in empirical research on perceived EU legitimacy, which pertain to conceptualization, operationalization and explanatory factors. To that end, we first of all define perceived EU legitimacy as the perception among EU citizens that the EU’s exercise of authority is appropriate. Drawing on the relational approach to legitimacy, these perceptions arise from socially held norms about how the EU should rightfully exercise authority, which are in turn influenced by the socio-political context. We then propose ways in which such a conception of legitimacy can be operationalized in empirical research. Finally, we lay the foundation for a theoretical model on the sources of EU legitimacy perceptions, arguing that such a model should consider social psychological processes related to identity and morality, because these factors influence how people process information about the EU, and are increasingly part of the environment in which norms about rightful rule arise. Once empirical research is better equipped to understand these processes underlying citizens’ legitimacy perceptions of the EU, opportunities arise to develop evidence-based interventions and inform legal practices in the EU with extra-legal insights. As EU legitimation through policies, legal reform and institutional design requires knowledge of legal feasibility, social scientists and lawyers should collaborate to embed empirical insights in EU law. Bridging the norm-fact divide in this manner is both normatively desirable and empirically necessary for the EU to strengthen its legitimacy and face societal challenges.
{"title":"Towards Evidence-Based Legitimacy Interventions in EU Law: Challenges and Directions for Empirical Research","authors":"E. Grosfeld, A. Cuyvers, D. Scheepers","doi":"10.36633/ulr.844","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.844","url":null,"abstract":"As EU institutions are increasingly being asked to address societal challenges, the legitimacy need of the EU becomes more evident. With the aim of complementing the already rich literature on normative EU legitimacy and ultimately enabling evidence-based legitimation strategies, this contribution identifies and addresses gaps in empirical research on perceived EU legitimacy, which pertain to conceptualization, operationalization and explanatory factors. To that end, we first of all define perceived EU legitimacy as the perception among EU citizens that the EU’s exercise of authority is appropriate. Drawing on the relational approach to legitimacy, these perceptions arise from socially held norms about how the EU should rightfully exercise authority, which are in turn influenced by the socio-political context. We then propose ways in which such a conception of legitimacy can be operationalized in empirical research. Finally, we lay the foundation for a theoretical model on the sources of EU legitimacy perceptions, arguing that such a model should consider social psychological processes related to identity and morality, because these factors influence how people process information about the EU, and are increasingly part of the environment in which norms about rightful rule arise. Once empirical research is better equipped to understand these processes underlying citizens’ legitimacy perceptions of the EU, opportunities arise to develop evidence-based interventions and inform legal practices in the EU with extra-legal insights. As EU legitimation through policies, legal reform and institutional design requires knowledge of legal feasibility, social scientists and lawyers should collaborate to embed empirical insights in EU law. Bridging the norm-fact divide in this manner is both normatively desirable and empirically necessary for the EU to strengthen its legitimacy and face societal challenges.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69671197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Conflict, Constituent Power and Institutional Legitimacy in the Canadian Oil Sands","authors":"Asmaa Khadim","doi":"10.36633/ulr.866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.866","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69671615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When self-employed persons work side by side with employees in the same enterprise, the question may arise as to why there is a difference in working conditions between these categories and whether this difference is justified. When they do not work side by side, but are to a large degree economically dependent on one or more counterparties, differences in remuneration and other working conditions are questionable as well. In recent years more room has been created for collective bargaining and collective agreements for categories of self-employed persons in order to reduce unjustified differences between self-employed persons and employees. This development is the topic of this article. We will not only discuss the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the recent guidelines of the European Commission on this issue, but also – as a case study –collective labour agreements with provisions on solo self-employed persons that have been adopted in the Netherlands, as experiences with these may be relevant to making actual use of the increased room for collective bargaining.
{"title":"The Increasing Room for Collective Bargaining on Behalf of Self-Employed Persons","authors":"Frans Pennings, Sonja Bekker","doi":"10.36633/ulr.862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.862","url":null,"abstract":"When self-employed persons work side by side with employees in the same enterprise, the question may arise as to why there is a difference in working conditions between these categories and whether this difference is justified. When they do not work side by side, but are to a large degree economically dependent on one or more counterparties, differences in remuneration and other working conditions are questionable as well. In recent years more room has been created for collective bargaining and collective agreements for categories of self-employed persons in order to reduce unjustified differences between self-employed persons and employees. This development is the topic of this article. We will not only discuss the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the recent guidelines of the European Commission on this issue, but also – as a case study –collective labour agreements with provisions on solo self-employed persons that have been adopted in the Netherlands, as experiences with these may be relevant to making actual use of the increased room for collective bargaining.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135010546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. van den Bos, Liesbeth Hulst, Marianne Robijn, Sietske Romijn, Thijs Wever
An important prerequisite for democratic societies to function smoothly is that citizens put trust in the law and as such trust the judges in their country. Therefore, whether various participants actually trust the law is an important topic in many different studies. The current paper notes that insights into trust in law among lower educated participants is relatively lacking. We further note that there is a possibility that levels of trust in law may vary in important ways among participants with lower educational backgrounds as a function of who is conducting the research. Three field experiments tested this assumption. Results of all three experiments show that, when completing questionnaires given to participants by interviewers presenting themselves as coming from law schools, participants with lower educational backgrounds indicated that they hold higher levels of trust in their country’s judges than when the same interviewers presented themselves as coming from regional community colleges. Taken together, these findings indicate a robust phenomenon overlooked thus far in the literature, namely that trust in the judiciary can vary systematically among citizens with lower educational backgrounds as a function of interviewer affiliation. Implications on how to understand this phenomenon are discussed.
{"title":"Field Experiments Examining Trust in Law: Interviewer Effects on Participants with Lower Educational Backgrounds","authors":"K. van den Bos, Liesbeth Hulst, Marianne Robijn, Sietske Romijn, Thijs Wever","doi":"10.36633/ulr.817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.817","url":null,"abstract":"An important prerequisite for democratic societies to function smoothly is that citizens put trust in the law and as such trust the judges in their country. Therefore, whether various participants actually trust the law is an important topic in many different studies. The current paper notes that insights into trust in law among lower educated participants is relatively lacking. We further note that there is a possibility that levels of trust in law may vary in important ways among participants with lower educational backgrounds as a function of who is conducting the research. Three field experiments tested this assumption. Results of all three experiments show that, when completing questionnaires given to participants by interviewers presenting themselves as coming from law schools, participants with lower educational backgrounds indicated that they hold higher levels of trust in their country’s judges than when the same interviewers presented themselves as coming from regional community colleges. Taken together, these findings indicate a robust phenomenon overlooked thus far in the literature, namely that trust in the judiciary can vary systematically among citizens with lower educational backgrounds as a function of interviewer affiliation. Implications on how to understand this phenomenon are discussed.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69670898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：