Den Haag is een internationale stad waar buitenlandse werknemers zich graag vestigen. Den Haag is op het gebied van vrede, recht en veiligheid in de loop der tijd uitgegroeid tot een stad van mondiale betekenis (Eyffinger, 1999) (Wladimiroff, 2009). Deze ontwikkeling ging niet zonder slag of stoot. Aan de hand van literatuuronderzoek en circa twintig interviews met vertegenwoordigers van overheidsbeleid en internationale instellingen is hier een analyse gemaakt van de voorgeschiedenis van Den Haag als internationale stad en de effectiviteit van het beleid met betrekking tot internationale instellingen. Eén van de uitkomsten is dat internationale organisaties gebaat zijn bij een goede samenwerking tussen de gemeente en het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. Het proces van aantrekken en faciliteren van internationale (kennis) instellingen en (non-)gouvernementele organisaties kan beter gestroomlijnd worden. Voorts zouden mogelijk enkele nieuwe tribunalen in Den Haag kunnen worden gevestigd. ABSTRACT The Hague is more and more the legal capital of the world. The Hague municipality and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs successfully promoted the city as such and made it a real global center of justice, peace and security (Eyffinger, 1999) (Wladimiroff, 2009). The process of attracting and managing international organizations, centers of knowledge, governmental and non-governmental organizations, was not always easy. Internal and external factors determine the way the city still develops its status as 'legal capital of the world'. Based on literature and about twenty interviews with representatives of the local and national governments and employees of international organizations, this article concludes that progress can be made through more cooperation between the municipality and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Attracting new international organizations can be streamlined in a better way. Some new tribunals might be established in The Hague.
DOCUMENT
In this paper, we analyse the development of the term “legal capabilities”. More specifically, we do three things. First, we track the emergence and development of the notion of legal capabilities. The term legal capabilities was used in legal research long before the capability approach was introduced in that field. Early on, its conceptualisation mainly reflected elements of legal literacy. In more recent writings, it is claimed that the notion is based on the capability approach. Second, we critically analyse the current use of the term legal capabilities and show that there is no proper theoretical grounding of this term in the capability approach. This is problematic, because it might give rise to misunderstandings and flawed policy recommendations. Third, we suggest some first steps towards a revision of the notion of legal capabilities. Starting from the concept of “access to justice”, legal capabilities have to be understood as the real opportunities someone has to get access to justice, rather than merely as formal opportunities or internal capabilities.
MULTIFILE
The HCR-20V3 is a violence risk assessment tool that is widely used in forensic clinical practice for risk management planning. The predictive value of the tool, when used in court for legal decisionmaking, is not yet intensively been studied and questions about legal admissibility may arise. This article aims to provide legal and mental health practitioners with an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the HCR-20V3 when applied in legal settings. The HCR-20V3 is described and discussed with respect to its psychometric properties for different groups and settings. Issues involving legal admissibility and potential biases when conducting violence risk assessments with the HCR-20V3 are outlined. To explore legal admissibility challenges with respect to the HCR-20V3, we searched case law databases since 2013 from Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. In total, we found 546 cases referring to the HCR-20/HCR-20V3. In these cases, the tool was rarely challenged (4.03%), and when challenged, it never resulted in a court decision that the risk assessment was inadmissible. Finally, we provide recommendations for legal practitioners for the cross-examination of risk assessments and recommendations for mental health professionals who conduct risk assessments and report to the court. We conclude with suggestions for future research with the HCR-20V3 to strengthen the evidence base for use of the instrument in legal contexts.
DOCUMENT
