HU public lecture: Access to justice goes glocal

ACCESS TO JUSTICE GOES GLOCAL

fmr_bo_ksi0217_v

PUBLIC LECTURE QUIRINE EIJKMAN

ACCESS TO JUSTICE RESEARCH GROUP CENTRE FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION (KSI)

ACCESS TO JUSTICE GOES GLOCAL

PUBLIC LECTURE QUIRINE EIJKMAN

ACCESS TO JUSTICE RESEARCH GROUP CENTRE FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION (KSI)

page 2

hoofdstuk # Naam hoofdstuk

page 3

hoofdstuk # Naam hoofdstuk

INTRODUCTION 5 1. WHAT IS ‘ACCESS TO JUSTICE’? 11 2. GLOCALISATION OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE 17 3. LEGAL SELF-RELIANCE: A FICTION? 23 4. THE LOCAL PROFESSIONAL 3.0 31 5. RESEARCH PROGRAMME 39 FINAL REMARKS 45

About the Author 49 Literature 51 Credits 60

“THERE ARE MANY CASES IN WHICH ACCESS TO JUSTICE IS POSSIBLE ON PAPER, BUT HARD TO ACHIEVE IN PRACTICE.”

pag page 5

Introduction

Public lecture Access to Justice goes Glocal

INTRODUCTION Access to justice is the hallmark of a just society in which people can assert their dignity with equality on the basis of laws and regulations without running the risk of being ignored or persecuted.

Whether you are rich or poor, young or old, a detainee, a newcomer to the Netherlands, or undocumented, you can seek justice online, for instance, or in statute books. Formal institutions such as courts of law as well as informal ones such as the Ombudsman or online mediation are involved in resolving disputes.

However, the reality on the ground often proves more intractable than this may suggest. It is true that there is recognition at global level and at national level, in international law as well as domestic laws and policies, that the promotion of security, public services, and access to justice matters to everyone. At the local level, in small companies, neighbourhoods, at school or at work, or for those who are in detention, however, such principles often make themselves felt in a different way. Is access to justice relevant, for instance, in a world in which slum-dwellers are unable to enforce their human right to own property? Or in a world in which groups of refugees, who supposedly enjoy the protection of the United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention, are unable to apply for asylum in Europe? Or a world in which there is scarcely an effective legal remedy through which to challenge the secondary effects of the international sharing and use of Big Data?

Local Level and Cyberspace In the context of the Netherlands, there are pressing questions about access to justice at the local level and in cyberspace: about matters ranging from the legal self-reliance of small entrepreneurs to the legal protection of hackers, those who cause a nuisance, undocumented persons, and ordinary citizens in the new participation society of the digital era. For instance, is an employee who has been fired entitled to calculate her own transition compensation online using the website MagOntslag.nl? Are unemployed persons

page 6

Introduction

in general, in fact, properly informed about the kinds of ‘participation’ that are expected of them? Many other questions come to mind.

What do you do if you are approached by local professionals concerning allegations of radical ideas expressed on social media?

Are people who require long-term care really guaranteed privacy during a so-called ‘kitchen table discussion’? If their privacy is violated, what can they do about it?

“HOW ARE LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS ENTWINED WITH GLOBALISATION AND VICE VERSA?” Some questions relate more to existing structures and systems.

Take the legal protection of young travellers or caravan dwellers, for instance. If they are no longer able to claim a site in their municipality because the local authority has adopted a phasing-out policy or zero option, to what extent are their caravan-based identity and culture taken into account (PILP 2016)? It may sound odd, but all these examples are situations in which access to justice is possible on paper but often hard to achieve in practice.

Glocalisation At the same time, global developments, such as the digitisation and localisation of human rights, may play a role in access to justice in the Netherlands. Take school absentees, for instance. These are children who are at home, unable in practice to assert their right to education - one of the primary international rights of the child.1 Specially tailored education at a school in the surrounding region is the Dutch way in which this right should supposedly be asserted,

1 Articles 28 and 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

2 Appropriate Education Act; the Absentees Pact.

3 The concept has been further elaborated since then (see Giulianotti & Robertson 2012, 2007a/b, 2006, 2004; Robertson 2013, 2006, 2004, 2001, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1992; Ritzer 2007, 2004, 2003, 1993; Roudometof 2015).

page 7

Introduction

but children and their parents are not always able to secure it (Children's Ombudsman 2013; House of Representatives 2016).2 The term used to describe the process whereby global rights - in this case, children’s rights - are interwoven with local, appropriate education in the area concerned is glocalisation (Robertson 1992).3 This term places any research into access to justice in a wider perspective than merely the safeguards as codified in national laws and regulations.

The debate on access to justice is generally confined to laws and regulations and access to the courts. In the Dutch context, it often tends to focus on financial cuts in subsidised legal aid or increases in court fees, the amount that has to be paid to the court by someone wanting to institute legal proceedings or to gain more accessible legal decisions, for instance at the online limited jurisdiction court eKantonrechter (HiiL (Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law) 2015; WODC (Research and Documentation Centre) 2016). But the concept of ‘access to justice’ is much broader than this. It is also about citizenship and legal education, knowledge of the existing laws and regulations, knowing the answer to ‘Am I entitled to complain?’, and following it up with: ‘I will submit a complaint’. It also includes alternative modes of conflict resolution such as mediation in employment disputes or a divorce. Moreover, access to justice is only meaningful if it is actually implemented for everyone on an equal basis by the government or private parties.

Utrecht as a ‘Human Rights City’ In other words, access to justice is a characteristic of a state governed by the rule of law, in which freedom, legal certainty, and equality before the law are central principles, and in which the power of local government is restricted by laws and regulations as well as by standard procedures. This makes a reseach group in access to justice a subject that possesses special relevance, both local and international, to HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (HU). For Utrecht is the first real human rights city, where the public authorities and decision-makers in higher education and

page 8

Introduction

civil society organisations are fully conscious of the fact that enforcing respect for human rights is about actions as well as words (Municipality of Utrecht 2011).4 Furthermore, when our students leave us to become legal, social, educational or security professionals, entrepreneurs or administrators, they will be working in professions that make up the beating heart of our society: places where the law truly matters.

Central Issue The central issue in this public lecture is how studies in the field of law and society can contribute to social innovation and practically-oriented education geared towards achieving an inclusive and just society.

I shall start by exploring the basic concept of ‘access to justice’.

The focus will be on the relationship between local developments, such as measures taken to shape the participation society, the preventive administrative approach, and the Startup rage and the way in which it is entwined with globalisation, the worldwide process of political, economic and cultural integration (Robertson 1992; Robertson & White 2007; Waters 1995). The focus here is not only on the influence of written law, in terms of the statute books, but also on how the law works in practice (Pound 1910).

“HOW CAN STUDIES IN THE FIELD OF LAW AND SOCIETY CONTRIBUTE TO INNOVATIONS IN ACCESS TO JUSTICE AT THE GLOCAL LEVEL, TO PROMOTE A PRACTICALLYORIENTED EDUCATION AND AN INCLUSIVE AND JUST SOCIETY?“ 4 For more information, see http://humanrightsutrecht.blogspot.nl/ (accessed on 16 November 2016).

page 9

Introduction

I shall then move on to discuss another aspect of access to justice.

This is legal Bildung or education, the citizen’s self-reliance in relation to the law. What do self-reliance, personal initiative and responsibility actually mean in the context of alternative modes of conflict resolution, small-scale entrepreneurship, the decentralisation of care, work, and youth care, or the use of digital technology in contact with public authorities?

I shall then discuss what access to justice means in terms of what can be expected from volunteers and professionals 3.0 working on the front line of society. I shall conclude by setting out the diverse research programmes of this one-year-old Access to Justice reseach group.

“HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DOES NOT IN ITSELF GUARANTEE ACCESS TO JUSTICE.”

page 11

chapter 1 What is Access to Justice?

Public lecture Access to Justice goes Glocal

1 / WHAT IS ACCESS TO JUSTICE?

Within academic studies relating to what may be broadly defined as ‘law and society’, ‘access to justice’ is an influential concept, both academically and in terms of policy. It is also related to human rights and fundamental rights that are protected by international law. In the literature, access to justice is viewed as part of a modern democracy and as a necessary condition if rights that have been conferred are actually to be enforced (Peysner 2014). But what, precisely, should be understood by ‘access to justice’?

Definitions Various definitions have been proposed. Many focus on the availability of an effective remedy: the possibility of using the law in disputes or to protect legal status, both in relation to the government and otherwise (FRA 2015; Grootelaar et al. 2014). In other words, this definition is about citizens facing certain problems relating to civil, administrative, or criminal law, having access to channels through which to gain justice. In most cases, this will be access to legal information and advice, for instance by consulting a Dutch online legal information portal Rechtwijzer 2.0 or a Legal Aid & Advice Centre. Also important here is legal aid, in the form of counselling, mediation, or representation as provided by lawyers, unions, legal expenses insurers, and social counsellors. Finally, it refers to the existence of a neutral procedure to resolve disputes, conducted by a judicial authority that can issue a binding ruling, whether judicial or extra-judicial (Courmaralos et al. 2012; Hubeau 2015; Ter Voert 2014; Rhode 2009, 2004; Susskind 1996).

