Research Jan Velaers

Abstract

Several fields, in which linguistic challenges generated by linguistic diversity occur, have received considerable attention in the scientific literature. Studies on the interactions between the administration and allophones3 within the current linguist diversity are however rather limited, despite the fact that several sources indicate that the existing language laws are experienced as difficult to implement in practice. The importance of the language used in these administrative contacts cannot be underestimated, as it has an influence on an individual's access to administrative services and the subsequent enjoyment of their rights, as well as on the functioning of these services. The aim of this research is to provide an empirical insight into this lesser researched field in the recent literature. This research project examines the existing practices and the formulated needs in interactions between allophones and local administrative services. It aims at providing an insider's perspective – from the point of view of both administrative authorities and allophones – on how the relevant actors are dealing with linguistic diversity and which tensions are generated between the applicable norms and the practice. Within this research the focus is on the Sorbian minority and Turkish speakers in Germany, as well as on French and Turkish speakers in the Dutch language area of Belgium. This selection encompasses (possible) 'old' and 'new' minorities, which currently enjoy a different legal protection. Germany has ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and recognizes the Sorbs as a minority, but not 'Turkish people'4. Belgium has not ratified the Framework Convention, given the difficulties with defining the concept of national minority in the Belgian context as well as with the legal obligations generated by the treaty. This research considers several administrative services, selected on the basis of criteria, such as the interfering side, the urgency of the interaction and the presence of a certain target group. This has led to the following selection of administrative services, namely disaster and emergency communication, municipal registration office, waste collection, emergency calls, local ombudsmen, and social services. The selection of municipalities, where the research was conducted, is based on the presence of persons belonging to the selected groups, previous language related incidents and the apparent language policy of local authorities.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan
• Fellow: Bernaerts Jonathan

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Who should make statutory laws? The legislature! The answer to this question seems self-evident. Still, all legislatures in Europe pass on some of their power to make statutes to other actors. Traditionally, legislative power has been conferred to the executive. More recently, independent agencies and private actors are receiving legislative powers. Whereas the executive was still controlled by voters or by parliamentary representatives of the voters, these 'non-democratically legitimized actors' are not or to a lesser extent. When may the legislature outsource to these non-democratically legitimized actors? Which guarantees must be met in the norms of these actors? Constitutions are mostly silent on these fundamental questions. Therefore, policy makers, politicians and legal practitioners remain in the dark on the legal sustainability and outer limits of legislative outsourcing to non-democratically legitimized actors. This research first aims to derive, from existing treaties, constitutions and statutes, the constitutional principles that determine the limits for legislatures to confer their legislative powers. Second, the research establishes minimum legal safeguards that the norms, made by nondemocratically legitimized actors pursuant to legislative outsourcing, must meet. Ultimately the comparative conclusions for Belgium, France, Germany and the UK will enable us to understand a crucial practice in modern European law-making.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan
• Co-promoter: Velaers Jan
• Fellow: Jenart Cedric

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Who should make statutory laws? The legislature! The answer to this question seems self-evident. Still, all legislatures in Europe pass on some of their power to make statutes to other actors. Traditionally, legislative power has been conferred to the executive. More recently, independent agencies and private actors are receiving legislative powers. Whereas the executive was still controlled by voters or by parliamentary representatives of the voters, these 'non-democratically legitimized actors' are not or to a lesser extent. When may the legislature outsource to these non-democratically legitimized actors? Which guarantees must be met in the norms of these actors? Constitutions are mostly silent on these fundamental questions. Therefore, policy makers, politicians and legal practitioners remain in the dark on the legal sustainability and outer limits of legislative outsourcing to non-democratically legitimized actors. This research first aims to derive, from existing treaties, constitutions and statutes, the constitutional principles that determine the limits for legislatures to confer their legislative powers. Second, the research establishes minimum legal safeguards that the norms, made by nondemocratically legitimized actors pursuant to legislative outsourcing, must meet. Ultimately the comparative conclusions for Belgium, France, Germany and the UK will enable us to understand a crucial practice in modern European law-making.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan
• Fellow: Jenart Cedric

