Project description

Different legal systems, such as common law and civil law, can judge very similar cases in very different ways. But does that mean that citizens from within such jurisdictions have different beliefs about what is fair in such cases? This project examines this question by comparing the perspectives of citizens from different jurisdictions on cases that are judged differently by their legal systems. Preliminary research has examined this question by comparing the Netherlands with the UK. Despite the differences between how their legal systems resolve these cases, citizens from either jurisdiction nevertheless showed similar justice preferences for the majority of cases (e.g., liability for children; compensation for grief). However, the results also indicated notable differences in justice preferences for particular cases (e.g., neglecting to intervene in the case of drowning), in line with the differing resolution by their legal systems. Insights from this project thereby will provide important input for the debate on legal harmonization, by illuminating whether (and where) “legal culture” may pose an obstacle to this.

Relevant publications and works in progress:

• van Boom, W.H., Reinders Folmer, C.P., & Desmet, P.T.M. (2018). Vergelijkende rechtscultuur en aansprakelijkheidsrecht – een verkennend experiment. Recht der Werkelijkheid, 39, 14-29.
• van Boom, W., Desmet, P.T.M., & Reinders Folmer, C.P., Eds. (2015), Privaatrecht in het laboratorium: verslag van acht rechtspsychologische experimenten. Boom Juridische Uitgevers.