Suchergebnisse

This dissertation reports on the research into Surinamese constitutional law during the military administration between 1980 and 1987. During this period of martial law there was neither an elected parliament nor any other form of authority with parliamentary legitimacy in Suriname. The research into the military administration is predominantly normative research into the formal constitutional arrangement of the Surinamese state during the 1980-1987 era. During the military period, historically developed principles and requirements of the rule of law and democracy were discarded either completely or in part, with some being completely absent and others remaining intact. This turnaround also brought about a fundamental change in the administrative structure and laws of Suriname. In addition, new legal institutions were added to the judicial system.During this period, the then ruling political powers argued that Suriname remained a constitutional democracy and that martial law was only a necessity under the circumstances. To assess to what extent there was democratic rule as well as the justification of the use of martial law, a study was conducted into the theoretics of constitutional democracy and martial law. States often are described as constitutional democracies; however, around the world there are differences as regards to what extent. To measure the degree of democracy, it is tested against internationally recognized frameworks enshrined in international conventions, treaties and doctrines. Theories on the subject of the constitutional democracy and martial law have been developed and fine-tuned over the years. In this research, such theories were applied in order to answer the main question as well as the key questions:How was the setup of the Trias Politica during the 1980 – 1987 military administration?Based on the main question key questions were formulated, namely: 1.How were the three powers arranged?2.What authorities were bestowed upon them?3.How did the three powers relate to each other?4.To what ...

"De Academie voor Wetgeving en Overheidsjuristen heeft in het kader van de eerste Week van de Rechtsstaat een essaywedstrijd voor studenten en promovendi uitgeschreven. Zij mochten een essay van maximaal 1500 woorden insturen over het thema 'Weerbare rechtsstaat voor een veerkrachtige samenleving.'De jury bestond uit Remco Nehmelman (griffier Eerste Kamer der StatenGeneraal en hoogleraar Publiek organisatie recht, Universiteit Utrecht), Ellen Kiersch (directeur Wetgeving, ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid), Edgar du Perron (raadsheer in de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden en hoogleraar Privaatrecht, Universiteit van Amsterdam), Kutsal Yesilkagit (hoogleraar Inter national Governance, Universiteit Leiden), Monique Wesselink (programmamanager Academie voor Wetgeving en Overheidsjuristen) en werd bijgestaan door Louise van Heusden (jurist kennisunit bij de Raad van State).Deze bundel bevat de volgens de jury tien beste essays waaronder die van Jacob van de Beeten en Roel Becker die beiden de eerste prijs kregen toegekend. Al deze essays verschaffen, elk op hun eigen manier en over allerlei uiteenlopende onderwerpen, nieuwe inzichten over hoe onze rechtsstaat het best kan worden ingevuld."--