De overheid trekt zich terug en legt steeds meer verantwoordelijkheid bij de burger. Dat is reden tot zorg, want door bezuinigingen op bijvoorbeeld de rechtsbijstand kan de toegankelijkheid van het recht in het gedrang komen. Maar er zijn ook kansen. Voortschrijdende digitalisering stelt mensen in staat zelf oplossingen te zoeken bij juridische problemen. Dit kan meer keuzevrijheid en meer zelfstandigheid betekenen, hoewel onzekerheid over dit palet aan mogelijkheden evenzeer op de loer ligt. Een mogelijk bijeffect is dat er nog meer juridische problemen ontstaan, omdat door onzekerheid of onwetendheid kan worden besloten geen rechtszaak te starten, geen aanvraag in te dienen of niet tot actie over te gaan wanneer rechten worden geschonden. Een ding staat vast: het beroep op de eigen kracht van de burger neemt toe. Maar in hoeverre zijn burgers zelfstandig in staat gebruik te maken van het recht en hun rechtspositie te beschermen? De vraag is niet nieuw. Sinds het einde van de negentiende eeuw is hier aandacht voor. Deze aandacht verloopt in golfbewegingen en verandert in de loop der tijd van accent en betekenis. In het huidige tijdsbestek, waarin een transitie gaande is van verzorgingsstaat naar participatiesamenleving is de vraag opnieuw actueel. Als mensen meer op zichzelf zijn aangewezen en zelf oplossingen moeten zoeken voor hun juridische problemen, hoe zet je hen dan in hun kracht? De vraag wat legal empowerment kan betekenen voor de toegankelijkheid van het recht in de Nederlandse participatiesamenleving staat hier centraal. In het eerste hoofdstuk worden de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen in de literatuur over de toegankelijkheid van het recht beschreven. De nadruk ligt hierbij op gebruikers van het recht en het daadwerkelijk kunnen gebruiken van het recht. Dit kader helpt om het concept legal empowerment te kunnen plaatsen. Vervolgens wordt in het tweede hoofdstuk een analyse gemaakt van de achtergrond, de kenmerken en de toepassing van legal empowerment om het begrip beter te kunnen duiden. De lessen die we hieruit kunnen trekken, worden in het laatste hoofdstuk toegepast op de situatie in Nederland, met name op thema’s als de terugtredende overheid, decentralisatie, digitalisering en juridische dienstverlening.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: The Legal Services counters (LSC) is the first contact point for legal aid in the Netherlands. Professionals reported dealing with a client group combining problems on several dimensions, next to the legal issue. This combination (multiple problem situation, MP) seems to impair the effectiveness of the provided legal help. Methods: A face-to-face survey among 421 visitors of 4 LSC locations was administered (2019). Analyses: Statistical techniques were used to assess the occurrence of MP, the association with the numbers of contacts with the LSC, the background characteristics of clients with and without MP, and the multivariate association between stress, MP and use of the LSC. Results: 44,1% of the respondents reported MP. Those reported a higher number of contacts with the LSC in the past year. MP clients were older and had a lower education level. Financial (58%), conflictual (56%) and physical health (41%) problems were mostly reported. Stress and number of problems were related to a higher attendance to the LSC. Discussion: Legal aid services should set out systematic collaboration paths with other social services, starting off by an assessment of the problem domains, to contribute to an effective solution of those issues, including the legal one.
