Search

Contains fulltext : 293557.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 18 p.

Contains fulltext : 289698.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 13 p.

Contains fulltext : 286437.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 13 p.

Contains fulltext : 293566.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 10 p.

Contains fulltext : 293565.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 16 p.

Contains fulltext : 283773.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 7 p.

Contains fulltext : 293564.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 11 p.

Contains fulltext : 290968.pdf (Publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 291722.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Ars Aequi biedt studenten de mogelijkheid een wetenschappelijk artikel over een zelfgekozen onderwerp te publiceren. De ingezonden artikelen zijn in de meeste gevallen gebaseerd op een scriptie. Het bewerken van een scriptie tot een artikel is niet eenvoudig. Daarom beogen de auteurs in deze bijdrage enkele handvatten aan te reiken aan studenten die een op hun scriptie gebaseerd artikel in Ars Aequi willen publiceren. 5 p.

Contains fulltext : 283404.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 4 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 22 p.

Contains fulltext : 273911.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 253412.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 14 p.

Peace plays a central role in the ethics of war and peace, but this proves to be an enormous challenge. In a recent article, Elisabeth Forster and Isaac Taylor grapple with this important topic. They argue that certain concepts in just war theory—aggression, legitimacy, and peace—are essentially contested and susceptible to manipulation. Because the rules are interpreted and applied by the very states that wage war, it is as if the fox is asked to guard the chicken coop—a recipe for disaster. To avoid manipulation of the theory and make the goal of peace attainable, they defend “minimalism” in the ethics of war and peace. This paper responds to and builds on their article. After nuancing the analysis, I will argue (a) that their minimalism does not solve the problem since the proposed alternative concept is equally prone to misuse, and (b) that their minimalism is mistargeted. What I propose is to specify and ground the rules of war without raising the standard too high, to disentangle jus ad bellum and jus post bellum and see peace as guiding principle for jus post bellum, and to interpret that in a minimalist way.

Contains fulltext : 286206.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) R. Bloemberg The Development of the Criminal Law of Evidence in the Netherlands, France and Germany between 1750 and 1870. From the System of Legal Proofs to the Free Evaluation of Evidence Leiden:Brill ,2020 9789004415010

Contains fulltext : 284162.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 26 p.

Contains fulltext : 284142.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Contains fulltext : 284143.pdf (Author’s version postprint ) (Open Access) Contains fulltext : 284143.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 16 november 2022 7 p.

Contains fulltext : 293569.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 16 p.

Contains fulltext : 285851.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 09 december 2022 6 p.

Contains fulltext : 248262.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) G.J. Veerman Nederlandse meesters over wetgeving. 1796-1940 Oisterwijk:Wolf Legal Publishers ,2021 9789462407084

Contains fulltext : 251171.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 12 p.

Contains fulltext : 246114.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 8 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 24 p.

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 292821.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 11 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 132 p.

Item does not contain fulltext Symposium 'Constitutionele verandering in Nederland?', 01 juni 2023

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 294393.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 01 juli 2023 16 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 20 maart 2023 3 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 2 p.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has long troubled the European Union’s (EU’s) neighbourhood. As a latecomer to the region, the EU played no role in the conflict in the 1990s. The subsequent establishment of bilateral relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan, including a closer engagement through the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) did not herald any significant changes in this respect. The bilateral relations with both countries advanced despite the military build-up, hostile rhetoric and periodic fighting. When another war erupted in September 2020, the EU was strikingly absent from the international scene in stark contrast to its rhetoric and pledges of the last two decades. Meanwhile, the Russian-brokered ceasefire did not resolve the conflict and led to further aggression demanding a more hands-on approach by the EU. In a welcome development, the EU undertook various efforts to engage the parties in a continuous dialogue for resolving the outstanding issues. In this context, the article argues for a more enhanced role of the EU in resolving this conflict based on a principled position in line with EU values and respect for international law. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia, Azerbaijan, EU, European Neighbourhood Policy, OSCE Minsk Group

Item does not contain fulltext SteR-middag 28 juni 2023 Onderzoekscentrum voor Staat en Recht

Contains fulltext : 290345.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 6 p.

Item does not contain fulltext

Several EU states have shown initiatives towards a more lenient approach to the regulation of cannabis cultivation and trade for recreational use. One possibility that is being investigated is whether a national regulatory system for controlled trade of recreational cannabis can be developed in accordance of the EU Framework Decision 2004/757/jha. The ‘without right’ -clause in Article 2(1) of this decision, from a linguistic point of view, does seem to allow the introduction of such a licensing system. In fact, such a system would not cross the system or the purpose of the Framework Decision, if such licensing system does not result in cross-border effects or the hindering of transnational cooperation in combatting cross-border drug trafficking. However, this possibility is only of theoretical nature considering the clear and strict obligations ensuing from the UN narcotic drugs conventions. In order to regulate recreational cannabis within the boundaries of public international law, states can: (1) denounce the UN narcotic drugs conventions; (2) deviate from the obligations of the UN conventions on the basis of positive human rights obligations; (3) create an inter se agreement between like-minded states that deviates from the UN conventions; and (4) denounce the UN drugs conventions and re-access subsequently with a reservation allowing for regulation of recreational cannabis. We argue that these options can have a combined strengthening effect and indeed present a legally sound and politically viable opportunity to regulate recreational cannabis without denouncing the whole UN drug control system.

Contains fulltext : 293224.pdf (Author’s version postprint ) (Open Access) Lustrum Congres Forum Levenslang, 31 maart 2023