A distinction is usually drawn between formal and material access to justice. The latter is about achieving justice in practice: the possibilities that exist for people to truly resolve their problems (Hubeau 2015).

This speaks to the principle that access to justice is only meaningful if it does not merely exist on paper, but if people actually know how to achieve it. And if, when necessary, they can actually make use of it.

page 12

chapter 1 What is Access to Justice?

The concept of ‘access to justice’ was first introduced in the 1970s by Cappelletti & Garth (1978). They coined the phrase in their famous Florence Research Project, made possible by the Ford Foundation. For them, the concept was wider than access to a court of law (Cappelletti 1981; Cappelletti, Gordley & Johnson 1978). Access to law, as they defined it, consists of two principles or criteria that any justice system must fulfil. First, the justice system must be accessible to all. Second, the outcome arising from that system must be just and equitable from an individual and social perspective. In other words, their definition goes beyond the existence of formal legal procedures (Cappelletti & Garth 1978, pp. 6-7). Their central focus was on justice in practice, and in particular the results achieved by seeking justice.

Four Waves Building on the definition in Cappelletti & Garth (1978), Hubeau (2015) distinguishes three waves in the history of what can be called the ‘access to justice’ movement. In the first wave, the emphasis was on legal aid for vulnerable citizens. The second wave looked at a wide range of interests, including consumer and environmental rights. The third wave proposes a cohesive and overarching approach to justice. This embraces conflict resolution, for instance through alternative conflict resolution mechanisms. Some experts regard the trend towards digitisation - online conflict resolution and EJustice - as a fourth wave (Cohen & Clark 2015).

In addition to this distinction of the development of the concept of access to justice in ‘waves’, we might also draw a second significant distinction: namely, between citizens who pursue a solution to a problem, and those who are in need of protection (Westerveld, Hubeau & Terlouw 2015). This links up with the current trends towards dejuridification and legal self-reliance (Ter Voert 2014). In any case, it is clear that access to justice is not a static concept. The diverse definitions arise from developments that reflect the spirit of the age and the particular interests that are at stake.

page 13

chapter 1 What is Access to Justice?

“IN THE NETHERLANDS, ACCESS TO LEGAL SYSTEMS CAN ALSO BE GUARANTEED BY INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS.“ References to access to justice can be found in both domestic and international law. One authoritative definition is that of the UN Development Programme (UNDP). From a human rights perspective, access to justice is ‘the ability of people to seek and obtain a remedy [for their grievances] through formal or informal institutions of justice, and in conformity with human rights standards’ (UNDP 2005, p. 5). This fairly broad definition emphasises that judicial rulings and alternative modes of conflict resolution are of at least equal importance. This is also stressed by the UN Secretary-General (UN SG 2009). In addition, the definition emphasises the enforcement of the law, self-reliance, and the implementation of judicial decisions. This acknowledges the importance of a cohesive and overarching approach to conflict resolution through the application of the law, and corresponds to the third wave in the ‘access-to-justice movement’ to which I have already referred.

It also refers explicitly to human rights.

Safeguards at the National Level Human rights law guarantees the right to an effective legal remedy, a fair trial, and legal assistance, but it does not in itself address the concept of access to justice. Under the terms of conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), for instance, individuals have the right to a fair trial and to an effective legal remedy (articles 6 and 13, ECHR). The right of all EU citizens to an effective legal remedy and the right to a fair trial are also enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR) (article 47; FRA 2015). In addition, these two rights are codified for all people in international human rights conventions. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 2, paragraphs 3 and 14, ICCPR), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (article 13, CRPD) and the Universal Declaration of

page 14

chapter 1 What is Access to Justice?

Human Rights (articles 8 and 10, UDHR). In themselves these minimum standards are significant, but national safeguards are more important (FRA 2015), given that it is only at the national and local level that access to justice can really take shape.

Fundamental Rights Besides these internationally recognised human rights, which are directly applicable, the Netherlands also recognises certain fundamental rights. Article 18, paragraph 1 of the Constitution as well as the Legal Aid Act and the Legal Aid and Assignment Criteria Decree guarantee the right of everyone to be represented in legal proceedings and in an application for administrative review. In addition, persons with a low income should be assured of legal aid. The government recently put a proposal before parliament in which the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal is incorporated more explicitly (Raad voor de Rechtspraak (Council for the Judiciary) 2016). The value of mediation as a fully-fledged alternative to the judicial settlement of disputes is also receiving more attention; a Bill for the Promotion of Mediation is currently being drafted. With this Bill, the legislature is following international trends in seeking to formally enshrine the principle that the accessibility to legal systems in the Netherlands is also guaranteed by informal institutions. At the same time, this facilitates the settlement of disputes at the level on which they occur. From a socio-legal perspective and from that of the sociology of the law, access to justice is an influential concept in the Netherlands, which is reflected, whether directly or indirectly, in legislation and regulations as well as in government policy.

“ONLINE IT MAY HAPPEN THAT LEGAL DECISIONS ARE MADE IN AN AUTOMATED OR SEMI-AUTOMATED WAY ON THE BASIS OF ALGORITHMS – DECISIONS THAT MAY HAVE REAL, ADVERSE EFFECTS ON REAL PEOPLE.”

page 17

chapter 2 The Glocalisation of Access to Justice

Public lecture Access to Justice goes Glocal

2 / THE GLOCALISATION OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE In a globalising world, the importance of access to justice at a local level is increasingly seen as a way of achieving a peaceful, inclusive society. The underlying rationale here is that access to justice helps to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands.

The UN’s Sustainable Global Goals for Development call on states to safeguard equal access to justice for all. They therefore constitute an international affirmation that states must give people an opportunity to invoke the protection of the law - although it should be noted that they do not prescribe exactly how governments, international agencies or other actors should achieve this (UNGG 2015). Other developments too are influencing the way in which people are given access to justice, such as the growing localisation of human rights and the shaping of the rule of law in cyberspace and ‘the cloud’ (Feyter 2012; Hildebrandt 2012; Knoops & Goodwin 2014; Nyst 2016; Oomen 2013).

Human Rights at Global and Local Level Human rights issues should be addressed at the level on which they occur, given that in most cases, local, regional or national actors such as national governments, municipal authorities, courts of law, and police services are responsible for the observance and protection of human rights. They are also often the gatekeepers who watch over access to formal and informal institutions of conflict resolution. Online it may happen that legal decisions are made in an automated or semi-automated way on the basis of algorithms decisions that may have real, adverse effects on real people. For instance, a website may be offered in one country, hosted in a different country, and used in a third country. In this context, it is quite unclear which stakeholder is involved in facilitating access to justice. In future this ‘stakeholder’ could even be a robot. Besides the ‘roving judge’ known from the popular TV show, will we find ourselves before long dealing with a conflict resolution drone that

page 18

chapter 2 The Glocalisation of Access to Justice

lands in our back garden and delivers a judgment? In other words, what does ‘access to justice’ actually mean in these new contexts such as cyberspace and the cloud?

Glocalisation and Hybridisation Globalisation influences local processes, which shape the protection of rights and legal self-reliance. The term coined for this development in the literature, as already noted, is ‘glocalisation’ (Robertson 1992). Glocalisation can produce unique and sometimes unexpected outcomes. Who would ever have foreseen, for instance, that the cartoon character Miffy, the brainchild of the Utrecht artist Dick Bruna, would become a Japanese cult figure, known there as Usako-Chan? Or that people sitting at their kitchen tables in the Netherlands would be able to use an online mapping platform to rescue people in danger of drowning in the Mediterranean (Watchthemed 2016)? Examples such as Miffy and Watchthemed show that globalisation can be entwined with, or ruptured by, local processes (Ritzer 2010, 2007; Robertson 1995, 1994; Roudometof 2016). For what started out as a funny little rabbit drawn with the intention of entertaining Dutch toddlers ended up attracting a completely different group of admirers in Japan. And the local authorities in Greece and Italy are at times mobilised by people in other countries who are not personally acquainted with the boat people in distress at sea. Even so, such forms of glocalisation can be seen as homogeneous: For whether Nijntje - his original Dutch name - is called Miffy or Usako-Chan, the character remains the same.

“BESIDES THE ‘ROVING JUDGE’ KNOWN FROM THE POPULAR TV SHOW, WILL WE FIND OURSELVES BEFORE LONG DEALING WITH A CONFLICT RESOLUTION DRONE THAT LANDS IN OUR BACK GARDEN AND DELIVERS A JUDGMENT?“

page 19

chapter 2 The Glocalisation of Access to Justice

There are other, hybrid forms of glocalisation, however: two different processes that lead to something new (Ritzer 2000, 1994, 1993). Take the UK’s Referendum on EU membership, for instance: Brexit voters were not only influenced by global developments, such as the free movement of people within the EU. In many cases, their vote was also determined in part by a particular set of local conditions. UK nationals are aware that labour migrants have a permanent influence on ‘their’ neighbourhood: leading to the creation of local Eastern European supermarkets, for instance. It is less well known that these same labour migrants are helping to create more, and more diverse, jobs. Or that this migration causes a fall in certain kinds of crime - in other words, that global trends produce new developments in the neighbourhood, at school, or at work (Bell, Fasani & Machin 2013). What this means is that globalisation leads to an intertwining with local conditions and sometimes to changes at local level.

