Suchergebnisse

For almost a decade, the un General Assembly (unga) has adopted annual resolutions on 'the rule of law at the national and international levels.' Moreover, the unga has held a High-level Meeting in September 2012 where Heads of State and Government discussed the topic for the first time ever and issued a declaration. This paper assesses the results. Its core question is whether unga commitment to rule of law at the national level is merely a vague aspiration or whether it has concrete normative content. The main conclusions are that: (a) the 9 annual resolutions have so far articulated neither a clear concept of rule of law nor a set of requirements or a minimum standard which States should respect in their legal systems; (b) the 2012 High-level Declaration articulates a thin conception of rule of law, i.e., stresses formal legality; (c) that the Declaration largely confirms Aust and Nolte's analysis of lex lata with respect to the rule of law at the national level, but that it also departs from it somewhat; (d) that the unga's commitment to rule of law is compatible with different political systems and normative outlooks. In 2015, the unga will again discuss rule of law in the context of renewal of the Millennium Development Goals (mdgs), and it seems likely after the Secretary General's Road to Dignity by 2030 that rule of law is an important aspect of the new Sustainable Development Goals (sdgs). The analysis in this paper enables observers to assess whether the unga takes its commitment to the rule of law to a new level.

The Dutch government and legislature are in the process of introducing an unprecedented set of anti-terrorist measures. It is claimed that these measures are necessary and justified, as terrorism today threatens the security of Dutch society as never before. But does it? In the present state of excitement, it is all too easy to forget that Dutch society has had to face terrorism before. Indeed, if the number of people killed or targeted is a measure of the gravity of a terrorist threat, terrorism in the 1970s was more serious than current terrorism has been up until now. Yet in the 1970s, the Dutch government did not introduce a comprehensive set of anti-terrorist measures, unlike, for example, the British and German governments. In this paper, the Moluccan actions, the most serious terrorist actions Dutch society has experienced so far, and the reaction by the government to these actions, are discussed. This leads to the conclusion that current terrorism is less different from old-style terrorism than the government claims it to be, although there may be one important difference: the risk that current terrorists use deeply destructive weapons. This is not to say that the government's policies were better in the 1970s than they are now. However, a sense of what the record tells us may help us in disciplining current fears and in taking a more critical stance towards the view that the present anti-terrorist measures are necessary and justified because we never saw anything like current terrorism before.

The Dutch government and legislature are in the process of introducing an unprecedented set of anti-terrorist measures. It is claimed that these measures are necessary and justified, as terrorism today threatens the security of Dutch society as never before. But does it? In the present state of excitement, it is all too easy to forget that Dutch society has had to face terrorism before. Indeed, if the number of people killed or targeted is a measure of the gravity of a terrorist threat, terrorism in the 1970s was more serious than current terrorism has been up until now. Yet in the 1970s, the Dutch government did not introduce a comprehensive set of anti-terrorist measures, unlike, for example, the British and German governments. In this paper, the Moluccan actions, the most serious terrorist actions Dutch society has experienced so far, and the reaction by the government to these actions, are discussed. This leads to the conclusion that current terrorism is less different from old-style terrorism than the government claims it to be, although there may be one important difference: the risk that current terrorists use deeply destructive weapons. This is not to say that the government's policies were better in the 1970s than they are now. However, a sense of what the record tells us may help us in disciplining current fears and in taking a more critical stance towards the view that the present anti-terrorist measures are necessary and justified because we never saw anything like current terrorism before.

Introduction to Special Issue Hague Journal on the Rule of Law

This remarkable expression of radical republican thought has never before been published. Algernon Sidney was among the most unrelenting partisans of the parliamentary party during the Commonwealth, and died on the scaffold in 1683 for his opposition to Charles II. Sidney's voluminous Discourses Concerning Government was published after his death, but the earlier and more vivid Court Maxims was only recently rediscovered in a manuscript in Warwick Castle. Written during Sidney's continental exile, Court Maxims reveals the international character of republican thought. Its dialogue structure presents a lively discussion about the principles of government and the practice of politics, articulating a vital tradition of republicanism in an age of absolutism. These characteristics make Court Maxims a unique text, essential reading for anyone interested in republicanism or Early Modern political thought