scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "Netherlands journal of legal philosophy in 2015"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a six-pack of judicial virtues are proposed as part of a truly virtue-centred approach to adjudication, which are presented as both constitutive and indispensible for realizing moral quality in adjudication.
Abstract: How best to account for moral quality in adjudication? This article proposes a six-pack of judicial virtues as part of a truly virtue-centred approach to adjudication. These virtues are presented as both constitutive and indispensible for realizing moral quality in adjudication. In addition, it will be argued that in order to honour the inherent relational dimension of adjudication a judge should not only possess these judicial virtues to a sufficient degree, he should also have the attitude of a civic friend. The Aristotelian concept of civic friendship will be proposed as an important complement to a virtue-ethical approach to adjudication.

19 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that the multicultural minority rights frame cannot get at the deep structure of the most contentious demands for accommodation by courts and legislatures, nor help us thematize the fundamental challenge they pose to liberal constitutional democracy.
Abstract: Proliferating demands by the religious for exemptions from general valid law in the US and elsewhere should give us pause. Freedom of religion is the slogan, ‘accommodation’ the key claim.1 We seem to be in multicultural territory. ‘Accommodation’ implies that at issue is the protection of religious minorities from unduly burdensome laws passed by secularist or religious majorities. But I argue that the multicultural minority rights frame cannot get at the deep structure of the most contentious demands for accommodation by courts and legislatures, nor help us thematize the fundamental challenge they pose to liberal constitutional democracy.

7 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Kelsen as discussed by the authors is a posthumous work by Kelsen, which was published by the Hans Kelsen Institut (HKI) after his death in 1973, after much hesitation, consultation and deliberation, after due payment of considerable compensations to the publishing house.
Abstract: The Board of Trustees of the Hans Kelsen Institut (HKI) has decided, after much hesitation, consultation and deliberation, to publish one more posthumous work by Hans Kelsen – a book he himself withdrew from the press several times, the last time in 1964 from the University of California Press, and after due payment of considerable compensations to the publishing house. The present text is pub‐ lished from the galley proofs with Kelsen’s last alterations.1 We do not know exactly why Kelsen withdrew the manuscript at the very last moment. There is some evidence that he eventually left the decision whether to publish it or not after his death, to some of his close friends, most notably Lewis Feuer. His daugh‐ ter Maria has confirmed this to the HKI. But it was Richard Potz (the author of a brief Introduction to the edition) who finally convinced the HKI that the text should be published after new research of both the manuscript and the archives that were meanwhile trusted to the HKI. The main reason for accepting this pro‐ posal was that the trustees believed it to be topical (again), against the backdrop of contemporary developments in science, politics, and religion. These develop‐ ments entail, first and foremost, an alleged ‘return of religion’ to the public domain in the USA and (to a lesser extent) Europe. I will hardly, if at all, go into the history of the book now published, almost forty years after Kelsen’s death in 1973. Nor will I dispute the somewhat remarkable decision by the HKI Trust to have this text published separately from the Hans Kelsen Werke and with a different publisher.2 Also, and most emphatically, I am not about to write a review of Kelsen’s book, the core of which is an elaborated critique of his former student Eric(h) Voegelin’s account of Modernity. My focus will be on the general drift of Kelsen’s argument and its relevance in our time. As I will find Kelsen’s argument wanting in some (though certainly not in all) respects, I will assess the topicality of the book differently from the HKI Trustees. I will first briefly summarize Kelsen’s main argument against what he calls ‘secu‐ lar religion,’ which boils down to the negative thesis that ‘secular transcendence’ is an oxymoron, as is ‘religion without transcendence’ or ‘religion without a God.’