Global versus Local Culture Whatever the sometimes ambivalent responses it may provoke, globalisation inevitably influences attitudes to, and definitions of, access to justice. Whether we like it or not, global trends are becoming mixed with local culture, and vice versa. Take the recent advances in the field of artificial intelligence, for instance. In the longer term, these advances may make it easier and cheaper for ordinary citizens to gain access to justice; but such changes will also have a dramatic impact on the work of legal professionals. Global processes of this kind may in turn lead to unique local changes with global consequences, or vice versa (Khondker 2007). But there is more. Why does the Dutch-language propaganda of the Islamic State group exert such a strong appeal on some people in Utrecht that it has prompted the development of a municipal anti-polarisation policy, a plan of action called ‘Utrecht is all of us together’ (‘Utrecht zijn we Samen’?). Why does Utrecht refer to itself as a human rights city? In other words: the global developments of artificial intelligence and IS propaganda, and human rights as a local phenomenon, influence processes within cities and regions. At the same time, developments at local level lead to new forms of

page 20

chapter 2 The Glocalisation of Access to Justice

employment, policy, and protection, ranging from innovative startups such as SnappCar or Blendle to debates on human rights issues such as the decision on whether or not to continue offering ‘bed, bath and bread’ to rejected asylum seekers in Utrecht. Certain local developments may also generate new forms of terrorism - people leaving Utrecht to join the ‘caliphate’, for instance. All these are examples in which the globalisation of local developments influences processes beyond the city of region.

Dejuridification and Mediation The way in which access to justice is implemented in the Netherlands is also influenced by the entwining of international with local factors. Political parties and the judiciary are increasingly considering modes of dejuridification and accessible, effective solutions such as mediation in employment law, criminal law, administrative law, and family law (Uitslag 2016). This is because traditional court rulings do not always resolve the true conflict (Vago 2012). At the national and local levels, these international developments are adopted or modified to suit the particular context. Alternative dispute resolution should conclude with neighbours being able to speak to one another again following mediation in a neighbourhood conflict.

“WHO WOULD EVER HAVE THOUGHT, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE CARTOON CHARACTER MIFFY, THE BRAINCHILD OF THE UTRECHT ARTIST DICK BRUNA, WOULD BECOME A JAPANESE CULT FIGURE, KNOWN THERE AS USAKO-CHAN?”

page 21

chapter 2 The Glocalisation of Access to Justice

Another example is a Dutch form of mediation in criminal cases, which has been used in a number of district courts since 2013.

The Public Prosecution Service and the court have the option of referring the suspect and the victim to a criminal law mediator.5 In addition, the Utrecht police service ran a mediation pilot project in 2014-2015: after a matter was reported to the police, the latter could choose to refer the case to the criminal law mediator.

Impelled by the wide-ranging international Restorative Justice movement, a form of mediation between suspect and victim has been in place since 2011, which can influence the subsequent criminal proceedings (Dierx et al. 2012; UNODC 2006; Zehr 1990). It is true that alternative forms of conflict resolution are partly fostered as a way of coping with budgetary cuts. Even so, they are also appropriate in a society in which ordinary members of society are becoming more self-reliant. People should be better able to appreciate their own legal position and to be able to seek remedies to protect their legal status more effectively. This brings people a little closer, at local level, to acquiring access to formal and informal systems of justice.

5 Article 51h Criminal Procedural Code (WvSv).

“IN ORDER TO BECOME LEGALLY SELF-RELIANT, PEOPLE NEED TO POSSESS THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE LAW.”

page 23

chapter 3 Legal Self-Reliance: A Fiction?

Public lecture Access to Justice goes Glocal

3 / LEGAL SELF-RELIANCE: A FICTION?

Legal self-reliance is closely related to access to justice, since it presupposes that people should be able, or given the necessary tools, to tackle grievances and problems by invoking the protection of the law. In so doing, they acquire more responsibility for - and more control over - conflict resolution (UN SG 2009). Examples of such self-reliance include the ability to consult information about modes of submitting complaints and objections, for instance on the community team website of the municipality of Utrecht.

Actually initiating a procedure aimed at solving the problem.

Obtaining a divorce by using the online service Rechtwijzer.

Or representing yourself before a limited jurisdiction judge.

The bottom line is that you know what you need to do and where to seek a legal solution. And that your communication skills, including a sufficient command of the language, are adequate to the task (Grootelaar et al. 2014). Someone who lacks legal knowledge and capacity seldom has access to justice in practice (Aubert 1983, 1952; Galanter 1976). Sadly, this is a reality for a large section of the population. To successfully assert your rights under the law generally means that you will have to give a precise description of your grievance, either on paper or online. For the estimated 1.3 million persons in the Netherlands who have low literacy skills, this is a considerable challenge (SLS 2016). Whether they can really achieve access to justice, then, remains debatable.

Legal Capability In other words, in order to become legally self-reliant, people need to possess the knowledge, skills and capacity to be able to deal with the law - or given the necessary support to do so. Some scholars define this as legal capability (Courmarelos 2012; Currie 2015). Essentially, this means that you have the capacity to see that an everyday problem may have legal implications, the knowledge of where you can gain access to help, and most importantly

page 24

chapter 3 Legal Self-Reliance: A Fiction?

perhaps, the confidence and ability to tackle the problem (see Collard et al. 2011, p. 4). This requires not only a certain level of education, but also a certain confidence in the rule of law.

According to the influential Nobel laureate Amartya Sen (2013/2011), building on the authoritative theory of justice developed by Rawls (1999/1971)6: government policy must be geared towards enabling every citizen to make choices and also to giving them the capacity to do so. This implies that in Amartya Sen’s ‘capabilities approach’, as later developed by Nussenbaum (2000, 1999), social justice means that all citizens have both the opportunity and the knowledge that are needed in order to function in society. One could say the same, up to a point, in relation to the rule of law.

Intelligible Rules In the Netherlands, policy, public information, and support are increasingly directed towards enabling people to take charge of, and responsibility for, their own situations. Self-reliance has long been cited in the security sector as a strategy for preparing the public to deal with crisis situations (Helsloot & Van ’t Padje 2010).

It is also becoming increasingly important in the context of global developments and access to justice. For Dutch people, this means, for instance, that the legal discourse in new laws and regulations should be framed in plainer, more intelligible language (Hiil 2015). The professionals who graduate from HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, ranging from teachers, social workers and local government officials to entrepreneurs, paralegals, and security coordinators, will play a role here (whether consciously or not) within their everyday professional lives. If rules are transparent, they will probably also be easier for all members of the public to apply. So promoting legal self-reliance is essentially a form of legal empowerment, defined as ‘providing the methods and resources that will give people the power to navigate the law, with the ultimate goal of poverty reduction’ (Meene & De Rooij 6 T he crux of Rawl’s theory: suppose you did not know what rank you occupy in society, what rules would you think up? (Rawls 1999/1971).

page 25

chapter 3 Legal Self-Reliance: A Fiction?

2008, pp. 6-7). When the phrase ‘legal empowerment’ - a policy term that originated within development cooperation - was first used, it was primarily geared towards poverty reduction.

Nowadays, however, its aims are framed more widely.

Interventions of this kind should lead to people becoming legally self-reliant on an equal basis.

“IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, THE DECENTRALISATION PROCESS APPEARS TO FOCUS IN PART ON REDUCING THE PUBLIC’S RESISTANCE TO TAKING LEGAL ACTION.” In spite of the emphasis on poverty reduction in this definition of legal empowerment and in international policy, legal self-reliance does not apply exclusively to vulnerable persons. It is also relevant to citizens with an average income who get into difficulties (IDLO 2010), and who are largely left to fend for themselves (Rhode 2004), since they are generally less likely to be eligible for benefits such as legal aid. They often have slightly too much money to qualify for it, whereas long-term legal advice is expensive.

It is therefore vital to obtain information and to make a sound assessment of the usefulness of submitting a complaint.

Fortunately, the average Dutch person is reasonably capable of doing so, as is clear from the Report on Dispute Settlement (Geschilbeslechtingsdelta; Ter Voert & Klein Haarhuis 2015), which reviews the way Dutch peope deal with their legal problems (or potential problems) and the outcome. Various trends are noted: while the law is invoked less frequently than in the past, more people take out legal expenses insurance and there are more frequent appeals to dispute resolution committees. Active citizens will be able to successfully navigate the world of law relatively well, with or without assistance. They simply surf to sites such as Incassobot.nl, where they can calculate whether the collection charges imposed on them are too high, and then write a legal

page 26

chapter 3 Legal Self-Reliance: A Fiction?

letter. It is assumed, up to a point, that active citizens have the necessary capacity for legal self-reliance. But in a society that lays such store by the promotion of self-reliance, autonomous effort, and individual responsibility, what about people who are relatively weak and/or dependent on care? How are they protected in our new participation society?

Decentralisation The social domain is currently undergoing transformation from a welfare state into a participation society. This is a major system change, involving the decentralisation of care, employment, and youth services (KSI 2016). Since 1 January 2015, municipal authorities have been responsible for the support and assistance of local residents, the inclusion of persons with an employment disability in the labour market, and youth services. This is being effected with the Social Support Act (WMO), the Participation Act, and the Youth Act. The transition to what is intended to be a participation society raises socio-legal questions regarding access to justice. Where administrative implementing acts and decisions are decentralised, legal protection is under strain (Vonk et al.

2016). Even though national government is paying attention to this issue, and though guidelines are being developed on the settlement of disputes in the social domain, whether this will suffice in practice remains unclear.

“WHAT DO YOU DO, IF YOUR DIGITAL SEARCH SKILLS ARE NOT UP TO THE TASK OF FINDING OUT HOW TO COMPLAIN TO THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY?“ After all, the informality of local contacts, such as those that take place in ‘kitchen table discussions’, combined with the fact that the municipal authority delegates certain tasks to private agencies, means that it is not always clear to members of the public who is formally responsible for a particular decision: is it the community

page 27

chapter 3 Legal Self-Reliance: A Fiction?

team or is it an agency that has been hired for the purpose (CRvdM 2016)? This is really tricky if, for instance, the allowance you had been receiving for a certain specialist activity has been reduced following re-evaluation by a private consultant on the Social Support Act (WMO). What do you do, if your digital search skills are not up to the task of finding out how to complain to the municipal authority, or of deciding if you even wish to lodge an objection to the re-evaluation decision? Not every member of the public can cope with essential aspects of today’s digital technology, as the National Ombudsman (2015) has pointed out.

Simultaneously with the trend towards decentralisation we are witnessing a change in the legal relationship between the government and individual members of the public. This relationship is becoming to some extent more informal, more effective, and less clearly defined by legal provisions. In addition, bottom-up trends such as tailor-made solutions are playing a role. In themselves these are positive developments. After all, everyone would like to see their grievances dealt with humanely and within a short space of time. In several municipal authorities in the province of Utrecht you can make a direct call to a complaints officer, who will discuss the situation with you and can also help you to submit a complaint or objection.

In practice, however, the decentralisation process appears to focus in part on reducing the public’s resistance to taking legal action (Tollenaar 2016). While this means social community teams promoting legal self-reliance, this is not necessarily something that administrative authorities welcome with open arms. Take the Urban Areas (Special Measures) Act (Wet Bijzondere Maatregelen Grootstedelijke Problematiek, Wbmgp 2016), popularly known as the ‘Rotterdam Act’. This Act makes it possible for someone to be denied accommodation: a large city may choose, by signing voluntary covenants with the police and housing associations, to conduct a form of screening, based on police data or a Certificate of Good Conduct (VOG), which can lead to someone being refused a housing permit. The provision of adequate - especially

page 28

chapter 3 Legal Self-Reliance: A Fiction?

financial - legal protection against such a measure, as well as against other administrative decisions, is currently being debated (Council of State (RvS) 2015; Munneke 2016). However, the legislature does not appear to be troubled by this form of anticipatory justice (Hudson & Ulgevik 2012; Johnston & Shearing 2003).

Clearly, in today’s world, the top priorities are responding to risks and ensuring the effectiveness of measures.

Facilitating Independent Action In other areas too, proactive administrative measures, combined with limited methods and resources to challenge such measures through legal channels, appear to be a trend. To take another example, consider the local, person-centred approach targeting those causing a nuisance, confused individuals, ex-detainees, or potentially violent extremists. This approach consists of responses by a range of government bodies tailored to specific high-risk individuals, without the person concerned always being clearly informed about what is being done.

“THE PARTICIPATION SOCIETY AND THE TREND TOWARDS ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS MAKE IT ESSENTIAL TO PROVIDE MORE SUPPORT TO HELP INDIVIDUALS TAKE INDEPENDENT ACTION WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RULE OF LAW.“ In addition, person-centred interventions may violate the principle of every person receiving equal treatment before the law. For instance: those concerned may not fully comprehend the legal basis for these interventions and may have only a minimum of legal protection (Eijkman 2016). In addition, such interventions do not always have a demonstrable effect, as in the case of

page 29

chapter 3 Legal Self-Reliance: A Fiction?

counterterrorism measures (Noordegraaf et al. 2016).

Furthermore, administrative measures of this kind may lead to changes in the legal relationship between government and both active and vulnerable members of the public. After all, they presuppose greater legal self-reliance on the part of those concerned. Those who are subjected to repressive measures are protected by certain legal safeguards, but they generally have little say in terms of substance. In other words, the participation society and the trend towards administrative effectiveness make it essential to provide more support to help individuals take independent action within the boundaries of the rule of law.

“IT IS TAKEN FOR GRANTED THAT EVERYONE IS LEGALLY SELF-RELIANT.”

page 31

chapter 4 The Local Professional 3.0

Public lecture Access to Justice goes Glocal

4 / THE LOCAL PROFESSIONAL 3.0

Over the past few decades, the trend in Western societies is towards expecting people to fight their own battles, or to learn (or re-learn) how to do so. The Netherlands is witnessing a shift away from the classical welfare state towards a participation society, in which the nation state is endeavouring to withdraw from certain areas of life. This shift can be inferred, for instance, from the 2013 Speech from the Throne (Troonrede 2013). The assumption is that members of the public want more say, while the government seeks to achieve a greater degree of interaction and more financial cuts.

Partly for this reason, it is up to local authorities to navigate the way forward. They must implement the new, decentralised approach in a responsive and responsible way (Tonkens 2014). Consequently, there are high expectations of people’s self-reliance (in legal and other areas of life) and civic initiatives, with help being offered only when it is necessary (De Graaf, Hulst & Michiels 2015; TSA 2016a). Some people rise to the challenge, while others find it much more difficult to resolve everyday legal issues. Yet the transition means that they are nonetheless expected to rely less heavily on the local (or national) welfare state than in the past. The buzzword is ‘active citizenship’ (OECD 2009; Tonkens 2009; Van de Wijdeven et al. 2013).

And the local authority facilitates it, to encourage people both to solve their own problems and to act to tackle problems in society.

Online Justice Another development that is making itself felt in the work of local professionals is information and communication technology.

Enforcing your rights under the law, for instance through eJustice, in the form of online dispute settlement, should be easier, cheaper, and more accessible. And this is music to the ears of consumers as well as public and private parties (Cohen & Clark 2015). Take webshops, for instance, some of which work with the Dispute Resolution Committee or similar bodies, which issue binding decisions. Or take consumers who are encouraged by special websites

page 32

chapter 4 The Local Professional 3.0

(such as the Dutch sites Klacht.nl and Klachtenkompas.nl) to submit their complaints or to try to reach a solution. Or take people who use the online legal guidance website Rechtwijzer to resolve disputes about rent. In the not too distant future, people may be using an online service in the Cloud (e.g. through the American service LegalZoom) to draw up their last will and testament - in Dutch.

“PEOPLE MAY BE USING THE ONLINE LEGAL GUIDANCE WEBSITE RECHTWIJZER TO RESOLVE DISPUTES ABOUT RENT, OR IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE USING AN ONLINE SERVICE IN THE CLOUD TO DRAW UP THEIR LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT.” Initiatives of this kind will naturally have to be improved to bring them up to set quality standards, for instance with the aid of evidence-based practical guidelines (Barendrecht et al. 2012). All citizens are more or less expected to be able to understand and use such procedures, both online and offline. It is essentially taken for granted that everyone is legally self-reliant and that everyone has the opportunity to function with the framework of the rule of law - and hence to avail themselves of access to justice completely independently.

Community Teams If this does not work, or if it threatens to go wrong, people have to fall back on their own network or external advisors, such as active citizens - often volunteers or local professionals. This latter group has the explicit task of ‘empowering’ vulnerable members of the community. People are often referred to them by the local authority. This happens because although community social teams in most Dutch municipalities are set up to organise care, support and participation close to people’s homes, in practice individual

page 33

chapter 4 The Local Professional 3.0

citizens are scarcely able to find them. For the rest, the institutional context of these community teams is intended to strengthen the ‘humanised legal relationship’ between the municipal authority and the local population (Vonk 2016, p. 8). The aim is to ‘de-juridify’ this relationship, to make it more informal and to provide easier access to support.

At the same time, this provides an opportunity to transit the message of ‘taking responsibility’ in such a way that it does not give rise to legal disputes. Consulting together to see which services would be most suitable means assuming that disputes can be resolved through (wholly or partly) informal channels, without needing to resort to legal remedies such as lodging an objection or an appeal (Vonk 2014, pp. 5-10). In other words, legal challenges are tackled, insofar as it is possible, in a preliminary procedure.

Society 3.0 Local tailor-made solutions that seek to boost the legal self-reliance of ordinary people call for a proactive approach by people such as social workers, lawyers acting for the local council, complaints officers, legal advisors, and security coordinators - all of whom should essentially function as professionals who are at home in ‘Society 3.0’ (Van den Hoff 2013). In today’s world, this means that the first step is for a local volunteer or professional to try to equip people with the legal tools they need and to show them the procedure to be followed. Only if this proves impossible and the person in question has no network of their own will the volunteer or professional adopt a more active approach. In this way, the volunteer or professional can acquire influence over the way in which problems are handled, for instance if the income or other support is inadequate. All this means that the context in which local professionals work on promoting the legal self-reliance of ordinary members of the public is far from neutral and independent of power structures.

Decisions will naturally be made in consultation with the person concerned. Nonetheless, by providing this support, professionals

page 34

chapter 4 The Local Professional 3.0

or volunteers themselves inevitably also become actors in the situation. Take a mediation situation, for instance. The global trend towards alternative modes of dispute settlement, such as mediation, is also being introduced in Dutch communities. But if a local professional encourages a person to follow this route instead of lodging a formal complaint, this may constitute undue influence. As argued by Werkman (2015), this can lead to conflicts, in particular because access to other institutions is influenced by the approach taken by local volunteers or professionals.

Local Guardians of Human Rights Clearly, then, the access of vulnerable members of the public to formal and informal institutions is influenced up to a point by legal or social professionals, or by active citizens who support - or impede - them by giving advice or making referrals. Such consultations may be aimed at finding a legal or other solution to their problems. At the same time, these helpers know, or are expected to be capable of discovering, how the law works in practice: it is assumed that they possess the appropriate legal capability, knowledge and skills to guide others through the jungle of legislation and regulations (Courmarelos 2012; Currie 2015). If someone believes or feels that an injustice has been done, they are expected to be capable of looking for solutions and of finding their way to the appropriate formal or informal legal systems - or in some cases, to block the way to them.

This trend provokes new debates, for instance on the role to be played by active members of the community and by today’s local professionals (Bang 2005; Bang & Sörensen 1999; Hendriks & Tops 2009; Van Hulst et al. 2011). Such professionals, for instance, should be regarded not only as care providers but also as local guardians of human rights (Hartman, Knevel & Reynaert 2016).7

7 F rom the manifesto ‘Stel mensenrechten centraal in het sociaal werk! Manifest voor mensenrechten als belangrijke pijler van het sociaal werk en de opleidingen sociaal werk in het hoger onderwijs’, signed by employees of Dutch and Flemish educational establishments (Hartman, Knevel & Reynaert 2016).

page 35

chapter 4 The Local Professional 3.0

Dominelli (2009, pp. 10-11) refers to them as ‘upholders’: people who uphold human rights and citizenship. They may also take it upon themselves to act as advocates, urging social change and the inclusion of people whose legal status is under pressure. In essence, local professionals or volunteers may be defined as ‘street-level workers’ who deal with the ‘real facts’ (MaynardMoody & Musheno 2003, p. 8). Others might call them front-line workers or volunteers (Hartman & Tops 2005, pp. 42-43; Van Hulst et al. 2011; Tops & Hartman 2009). After all, they have direct contact with people and take immediate action to tackle their problems.

Professionals or Volunteers Map Out the Route However, it hardly needs to be said that many roads lead to Rome. Online, the crucial point is the ability to find knowledge and to apply it. At the community level, however, this means, for instance, that local volunteers or professionals can tackle a range of problems effectively in a variety of ways (Durose et al. 2015; Maynard-Moody & Musheno 2012). Active members of the community can also play a role, for instance in helping people to tackle their debt problems (Madern & Jungmann 2011). However, the action taken by ‘street-level workers’ has a legal component that may have certain consequences. Their actions also, of course, have a moral dimension (Van Doorn 2008; Maynard-Moody & Musheno 2003).

The issue is more complex still. When conducting research on access to justice and legal self-reliance, it is important to be aware that the involvement of a professional or a volunteer in helping to resolve a person’s problem may help to determine the legal consequences of the problem. In some situations, for instance, active intervention teams play a role. This applies, for instance, in the case of people with mild learning disabilities and addiction problems who cause a nuisance in the community. The professionals concerned probably do their utmost to contact and support the person concerned, on the basis of their solution-oriented outlook.

Yet the information they provide may lead to an unintended

page 36

chapter 4 The Local Professional 3.0

outcome, such as the person’s forced ejection from their home in the subsidised rental sector.

Street-level workers - certainly those working for public authorities - do of course have a certain discretionary power to interpret and act as they see fit. Lipsky (1980, p. 3 and 2010, p. 40) states, in his ground-breaking study of ‘street-level bureaucrats’, that through these actions they implement and influence legislation and policy in their own way. But these professionals are often confronted with a wide range of - sometimes conflicting - objectives and interests (Lipsky 2010, p. 40). Their interpretation therefore plays an important role. The way in which local professionals and others construe and in part implement legislation and regulations has a decisive impact on people who do not themselves possess the legal self-reliance to address their grievances.

Legal Capability of Professionals and Volunteers It is therefore important to examine the legal capability not only of members of the public but also of local professionals and volunteers. Do they possess the knowledge, the ability and the self-confidence to cope with diverse legislation and regulations?

Are they aware of the legal implications of their actions? Are they primarily working under the constraint of cutting costs (Jönsson 2015)? Are local professionals only involved in facilitating access to justice, or do they serve as instruments of a pragmatic and sometimes repressive administrative approach? After all, for members of the public, there is a world of difference between having justice on your side and actually achieving justice.

This does not apply only to vulnerable people such as those with a disability, but also to small entrepreneurs, for instance. Take the example of an entrepreneur who applies to a local authority for a licence to hold a martial arts gala, but finds his application rejected on the grounds that the event poses a risk of criminal activities.

It is true that this person may lodge a complaint under the administrative law, but it may be difficult to present a substantive defence against a decision that was based on an advisory report

page 37

chapter 4 The Local Professional 3.0

issued by a bureau set up under the Public Administration (Probity Screening) Act (BIBOB),8 following the local authority’s own preliminary investigation (article 1, BIBOB; Ministry of Justice 2011).

Although it is the local authority that ultimately decides, in reality the advisory report is decisive. This is a report drawn up by external officials with the objective of preventing potential criminal offences. The licence applicant is here involved, rightly or wrongly, with municipal professionals, who reach a decision in part on the basis of advice received from other (external) public officials, but who do bear responsibility for their decision as representatives of the local authority.

Another question is how local professionals empower members of the public - whether persons with a Dutch heritage or newcomers - from a legal perspective. What can individuals really expect from local volunteers, legal and social professionals? Or from private parties? After all, active members of the public may succeed in finding the appropriate route along which to seek justice, but for vulnerable persons who are less self-reliant in the legal domain, this may be very difficult, whether online or offline.

8 Dutch title: Wet bevordering integriteitsbeoordelingen Openbaar Bestuur.

“HOW LEGALLY SELF-RELIANT ARE ACTIVE AND VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY? AND WHAT IS THE ROLE OF LEGAL AND SOCIAL WORK PROFESSIONALS IN SUPPORTING THEM?”

page 39

chapter 5 Research Programme

Public lecture Access to Justice goes Glocal

5 / RESEARCH PROGRAMME

This brings me to the essential point: what course are we going to pursue from within the Access to Justice research group?

Clearly, the process of glocalisation will be a key theme. After all, in the Netherlands as elsewhere, access to justice is profoundly influenced by both global and local developments. In addition, it is increasingly often decentralised bodies that are responsible, each in its own way, for safeguarding people’s access to formal and informal justice systems. The growing role of digital information and communication as well as the localisation of human rights are also important factors. For people invoke legal protection - to an increasing degree - in situations in which human dignity is at stake. This may involve online communications, but it may equally relate to a situation in the local community, at school or at work.

Lack of Studies in the Field of Law and Society at the Local Level Given that a number of sectors such as care provision, education, and welfare have recently been decentralised, and municipal authorities are increasingly involved in administrative measures, the local authority is increasingly the appropriate party to which to address a grievance. But whether the issue revolves around the protection of your fundamental rights, tackling your debts through an online system, or starting your own shop, without an adequate knowledge of the law and the ability to navigate it, it is questionable whether you have a chance of achieving justice. Sadly, for a section of the Dutch public this is the reality. This said, very little research has been done to date, in the field of law and society, to explore what access to justice and legal self-reliance actually mean in a society in which the emphasis has shifted to access to formal and informal systems of achieving justice. The reseach group knowledge network seeks to fill this gap.

Whether we are dealing with local, global, or ‘glocal’ issues, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht considers it important to

page 40

chapter 5 Research Programme

promote research that contributes to social innovation. It also seeks to provide education that will promote a just and safe society, in which everyone is empowered and everyone can achieve justice. The Access to Justice reseach group derives inspiration from the HU’s theme of promoting a ‘socially cohesive, caring, and just city’, the research of the Centre for Social Innovation, and the HU structure document on Access to Justice.

Concretely, this means that the reseach group will proceed along the following lines.

Three lines of research The emphasis lies on three lines of research: • First, the process of the globalisation of access to justice and the consequences at local level, both for municipal authorities and for small businesses, including start-ups. The converse - i.e. the effect of action radiating from the local level - will also be studied. In this context it equally important to investigate whether access to justice is sufficiently guaranteed for members of the public in cyberspace and in the Cloud.

• Second, the legal self-reliance of people, given that they are increasingly expected to stand up for their own interests.

• Third, and building on the first two research lines, the special role of local professionals and volunteers, who appear to be acting as the generalist gatekeepers to justice. This links up directly with HU’s existing research programmes on the need for innovation in professional practices and in higher education.

