Quality of Decision-Making in Public Law (original) (raw)
Related papers
Effects in time of judgments in the Netherlands: prospective overruling and related techniques
In the Netherlands, the established rule is that there is no system of precedent even though especially the judgments of the Dutch Supreme Court and the other highest courts are very authoritative and persuasive. Nevertheless, lower judges and the four highest courts are in principle not bound by previous judicial decisions. As regards court cases, the declaratory theory is formally adhered to: the judge does not create new law, but states the law as it is. As a result, court rulings are, as a general rule, relevant retrospectively. The formal adhesion to the declaratory theory is not only undermined by everyday practice, it is also mitigated by the formal recognition of what could literally be translated from Dutch legal doctrine as the ‘law forming task’ of the judiciary. Within this context, Dutch courts occasionally address the effects in time of their judgments. The present contribution discusses the various ways in which this is done in practice and pays specific attention to the technique of prospective overruling.
2019
Cláudia Toledo-Judicial Activism-The need for parameters: analysis of legal reasoning in judicial review Marion Vorms-The story-model of jurors' decision-making in the light of an analysis of evidential reasoning-conceptual and empirical questions Wessel Wijtvliet, Arthur Dyevre-Measuring Judicial Ideology in Economic Cases: An Expert Crowdsourcing Design Christoph Winter-Exploring the challenges of artificial judicial decisionmaking Workshop schedule Monday 8.07.19 Room 3.B48 14h00-16h00 Jeffrey Rachlinski, Andrew Wistrich-Judging Autonomous Vehicles *** Gustavo Cevolani, Vincenzo Crupi, Roberto Festa-The Whole Truth About Dina: Judicial Reasoning and the Conjunction Fallacy *** Christoph Winter-Exploring the Challenges of Artificial Judicial Decision-Making *** Brian Sheppard-The Automation of the Reasonably Prudent Person Test *** 16h30-18h30 Michal Ovádek-Lawyers' Aversion to Politics: Choosing a Legal Basis of EU Legislation under Experimental Conditions *** Jernej LetnarČernič-Measuring social dimension of judicial ideology at the Constitutional Court of Slovenia *** Cláudia Toledo-Judicial Activism-the Need for Parameters: Analysis of Legal Reasoning in Judicial Review *** Wessel Wijtvliet, Arthur Dyevre-Measuring Judicial Ideology in Economic Cases: An Expert Crowdsourcing Design Tuesday 9.07.19 Room 3.B57 9h30-10h30 Marion Vorms-The Story-model of Jurors' Decision-making in the Light of an Analysis of Evidential Reasoning-Conceptual and Empirical Questions *** Iris van Domselaar-Virtue-jurisprudence and Empirical Accounts of Legal Decision-making: Mutually Reinforcing? *** 11h00-12h00 Moa Lidén-"Guilty, No Doubt": Detention Provoking Confirmation Bias in Judges' Guilt Assessments and Debiasing Techniques ***
Soft Law, Policy Rules and the Quality of Administrative Decision-Making
To the extent that an administrative body has discretionary powers, it will inevitably make use of administrative guidelines or administrative rules that supplement rules in laws and statutes. These administrative rules are the soft law every organization applies in decision-making. In Dutch law, there is a category of administrative rules with a special legal status. They are called "policy rules" in de General Administrative Law Act (Awb). Especially administrative bodies in municipalities often use other administrative rules than policy rules. In other words, municipalities use administrative rules that do not (entirely) fit the legal requirements of the Awb "policy rule". Apparently, municipal authorities can do without administrative rules in their codified form of "policy rule". This observation was the immediate cause for conducting this research. The central question of this paper is: What is the supplemental value of policy rules for the qualit...
Introduction: Safeguards and Limits of Judicial Power
European yearbook of constitutional law, 2019
• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User
Debate on the Quality of Judicial Decisions (from Theory to Practice
The judicial decision is much more than compliance with legal norms, the judicial production of the law itself is present. There are methods to optimize judgment by granting it reliability, but the study-debate on optimization mechanisms have been continually disregarded. The process of judicial decision-making is one of the most complex, since this decision escapes in its essence the Theory and Philosophy of Law and fits more deeply into the intimacy of the "agent" of the decision whose universe is to be understood. The authority it judges fulfils a duty of State and at the same time exercises a flexible part of its own obligations and limits in the isolation of its individuality and under the flow of procedures that hang between the content of the decision and its formal externalization, the judgment.The theme of the judicial decision on which this reflection intends to delimit the epistemic fields that law faces: the problem of unlimited space that contemplates the debate on the rational production of decisions and aims to contribute to the advancement of the bases of theoretical and practical rigor necessary for the constitution of a Theory of Judicial Decision. This research seeks to visualize the growing, complex and sophisticated context in which Western democracies have witnessed the increase of rational demands for the improvement of human rights guarantee institutions.
The Judge as a Procedural Decision-Maker
Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-journal of Psychology, 2020
People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: