China has undergone great transformation in the turbulent years since the establishment of the new government in 1949. New practices have been woven with old traditions into a complicated social background. This has many implications, including for the living status of migrant women working as domestic helpers in China. According to estimates, there are more than 270 million migrant workers with rural living registration (Hukou) working in urban areas, who are therefore excluded from various public services and social benefits supported by urban governments. With an increasing number of women in China entering the labour market, gender discrimination, the gender pay gap, and occupation segregation are still conspicuous in practice. With the economic boost and labour expansion, millions of domestic workers are in need throughout China, yet their basic human and labour rights are not guaranteed by law. An extreme illustrative case about the poor working situation is that of Cai Minmin, a rural migrant girl working as a domestic servant who was abused for five years by her host, which perhaps reveals the tip of an Iceberg. Continue reading
Six weeks of melting humidity, spicy food, tropical vegetation, and endless traffic. I was in Indonesia to research how women’s reproductive rights and family planning are protected, with a particular focus on the role of Islamic laws and institutions. This is a complex topic, requiring expertise in matters of women’s rights, public health, demographics, and Islamic law. My visit to Indonesia was part of a crash course in all these fields – a type of sink or swim scenario. My experience there highlighted the role of non-state actors in the promotion and protection of human rights, and the need for domestic constituents working within their communities to secure such rights. I chose Indonesia as my case study as it is the largest Muslim state in the world, has strong plural legal systems and Islamic institutions, and has faced barriers in promoting and protecting women’s reproductive rights. As it turned out, Indonesia was an excellent choice, and a good teacher.
From 22 – 25 February, I travelled to the US to attend the 58th annual International Studies Association (ISA) conference entitled ‘Understanding Change in World Politics’. The theme could not be more relevant as we witness significant changes to the world political scene, most notably under the new Trump administration in the USA. A willingness by political leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Rodrigo Duterte, and others to violate or be dismissive of human rights norms, underscores the important role played by civil society actors in holding leaders to account.
This blog considers whether unity of law should be strived for in the EU law remedy of the duty of consistent interpretation and, if so, how this could be achieved. I explain why it is necessary to differentiate between the national and the EU level when addressing this question. I argue that unity of law is not a pie in the sky on the EU level but that, on account of differences in the national methods of interpretation, the degree of unity will probably not be the same on the national and the EU level. To conclude this blog, I suggest three ideas to achieve a high degree of unity in the application of the duty of consistent interpretation on the national level, and that the Dutch could perhaps learn something from the Germans in this respect.
Rolf: Zeg Ivo, wat vind jij als notoire rechtspleging-watcher eigenlijk van het rapport van de Commissie rechtseenheid bestuursrecht [bijlage bij Kamerstukken II 2015/2016, 34389, nr. 9]? Weliswaar is inmiddels het wetsvoorstel Organisatie hoogste bestuursrechtspraak, ten behoeve waarvan het rapport is opgesteld, ingetrokken [Kamerstukken II 2016/2017, 34389, nr. 23], maar het rapport geeft volgens mij wel interessante gezichtspunten als het gaat om het belang van rechtseenheid en rechterlijke rechtsvorming. Hoe lees je dit als echte civilist? Continue reading
Hoe kan de diversiteit aan lidstatelijke ‘sociale systemen’ worden verenigd binnen een one-size-fits-all benadering van Europese marktintegratie? Dit is wellicht de voornaamste uitdaging van Europese marktintegratie en de rechtseenheid van het Europese recht. Daarbij wordt constant gebalanceerd op een snijvlak van eenheid (van het Europese recht) en diversiteit (van lidstatelijke belangen). Een breed gedeelde perceptie is dat deze scheidingslijn steeds onduidelijker wordt. Dat gebeurt enerzijds omdat steeds meer kwesties worden geharmoniseerd via richtlijnen, reguleringen en vormen van soft law. Anderzijds bestaat er een perceptie dat het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (hierna: Hof) deze balans bedreigt op basis van neoliberaal getinte ‘activistische rechtspraak’. Het Hof wordt op regelmatige basis geconfronteerd met de uitdaging de sociale diversiteit van de lidstaten te verenigen met de Europese integratiedoelstellingen. Op rechtspraak van het Hof is veel kritiek vanwege het feit dat lidstaten ingrepen in ‘nationale aangelegenheden’ steeds meer zien als een onrechtmatige inmenging in de vormgeving van ‘hun eigen’ publieke belangen. Het vinden van een juiste balans tussen eenheid en diversiteit is daarmee in toenemende mate van belang voor de rechtseenheid en de stabiliteit van de Europese Unie. Brexit is daarvan wellicht het voorbeeld in extremis. In deze en toekomstige blogs zal ik proberen tot een typologie te komen van de verschillende redenering op basis waarvan het Hof tot oplossingen komt in ‘moeilijke zaken’. Dat wil zeggen: de zaken die zich bevinden op het snijvlak van eenheid en diversiteit. Op welke wijze weet het Hof de uniforme toepassing van interne marktrecht te verenigen (of niet) met de sociaal economische diversiteit van de lidstaten en zou dat beter kunnen? Continue reading
Writing something about the Urgenda judgement (Rechtbank Den Haag 24 June 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7145) might seem abundant at this point. After all, a lot of literature about the judgement has already been published. Is the judgement really so special? That can, with good reason, not be denied.
The Urgenda Foundation is the organisation for sustainability and innovation which aims to together with companies, governments, civil organisations and individuals, make the Netherlands sustainable more quickly. This foundation has filed a civil case against the State, because according the foundation while the government has recognized the urgency of the climate problems, it has taken insufficient action to prevent dangerous climate change. In the Urgenda judgement the State, on the basis of the standard of due care observed in society as set out in article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, is subject to a periodic penalty payment ordered to reduce the annual greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 by at least 25 percent compared to the 1990 levels. The relevant international provisions for the case cannot be relied on at law at the national judge, in the sense that they are unsuitable to be directly applicable as positive law in the national legal system and they are therefore not binding on all persons as provided in articles 93 and 94 of the Dutch Constitutions. However, the court applies the so-called consequential effect. The latter means that the court, in applying the national open standards, such as the standard of due care observed in society, takes into account international provisions that are not binding on all persons as provided in articles 93 and 94 of the Dutch Constitution.
During the past week, China was celebrating its 67th national day; meanwhile, an intense controversy as to whether the national day should be considered as the birthday of the mother country arose, which has demonstrated Chinese people’s confusion about what constitute a country. This blog seeks to briefly explain where such confusion lies, and how it comes. Continue reading
On 14 September 2016, the Chinese State Bureau for Complaint Letters and Visits (“Bureau”) in Beijing saw 24 lawyers providing legal advice for the petitioners. This was the first experiment of the joint-program between the Ministry of Justice and the Bureau, which aims to resolve litigation-related petitions. With much attention given to the ongoing reforms, this blog offers a brief analysis on the major characteristics and challenges of the Chinese petitioning system. Continue reading
A few weeks ago, a journalist announced on VGNyhetter, a major Norwergian news website, that 19 Norwegian judges have heard cases in which insurance companies were parties, while the judges had shares in these insurance companies. The journalists Frank Haugsbø and Geir Olsenen have skilfully embroidered their story, including stories from the parties who lost those cases. Those parties now, of course, say that they could have saved a lot of money and effort, or that they would have challenged the judges if they would have known. The question is whether they would have received a different judgement then. Continue reading