“WHAT DO ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND LEGAL SELF-RELIANCE ACTUALLY MEAN IN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THE EMPHASIS HAS SHIFTED TO ACCESS TO FORMAL AND INFORMAL SYSTEMS OF ACHIEVING JUSTICE?”

page 41

chapter 5 Research Programme

For the reseach group, this means that our initial focus is on investigating what the concepts of access to justice and legal empowerment actually mean. This lays the foundation for education and follow-up research projects with a practical orientation. In addition, we have teamed up with the Law Institute (IvR) to launch a Legal Empowerment Lab, in which lecturers can streamline and develop their contacts with persons working in the field, for the benefit of future research by students. In this context, there are a number of existing and recent initiatives - such as Justice in the Community (Recht in de Wijk), AltijdRecht.nl, Local Co-Creation & Ethics (Lokale Co-Creatie & Ethiek) and Public Policy & BIBOB that have a great deal of potential for generating master’s theses and applied research-oriented studies.

Research Building on Education For the rest, the research builds on HU’s long and impressive tradition of mediation education. In collaboration with the lectorate on Working in a Judicial Framework and HU lecturers who also act as mediators, a study has been launched into quality assurance in mediation in criminal law cases. This also provides a powerful impulse to the innovation of professional practice in the justice system, with the participation of a wide-ranging consortium. The reseach group is also supervising a PhD jurisprudence dissertation on Privacy & Security, in partnership with the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and the Leiden University of Applied Sciences.

This research sets out to explain why the current legal protection afforded members of the public in relation to security measures that restrict privacy is inadequate. In addition, a doctoral dissertation being supervised by the University of Leiden, Computer Says No, deals with authority in the use of digital risk profiles.

Current Research Several pieces of research are currently being conducted in the field of access to justice and legal self-reliance in practice. The subjects include: legal protection and legal self-reliance in relation to the integrated approach at local level; the tailored, person-centred approach; the Dutch Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund;

page 42

chapter 5 Research Programme

and ‘Legal Literacy 4 Startups’. In addition, we are also focusing on professionals working in the legal and social work sectors and - to a lesser extent - on volunteers working at the local level. In addition, two distinct reflective studies look at the concept of law, especially human rights, of front line staff and specialists from community teams, who are working at the interface of care and justice. The primary focus is on legal capability - that is, the ability and self-confidence to deal with the law, and to understand the legal consequences of one’s own actions.

We are also studying participation from the vantage point of new Dutch citizens. One research question here is: how accessible is the system in reality? For instance, we take a close look at the so-called ‘language requirement’ as a step in the direction of participation. At the local level, among municipal authorities and small businesses, the key focus is currently on participation, self-reliance and alternative modes of conflict resolution. Still, it is important to examine to what extent access to justice is a realistic option, for active as well as vulnerable members of the general public. In other words, how self-reliant are they? And what is the role of legal and social work professionals and - to a lesser extent active members of the public such as volunteers or care-givers in supporting them? And is assistance provided through new information and communications technology, or does personal contact play a more important role?

“HOW ACCESSIBLE IS THE SYSTEM IN REALITY FOR NEW DUTCH CITIZENS?” In the light of these questions, over the next few years the Access to Justice reseach group and its knowledge network will therefore be focusing on access to justice from the perspective of both users and professional practice. This means that it will mainly be occupied with the local and online operation of the justice system, consisting of formal and informal frameworks that are influenced by global processes.

“I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT A TOPIC AS DRY AS JUSTICE OR ACCESS TO JUSTICE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION.”

page 45

Final Words

Public lecture Access to Justice goes Glocal

/ FINAL WORDS

In this public lecture I have given a taste of the ambitions of the Access to Justice reseach group. It will be clear that we can only stay on course if we carry on conducting applied-oriented research in collaboration with stakeholders from within and outside the world of the HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht.

Now, about one year after my appointment here, I am already feeling so energised by all the initiatives taken in the realm of practically-oriented research and education that I have no doubt that something as dry as the concept of justice, or access to justice, can contribute to social innovation. In addition, our students will play a leading role in facilitating access to justice, online and at the glocal level.

I should add that social innovation links up with a view of justice that is not only about conflict resolution or setting standards, but also - and most importantly - about changes in society. In a society in which digital communication is rapidly becoming the norm and in which the nation state is withdrawing from the social domain, the importance of global developments and their implementation at local level is bound to increase. In any case, I am happy to accept the challenge. Not to take up arms, but to devote myself to critical reflection on the importance of access to justice at the interface between the self-reliant and participation society.

It is only by focusing on these themes that research on law and society can make a real contribution to innovation in professional practice, higher education, and the implementation of human rights at the local level. External stakeholders also pose their particular challenges to the lectorate. I am thinking here of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, Utrecht University, regional neighbourhood and community teams, the Dutch Probation Service, and the Association of Mediators in Criminal Cases.

page 46

Final Words

I am also hoping to get the legal, social, security and other professionals who are being trained at the HU involved in the research and in bringing our university’s teaching up-to-date where necessary. In these efforts we shall be working in partnership with the Legal Empowerment Lab, which was set up in collaboration by the Law Institute, teaching staff, and students.

I am fortunate in having joined an existing, dynamic team in the form of the Centre for Social Innovation (KSI). After years in academia and social activism, it was a breath of fresh air to find myself working at a centre which strives for high quality but without a trace of jealously-guarded personal ambition. My fellow lectors, professors, provide valuable guidance in the sphere of social innovation and are a remarkable source of inspiration. In addition, I have been able to set up initiatives with several other institutes, including the Law Institute and the institutes of Social Work, Employment & Organisation and Safety and Security Management Studies. I have also worked with the reseach groups in Working with Mandated Clients, Social Work, and Social Security Knowledge Analysis. I hope that these partnerships will bear even more fruit in the future.

I should also like to thank a number of people by name. First of all, I want to thank the Board of Governors and in particular Anton Franken, the former faculty directors Loes Berendsen and Martha Stuy, and the director of the Law Institute Gerard Hupperetz recently succeeded by Esther Verboon. I am also grateful to my fellow lectors at Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, and in particular Anneke Menger, Andrea Donker, Lia van Doorn, and Laurens de Graaf; and to the staff of the Centre for Social Innovation, especially Helga Veldhuizen, Carla Entrop, Karen Schoenmaker, and Carolien Gelauff-Hanzon. I want to thank all those belonging to our knowledge network: Saire Akce, Ineke van den Berg, Matthijs Brouwer, Dorien Claessen, Lizet van Donkersgoed, Meine Jansma, Jos Janssen, Majda Lamkaddem, Tanja van Mazijk, Marion Uitslag, Maartje Vermeulen, and of course the external researchers who were involved as well:

page 47

Final Words

Gerdo Kuiper, Josien Roodnat, Annemarie van der Weert, and Daan Weggemans. Thanks to all the staff of the Law Institute and other researchers at HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to colleagues and former colleagues at Amnesty International and the Centre for Terrorism and Counterterrorism of Leiden University. Finally, of course, I want to thank my parents, my mother-in-law, my sisters, my husband, and my children. My father will be pleased that another Eijkman has finally nestled in Utrecht.

ANNEXES ABOUT THE AUTHOR 49 LITERATURE 51 CREDITS 60

page 49

About the Author

/ ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Quirine Eijkman (1975) is the lector, professor, in Access to Justice at the Centre for Social Innovation (KSI) of Utrecht University of Applied Sciences. She also works at the Institute of Security & Global Affairs (ISGA) of the University of Leiden, besides which she acts as a consultant for Justice Q&A. Her previous positions included Head of the Political & Media Advocacy Department at Amnesty International Dutch Section, secretary of the Human Rights Committee of the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV), policy officer in International Humanitarian Law at the Netherlands Red Cross, and junior researcher at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) of Utrecht University. She graduated from the Department of International Law and Criminal Law at the Free University of Amsterdam in 2001.

In 2007 she was awarded a PhD by the Law Faculty of Utrecht University on the strength of her dissertation on research on Public Security, Police Reform and Human Rights Implementation in Costa Rica. Her current research focuses on access to justice, legal self-reliance, and the primary and secondary effects on the rule of law arising from measures taken to strengthen security.

She also teaches at several courses in the realm of human rights and security, counterterrorism, cybergovernance, and international crisis and security management.

Quirine Eijkman sits on the Advisory Council for the Dutch Section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM). She has also a seat on the Advisory Council for Delitelabs, a pre-startup school for refugees and migrants. She is also a member of the Dutch Helsinki Committee. Quirine and her husband, Maarten Biermans, have three children (Theresa, Julius, and Oscar).

pag page 51

Literature

/ LITERATURE Amicus Curiae (2016). Letter to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, Public Interest Litigation Project (PILP) / Dutch Section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM), 19 October. Utrecht: Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, pp. 1-12.

Aubert, V. (1952). ‘White-collar crime and social structure’, The American Journal of Sociology, 58, pp. 263-271.

Aubert, V. (1983). In search of law: Sociological approaches to law. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Bang, H.P. (2005). ‘Among everyday makers and expert citizens’. J. Newman (ed.), Remaking governance: People, politics and the public sphere. Bristol: Polity Press, pp. 43-64.

Bang, H.P. & E. Sörensen (1999). The everyday maker: A new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21 (3), pp. 325-342.