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project aims to offer a systematic empirical understanding of the functioning of the Belgian Constitutional Court within the Belgian consociational system, its role as a venue for legal deliberation and its task to uphold key constitutional principles. This research explores both the performance of the court as guardian of consensus democracy and the deliberative quality of its judgments. It examines the tensions flowing from this dual role, and investigates how the court deals with these tensions.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Co-promoter: Beyers Jan
• Co-promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The research project will be made up of four parts: 1. First, we will investigate which fundamental principles in fact underlie the current devision of powers in the Belgian federal system. To this end, the judgments of the Court of Arbitration and the advices of the Council of State, Legislation section, will be systematically analysed. Central to this investigation is above all the question of the degree to which the exclusivity principle should or should not be reassessed. 2. In the second part, we will research the extent to which the development under way in Belgium can be explained in terms of the concepts of a "cooperative federal state" and of "multilevel governance". In this part a limited and strictly functional comparison will be made with regard to the phenomena of non-exclusive exercise of powers in other federal states. As well, insights will be presented from the legislative theory of "mulitlevel governance" in a federal context. 3. The third part will examine - by means of the (scarce) European jurisprudence and the practice of the transposition of European directives into national law - whether European law can also shed light on this development. 4. Finally, research will be conducted into whether it is necessary and/or desirable further to refine the rules, in the Constitution and in the special Institutional Reform Act of 8 August 1980, governing the division of powers, including those regarding cooperative federalism, with a view to ensuring a consistent exercise of these powers.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan
• Co-promoter: Meeusen Johan
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Sottiaux Stefan
• Co-promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project adresses the principles of repartition of powers in the Belgian federal system. It aims at detecting these principles through an analysis of the case law of the constitutional court and the advices of the Council of State, at interpreting them in the light of the theory of the "cooperative federal state" and at examining their compliance with European law.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project represents a formal research agreement between UA and on the other hand the Flemish Public Service. UA provides the Flemish Public Service research results mentioned in the title of the project under the conditions as stipulated in this contract.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: De Feyter Koen
• Co-promoter: Cuyvers Ludo
• Co-promoter: Melissen Jan
• Co-promoter: Renard Robrecht
• Co-promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

• Law and Development

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The project aims at analysing, in a comparative way, the interaction of the national and European courts in the protection of human rights against legislative and regulatory action, or the lack thereof. It treats the relations between national courts as well as the interaction of the Court of Justice with national courts. Special consideration is given to the European dimension. In order to ensure the full effect of Community law, Member States must organise their judicial system in such a way that any provision of national law which conflicts with Community law can be set aside. In the field of human rights, national courts thus have to combine the protection afforded within their national legal order with the obligations flowing from Community law as well as with the minimum level of protection imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The project examines how problems and bottle-necks can be solved within the existing framework of judicial protection; and to what extent the existing system of judicial protection should be reformed in order to achieve an efficient and coherent system of human rights protection, in which judicial decisions are given within a reasonable period of time.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Popelier Patricia
• Co-promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

A comparitive study of the law of the Member States of the European Unioan related tot the powers of national Parliaments to require governments and other executive bodies to produce documents in their possesion, in particular reports and minutes related to internal administrative enquiries.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan
• Co-promoter: Rimanque Karel
• Co-promoter: Van den Broeck Bob

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The influence of recent social-economic research on law and jurisprudence. Receptionof growing concern for the poor in law through legal definitions and open legal concepts.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Cuypers Daniël
• Co-promoter: Cantillon Bea
• Co-promoter: Tanghe Fernand
• Co-promoter: Velaers Jan
• Co-promoter: Vranken Jan

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Although the obligation of demanding the advice of the Council of State was already introduced in 1946, with the law on the Council of State, there has, in our country, never been any systematic study of this advisory practice. Namely, there has never been any study of the extent to which the advice given by the Council of State is actually followed. This study would like to give insight into an important problem, namely the advice of the Council of State in constitutional matters.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

After studying and comparing cases in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Great-Britain, Holland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and the United States, proposals will be made for a standardized interpretation of the nation of refugee as defined by the Geneva Convention of july 28, 1951.

Researcher(s)

• Co-promoter: Velaers Jan

Research team(s)

Project type(s)

• Research Project