5 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, Cohen identifies the idea in recent American Supreme Court jurisprudence that freedom of religion should not simply be understood as an ordinary legal right within the framework of liberal constitutionalism but as an expression of deference by the state and its legal system to religion as a separate and independent jurisdiction with its own system of law over which religious groups are sovereign within their own spheres of competence.
Abstract: Jean L. Cohen identifies the idea in recent American Supreme Court jurisprudence that freedom of religion should not simply be understood as an ordinary legal right within the framework of liberal constitutionalism but as an expression of deference by the state and its legal system to religion as a separate and independent jurisdiction with its own system of law over which religious groups are sovereign within their own spheres of competence.1 Cohen argues that this is a revisionary and controversial idea which threatens the liberal constitutional order. While Cohen focuses on a specifically American legal-constitutional issue, her discussion nevertheless raises more general issues concerning the understanding of freedom of religion which are also relevant outside of the US.

3 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the US Supreme Court had to determine whether a business association run by a religious family had the right to exclude contraceptive coverage from its workers as part of their employee-based health plan, contrary to the 2010 Affordable Care Act which greatly extended health insurance to US citizens.
Abstract: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the US Supreme Court had to determine whether a business association run by a religious family had the right to exclude contraceptive coverage from its workers as part of their employee-based health plan, contrary to the 2010 Affordable Care Act which greatly extended health insurance to US citizens.1 The Court determined that this coverage did indeed burden Hobby Lobby’s free exercise of religion. Similar, in Hosanna-Tabor Church School v. EEOC (2012), the Court’s Justices unanimously found that a school was exempt from federal anti-discrimination legislation after it had dismissed a teacher for ‘insubordination and disruptive behaviour’, which, according to the school board, had damaged her ‘working relationship’ with the school.2 A school, of course, is not a church, even though it may be a church school. By contrast, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010) the Court took a contrary view, ruling against a religious group.3 It held that a public law school could permissibly refuse to register a Christian students’ association whose ‘Statement of Faith’ expressly forbade homosexual relations.

1 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The secret "nominations" process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia's Shabab militia as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: ‘It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 mem‐ bers of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die. This secret “nominations” process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia.’ (New York Times, May 29, 2012).

1 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a wetswijziging van 23 januari 2014 komen te vervallen; de wijzigeling is vanaf 1 maart 2014 van kracht.
Abstract: In dit artikel staat een thema centraal dat niet alleen een lange geschiedenis heeft, maar vooral recentelijk op een sterke belangstelling mag rekenen: godslastering. In Nederland heeft de discussie over de waarde hiervan zich toegespitst op het verbod hiervan. Dit verbod is op basis van een wetswijziging van 23 januari 2014 komen te vervallen; deze wijziging is vanaf 1 maart 2014 van kracht. Dit artikel is erop gericht de discussie te verbreden, zodat kan worden nagegaan hoe wenselijk deze wijziging is in het licht van de relevante overwegingen om het verbod te schrappen. In paragraaf 1 wordt een korte historische schets geboden om duidelijk te maken wat de basis van de tot voor kort geldende wetgeving is. Deze context maakt tegelijk duidelijk wat er op het spel staat voor degenen wier belangen gediend worden met het verbod. In paragrafen 2 en 3 wordt aangeven hoe godsdienstige opvattingen zich verhouden tegenover niet-godsdienstige, waarbij de vraag aan de orde komt of aan het gelijkheidsbeginsel afbreuk wordt gedaan als godsdienstige posities bijzondere bescherming genieten. In paragraaf 4 wordt aandacht besteed aan de uiteenlopende belangen die met het verbod op godslastering gediend worden. Het gaat dan om de vrijheid van meningsuiting tegenover het belang van de gelovigen. Hierbij wordt aansluiting gezocht bij het schadebeginsel van John Stuart Mill. Vervolgens wordt in paragraaf 5 de motie-Schrijver c.s. geevalueerd, waarna wordt onderzocht of een alternatief wetsartikel het ‘gemis’ dat ontstaat door de wetswijziging kan opvangen en hoe wenselijk het is als dat gebeurt. Het is duidelijk dat een onderwerp als het onderhavige de landsgrenzen overschrijdt. In paragraaf 6 wordt daarom aandacht besteed aan de internationale dimensie. Hierin zal gewezen worden op de discussies die op dat niveau een rol spelen en zal worden aangetoond dat Nederland in deze kwestie een markante rol speelt.