Barendrecht, M., M. Gramatikov, J.H. Verdonschot & R. Porter (2012). Towards basic justice care for everyone: Challenges and promising approaches. Trend Report 1. The Hague: HiiL Innovating Justice.

Bell, B., F. Fasani & S. Machin (2013). Crime and immigration: Evidence from large immigrant waves. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95 (4), pp. 1278-1290.

Cappelletti, M. & B. Garth (ed.) (1978). Access to justice. Milan: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.

Cohen, R. & H. Clark (2015). The influence of digitalization: in what ways has the internet changed the central issues of access to justice? Recht Der Werkelijkheid, 36 (3), pp. 56-65.

Collard, S., D. Deeming, L. Wintersteiger & M. Jones (2011). Public legal education evaluation framework. Bristol: University of Bristol Personal Finance Research Centre.

Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (CRvdM) (2016). Mensenrechten in Nederland 2015: Jaarlijkse rapportage. Utrecht: Netherlands Institute for Human Rights.

Courmarelos, C., D. Macourt, J. People, H.M. McDonald, Z. Wei, I. Iriana (2012).

Legal Australia-wide survey: Legal need in Australia. Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales Sydney.

Currie, A. (2015). ‘Moving access to justice “Upstream” from the courts’. Recht Der Werkelijkheid, 36 (3), pp. 31-55.

pag page 52

Literature

Dierx, J., A. van Hoek, J. Blad, S. Hogenhuis & S. Jansen (2012). Mediation in strafzaken: De praktische toepassing van restorative justice en herstelrecht.

The Hague: Sdu Publishers.

Dominelli, L. (2009). Introducing social work, short introductions. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Durose, C., M. van Hulst, S. Jeffares, O. Escobar, A. Agger & L. de Graaf (2016).

‘Five ways to make a difference: Perceptions of practitioners working in urban neighbourhoods’. Public Administration Review, 76 (4), pp. 576-586.

Eijkman, Q. (2016). ‘Bestuurlijke daadkracht en toegang tot het recht: De lokale aanpak van jihadisme en radicalisering onder de loep’. Centre for Social Innovation (KSI) (ed.), Sociale innovatie in beeld: Kansen en uitdagingen. Utrecht: University of Applied Sciences.

Feyter, K.D. (2012). ‘Sites of rights resistance’. K.D. Feyter, S. Parmentier, C. Timmerman & G. Ulrich (ed.), The local relevance of human rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11-39.

Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) (2015). Access to justice in Europe: An overview of challenges and opportunities. Vienna: European Union (EU) FRA. Galanter, M. (1976). ‘The duty not to deliver legal services’. University of Miami Law Review 929, 30 (4), pp. 929-945.

Gemeente Utrecht (Municipality of Utrecht; 2011). ‘Mensenrechten in Utrecht.

Hoe geeft Utrecht invulling aan internationale mensenrechtenverdragen? Een stedelijke zoektocht naar sociale rechtvaardigheid.’ Communication posted on www. utrecht.nl, 11 June 2011.

Giulianotti, R. & G. Roberston (2007). Globalization and sport. London: Basil Blackwell.

Giulianotti, R. & G. Robertson (2004). ‘The globalization of football: A study in the glocalisation of the serious life’. British Journal of Sociology, 55 (4), pp. 545-568.

Giulianotti, R. & G. Robertson (2006). ‘Glocalisation, globalization and the migration: The case of Scottish football fans in North America?’ in International Sociology, 21 (2), pp. 171-198.

Giulianotti, R. & G. Robertson (2007). ‘Forms of glocalisation: Globalization and the migration strategies of Scottish football fans in North America?’. Sociology, 41 (1), pp. 133-152.

Giulianotti, R. & G. Robertson (2012). ‘Glocalization’. G. Ritzer (ed.), The WileyBlackwell Encyclopaedia of Globalizations. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Graaf, L.D., M. Hulst & A. Michiels (2015). ‘Enhancing participation in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods’. Local Government Studies, 41 (1), pp. 44-62.

pag page 53

Literature

Grootelaar, H.A.M., L. Venderbos, S.A.H. Vromen & H.J. van Harten (2014).

Toegang tot het recht: Een actueel portret. Een verkennend onderzoek naar relevante Nederlandse overheidsmaatregelen sinds 2008 en de gevolgen daarvan voor rechtzoekenden. Legal Services Counter. Utrecht: Montaigne Centre for Judicial Administration and Conflict of Utrecht University.

Hartman, C. & P.W. Tops (2005). Frontlijnsturing: Uitvoering op de publieke werkvloer van de stad. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for City Innovation Studies (NICIS).

Hartman, J., J. Knevel & D. Reynaert (2016). ‘Stel mensenrechten centraal in het sociaal werk! Manifest voor mensenrechten als belangrijke pijler van het sociaal werk en de opleidingen sociaal werk in het hoger onderwijs.’ Communication posted on http://www.socialevraagstukken.nl/stel-mensenrechten-centraal-in-het-sociaal-werk/, 26 May 2016.

Helsloot, I. & B. van ’t Padje (ed.) (2010). Zelfredzaamheid: Concepten, thema’s en voorbeelden nader beschouwd. Cambridge & The Hague: Boom Juridische Publishers.

Hendriks, F. & P.W. Tops (2005). ‘Everyday fixers as local heroes: A case study of vital interaction in urban governance’. Local Government Studies, 31 (4), pp. 475-490.

HiiL Innovating Justice (HiiL) (2015). ‘Zes Suggesties voor Verbetering van de Toegang tot het Recht’. The Hague: HiiL Innovating Justice.

HiiL Innovating Justice (HiiL) (2012). Law scenarios to 2030. The Hague: HiiL Innovating Justice.

Hildebrant, M. (2012). De rechtsstaat in cyberspace. Nijmegen: Radboud University, Nijmegen.

Hoff, R. van de (2013). Mastering the global transition on our way to society 3.0.

Utrecht: Society 3.0 Foundation.

Hubeau, B. (2015). ‘The legacy and current relevance of cappelletti and the Florence project on access to justice’. Recht Der Werkelijkheid, 36 (3), pp. 6-30.

Hudson, B. & S. Ugelvik (2012). Justice and security in the 21st century: Risks, rights and the rule of law. New York: Routledge.

Hulst, M. van, L. de Graaf & G. van den Brink (2011). ‘Exemplary practitioners: A review of actors who make a difference in governing’. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33 (1), pp. 120-142.

Human Rights Utrecht Blogspot (2012). ‘Hoge Commissaris voor de Rechten van de Mens verklaart Utrecht tot eerste mensenrechtenstad van Nederland’.

Communication posted to http://humanrightsutrecht.blogspot.nl/2012/10/hogecommissaris-verklaart-utrecht-tot.html, 2 October 2012.

page 54

Literature

Johnston, L. & C. Shearing (2003). Governing security: Exploring policing and justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

Jönsson, J. H. (2015). ‘The contested field of social work in a retreating welfare state: The case of Sweden’. Critical and Radical Social Work, 3 (3), pp. 357-374.

Centre for Social Innovation (KSI) (2016). Sociale innovatie in beeld: Kansen en uitdagingen. Utrecht: Utrecht University of Applied Sciences.

Khondker, H.H. (2004). ‘Glocalisation or globalisation: Evolution of a sociological concept’. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, 1 (2), pp. 1-9.

Khondker, H.H. (2005). ‘Glocalisation to globalisation: A conceptual exploration’.

Intellectual Discourse, 13 (2), pp. 181-199.

Kinderombudsman (Children’s Ombudsman) (2013). ‘Van leerplicht naar leerrecht: Adviesrapport over waarborging van het recht op onderwijs naar aanleiding van het onderzoek naar thuiszitters’. Advisory Report, Children’s Ombudsman 2/2013. The Hague: Children’s Ombudsman.

Knoops, B.J. & M. Goodwin (2014). Cyberspace, the cloud and cross-border criminal investigation: The limits and possibilities of international law. Tilburg: Tilburg University, Institute for Technology, Law and Society.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Madern, T. & N. Jungmann (2011). Hulp aan vrijwilligers bij projecten thuisadministratie en schuldpreventie: Verkenning van mogelijkheden voor gemeenten en vrijwilligersorganisaties. Utrecht: National Institute for Family Finance Information (NIBUD).

Maynard-Moody, S. & M. Musheno (2003). Cops, teachers, counsellors, stories from the frontline of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Maynard-Moody, S. & M. Musheno (2012). ‘Social equities and social inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists’. American Public Administration Review, 72 (S.1), pp. 16-24.

Ministry of Security & Justice (MvJ) (2011). Aan de slag met BIBOB: Onderzoek naar knelpunten in de toepassing van de wet BIBOB door gemeenten. Public Order and Safety Inspectorate. The Hague: Ministry of Security & Justice.

Munneke, S. (2016). ‘Maatwerk, gelijkheid en zeggenschap’. In G. Vonk, A. Klingenberg, S. Munneke & A. Tollenaar (ed.), Decentralisaties in het sociale domain vragen om groot onderhoud aan Stelsel van rechtsbescherming. Groningen: University of Groningen, pp. 63-96.

page 55

Literature

Noordegraaf, M., S. Douglas, A. Bos & W. Klem (2016). Gericht, gedragen en geborgd interventievermogen: Evaluatie contra-terrorisme strategie 2011-2015.

