Abstract

The Utrecht Law Review is an open-access peer-reviewed journal which aims to offer an international academic platform for cross-border legal research. In the first place, this concerns research in which the boundaries of the classic branches of the law (private law, criminal law, constitutional and administrative law, European and public international law) are crossed and connections are made between these areas of the law, amongst others from a comparative law perspective. In addition, the journal welcomes research in which classic law is brought face to face with not strictly legal disciplines such as philosophy, economics, political sciences and public administration science.The journal was established in 2005 and is affiliated to the Utrecht University School of Law. If you wish to receive e-mail alerts please join the mailing list.

Highlights

  • Where will the Dutch judicial system be in 2015? One of us answered a similar type of question elsewhere with a sketch of two frightening scenarios.[1]

  • In the first scenario the judicial system will have insufficiently adapted itself to its surroundings

  • Interesting or big cases will be handled outside the judiciary by special courts or through arbitration, mediation or other forms of ‘alternative dispute resolution’ (ADR)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Where will the Dutch judicial system be in 2015? One of us answered a similar type of question elsewhere with a sketch of two frightening scenarios.[1]. In our attempt to get a view of the development of the judicial system’s domain we have encountered a mine of influences that sometimes support and sometimes contradict each other It transpired that it was just as complicated to indicate in which legal fields the effects manifested themselves. Attention will be given to the quantitative paradigm, in the first place by referring to relevant figures (Section 3.1), and further by the demarcation of the judicial system’s domain from other state powers, other legal orders, other forms of conflict solving, the needs of the citizens, and internal domain divisions (Section 3.2). A few conclusions will round off this investigation (Section 6)

Two paradigms
The quantitative paradigm
The judicial system’s domain in figures
The judicial domain on the move
The qualitative paradigm
Scenarios for the development of the judge’s domain
Findings
A few conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.