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
Collaborative networks for sustainability are emerging rapidly to address urgent societal challenges. By bringing together organizations with different knowledge bases, resources and capabilities, collaborative networks enhance information exchange, knowledge sharing and learning opportunities to address these complex problems that cannot be solved by organizations individually. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the apparel sector, where examples of collaborative networks for sustainability are plenty, for example Sustainable Apparel Coalition, Zero Discharge Hazardous Chemicals, and the Fair Wear Foundation. Companies like C&A and H&M but also smaller players join these networks to take their social responsibility. Collaborative networks are unlike traditional forms of organizations; they are loosely structured collectives of different, often competing organizations, with dynamic membership and usually lack legal status. However, they do not emerge or organize on their own; they need network orchestrators who manage the network in terms of activities and participants. But network orchestrators face many challenges. They have to balance the interests of diverse companies and deal with tensions that often arise between them, like sharing their innovative knowledge. Orchestrators also have to “sell” the value of the network to potential new participants, who make decisions about which networks to join based on the benefits they expect to get from participating. Network orchestrators often do not know the best way to maintain engagement, commitment and enthusiasm or how to ensure knowledge and resource sharing, especially when competitors are involved. Furthermore, collaborative networks receive funding from grants or subsidies, creating financial uncertainty about its continuity. Raising financing from the private sector is difficult and network orchestrators compete more and more for resources. When networks dissolve or dysfunction (due to a lack of value creation and capture for participants, a lack of financing or a non-functioning business model), the collective value that has been created and accrued over time may be lost. This is problematic given that industrial transformations towards sustainability take many years and durable organizational forms are required to ensure ongoing support for this change. Network orchestration is a new profession. There are no guidelines, handbooks or good practices for how to perform this role, nor is there professional education or a professional association that represents network orchestrators. This is urgently needed as network orchestrators struggle with their role in governing networks so that they create and capture value for participants and ultimately ensure better network performance and survival. This project aims to foster the professionalization of the network orchestrator role by: (a) generating knowledge, developing and testing collaborative network governance models, facilitation tools and collaborative business modeling tools to enable network orchestrators to improve the performance of collaborative networks in terms of collective value creation (network level) and private value capture (network participant level) (b) organizing platform activities for network orchestrators to exchange ideas, best practices and learn from each other, thereby facilitating the formation of a professional identity, standards and community of network orchestrators.
Every year the police are confronted with an ever increasing number of complex cases involving missing persons. About 100 people are reported missing every year in the Netherlands, of which, an unknown number become victims of crime, and presumed buried in clandestine graves. Similarly, according to NWVA, several dead animals are also often buried illegally in clandestine graves in farm lands, which may result in the spread of diseases that have significant consequences to other animals and humans in general. Forensic investigators from both the national police (NP) and NWVA are often confronted with a dilemma: speed versus carefulness and precision. However, the current forensic investigation process of identifying and localizing clandestine graves are often labor intensive, time consuming and employ classical techniques, such as walking sticks and dogs (Police), which are not effective. Therefore, there is an urgent request from the forensic investigators to develop a new method to detect and localize clandestine graves quickly, efficiently and effectively. In this project, together with practitioners, knowledge institutes, SMEs and Field labs, practical research will be carried out to devise a new forensic investigation process to identify clandestine graves using an autonomous Crime Scene Investigative (CSI) drone. The new work process will exploit the newly adopted EU-wide drone regulation that relaxes a number of previously imposed flight restrictions. Moreover, it will effectively optimize the available drone and perception technologies in order to achieve the desired functionality, performance and operational safety in detecting/localizing clandestine graves autonomously. The proposed method will be demonstrated and validated in practical operational environments. This project will also make a demonstrable contribution to the renewal of higher professional education. The police and NVWA will be equipped with operating procedures, legislative knowledge, skills and technological expertise needed to effectively and efficiently performed their forensic investigations.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the use of eHealth tools became increasingly demanded by patients and encouraged by the Dutch government. Yet, HBO health professionals demand clarity on what they can do, must do, and cannot do with the patients’ data when using digital healthcare provision and support. They often perceive the EU GDPR and its national application as obstacles to the use of eHealth due to strict health data processing requirements. They highlight the difficulty of keeping up with the changing rules and understanding how to apply them. Dutch initiatives to clarify the eHealth rules include the 2021 proposal of the wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg and the establishment of eHealth information and communication platforms for healthcare practitioners. The research explores whether these initiatives serve the needs of HBO health professionals. The following questions will be explored: - Do the currently applicable rules and the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg clarify what HBO health practitioners can do, must do, and cannot do with patients’ data? - Does the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg provide better clarity on the stakeholders who may access patients’ data? Does it ensure appropriate safeguards against the unauthorized use of such data? - Does the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg clarify the EU GDPR requirements for HBO health professionals? - Do the eHealth information and communication platforms set up for healthcare professionals provide the information that HBO professionals need on data protection and privacy requirements stemming from the EU GDPR and from national law? How could such platforms be better adjusted to the HBO professionals’ information and communication needs? Methodology: Practice-oriented legal research, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions will be conducted. Results will be translated to solutions for HBO health professionals.