The Hague: Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Ministry of Security & Justice.

Nussbaum, M. (1998). Sex and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach.

Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.

Nyst, C. (2016). Travel guide to the digital world: Cybersecurity policy for human rights defenders. Global Partners Digital: London.

Ombudsman (2013). Burgerperspectief een manier van kijken: Verslag van de nationale ombudsman over 2015, House of Representatives (TK) 2015-2015, 34 410, no. 1). The Hague: House of Representatives of the States-General.

Oomen, B. (2013). Rights for others: The slow home-coming of human rights in the Netherlands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009). Focus on citizens: Public engagement for better policy and services. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Peysner, J. (2014). Access to justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pound, R. (1910). Law in the books and law in action. American Law Review, 44, pp.

12-36.

Raad van State (Council of State, RvS) (2015). Advies Raad van State inzake voorstel van de wet tot wijziging van de wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek in verband met de selectieve woningtoewijzing ter beperking van overlastgevend en crimineel gedrag, met memorie van toelichting (W04.15.0092/I 5 June 2015). The Hague: Council of State.

Raad voor de Rechtsspraak (RVS) (2014). Democratie en rechtsspraak explicieter in de grondwet (4 July 2014). The Hague: Council for the Judiciary.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice (revised edition 1999). Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. (1999). Een theorie van rechtvaardigheid. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat.

Rhode, D.L. (2004). Access to justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rhode, D.L. (2009). ‘Whatever happened to access to justice’. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 42 (4), pp. 869-912.

Ritzer, G. (1993/2000). The McDonaldization of society. London: Sage.

Ritzer, G. (2003). ‘Rethinking globalization: Glocalisation/grobalization and something/nothing’. Social Theory, 3 (2), pp. 193-209.

page 56

Literature

Ritzer, G. (2004/2006). The globalization of nothing. Thousand Oaks, California, US: Pine Forge Press.

Ritzer, G. (2007). Introduction. The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1-14.

Roberston, G. (2001). ‘Globalization theory 2000+: Major problematics’. In G. Ritzer, & B. Smart (ed.), Handbook of social theory. London: Sage, pp. 458-471.

Roberston, G. (2004). ‘The conceptual promise of glocalisation: Commonality and diversity’. Artefact, 4.

Roberston, G., & K.E. White (2007). ‘What is globalization?’ In G. Ritzer (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 54-66.

Robertson, G. (1994). ‘Globalization or glocalisation?’ The Journal of International Communication, 1 (1), pp. 35-52.

Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage.

Robertson, R. (1995). ‘Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity’. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash & R. Robertson (ed.), Global modernities. London: Sage, pp. 25-54.

Robertson, R. (2006). ‘Glocalization’. In R. Robertson, & J.A. Scholte (ed.), Encyclopaedia of globalization (2nd edition), New York: Routledge, pp. 545-548.

Robertson, R. (2013). ‘Situating glocalization: A relatively autobiographical intervention’. In G.S. Drori, M.A. Höllerer & P. Walgenbach (ed.), Global themes and local variations in organizations and management: Perspectives on glocalization. New York: Routledge, pp. 25-36.

Rooij, B. van, & I. van de Meene (2008). Access to justice and legal empowerment, making the poor central in legal development cooperation. Leiden: University of Leiden.

Roudometof, V. (2015). ‘The glocal and global studies’. Journal of Globalizations, 12 (5), pp. 774-787.

Roudometof, V. (2016). ‘Theorizing glocalisation’. European Journal of Social Theory, 19 (3), pp. 391-408.

Sen, A. (2011). The idea of justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Sen, A. (2013). Het idee van rechtvaardigheid. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat.

Stichting Lezen en Schrijven (Dutch Reading & Writing Foundation; SLS) (2016).

‘Laaggeletterdheid’. Communication posted on 17 November to www.lezenenschrijven.nl.

Susskind, R. (1996). The future of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tollenaar, A. (2016). ‘Humane rechtsbetrekking in de lokale verzorgingsstaat’. In Vonk. G., A. Klingenberg, S. Munneke & A. Tollenaar (ed.), Decentralisaties in het sociale domain vragen om groot onderhoud aan stelsel van rechtsbescherming.

Groningen: University of Groningen, pp. 27-60.

page 57

Literature

Tonkens, E.H. (2009). Tussen onderschatten en overvragen: Actief burgerschap en activerende organisaties in de wijk. Nijmegen: SUN. Tonkens, E.H. (2014). Vijf misvattingen over de participatiesamenleving. Valedictory address, 1 May 2014. Amsterdam: University van Amsterdam.

Tops, P.W. (2003). Uitvoering, uitvoering, uitvoering. The Hague: Dutch Knowledge Centre for Larger Towns and Cities (Kenniscentrum Grote Steden).

Transitiecommissie Sociaal Domein (TSD) (2016a). Decentralisaties in het sociaal domein: Wie houdt er niet van kakelbont, essays over de relatie tussen burger en bestuur. The Hague: Central Government.

Transitiecommissie Sociaal Domein (TSD) (2016b). Vierde rapportage van transitie commissie sociaal domein: Eén sociaal domein No. TSD 16-001, 25 February 2016.

The Hague: Central Government.

House of Representatives (2016). Cijfers leerplicht en aanpak thuiszitters House of Representatives (TK) 2015-2016, 26 695, no. 108. The Hague: House of Representatives of the States-General.

Troonrede (Speech from the Throne, 2013). Speech from the Throne (17 September 2013). The Hague: States-General.

Voert, M.J. ter (2014). ‘Toegang tot het recht in beweging: Over burgers en hun oplossingsstrategieën’. Justitiële Verkenningen, 40 (1), pp. 62-77.

Voert, M.J. ter, & C.M. Klein Haarhuis (2015). De geschillenbeslechtingsdelta 2014: Over verloop en afloop van (potentieel) juridische problemen van burgers. The Hague: Boom Lemma Publishers / Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Ministry of Security & Justice.

Uitslag, M. (2016). ‘Mediation: Meer regie over eigen conflicten’. In Centre for Social Innovation (KSI) (ed.), Sociale innovatie in beeld: Kansen en uitdagingen.

Utrecht: Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, pp. 48-58.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2005). Programming for justice: Access for all: A Practitioner’s guide to human rights-based approach to access to justice. Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme.

United Nations Global Goals (UNGG) (2015). Sustainable global goals for development. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2006). Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes. Vienna: Criminal Justice Handbook Series.

United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) (2009). United Nations SecretaryGeneral’s report on legal empowerment of the poor and eradication of poverty, No. A/64/133. New York: United Nations.

page 58

Literature

Vago, S. (2012). Law & society. London: Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education.

Vonk, G., A. Klingenberg, S. Munneke & A. Tollenaar (2016). Decentralisaties in het sociale domain vragen om groot onderhoud aan stelsel van rechtsbescherming.

Groningen: University of Groningen.

Watchthemed (2016). Reports. Communication posted to http://watchthemed.net, 10 July 2016.

Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. London: Routledge.

Werkman, R. (2015). ‘Sociale wijkteams onder druk: Een veranderkundig perspectief’. Tijdschrift Voor Conflicthantering, 2, pp. 9-13.

Westerveld, M. (2016). Toegang tot het recht en de stelselvernieuwing rechtsbijstand II. Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), 29 (1472), pp. 2064-2071.

Wet Bijzondere Maatregelen Grootstedelijke Problematiek (Urban Areas (Special Measures) Act; Wbmgp) (2016). ‘De wijziging van de Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek in verband met de selectieve woningtoewijzing ter beperking van overlastgevend en crimineel gedrag’ (De Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek), 34 314 no. A, 12 July 2016, The Hague: Senate of the States-General.

Wijdeven, T. van, L. de Graaf & F. Hendriks (2013). Actief burgerschap: Lijnen in de literatuur. Tilburg: Tilburg School of Politics and Public Administration.

Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Scottsdale: Herald Press.

page 60

Credits

/ CREDITS Author Quirine Eijkman, PhD Editing Mariek Hilhorst Translation Beverley Jackson Photography Ed van Rijswijk Design Vuur, Utrecht Access to Justice research group, 9 February 2017, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht Public lecture Access to Justice Goes Glocal Address Centre for Social Innovation (KSI) Padualaan 101 3584 CH Utrecht The Netherlands

Postal address Kenniscentrum Sociale Innovatie (KSI) / Centre for Social Innovation Postbus 85397 3508 AJ Utrecht The Netherlands

Tel. +31 (0)88 481 9831 E-mail ksi@hu.nl quirine.eijkman@hu.nl Website www.onderzoek.hu.nl/kenniscentra/ sociale-innovatie/toegang-tot-recht

ISBN (EAN) 978-90-8928-104-3 February 2017, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht

ISBN (EAN) 978-90-8928-104-3 February 2017, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht

ACCESS TO JUSTICE GOES GLOCAL

fmr_bo_ksi0217_v

PUBLIC LECTURE QUIRINE EIJKMAN

ACCESS TO JUSTICE RESEARCH GROUP CENTRE FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION (KSI)