Macro-effecten in het aansprakelijkheidsrecht: Een juridisch-empirisch onderzoek naar de (wenselijke) rol van maatschappelijke impact in de rechterlijke oordeelsvorming

Abstract

The role and position of the judge are constantly evolving. Due to dissatisfaction with the (lack of) solutions from the Dutch government to societal issues, interest groups are increasingly using the courtroom as an arena to achieve (their desired) societal changes. Consider recent cases on climate change, the export of aircraft components by the Netherlands to Israel, or the Dutch asylum system. Such cases have far-reaching societal consequences. At the same time, judges are expected to complement the legislature by further developing the law — for example, by interpreting rules and filling in open norms. People and businesses subsequently adjust their behavior based on the results of such judicial lawmaking. Here too, the consequences of a judicial decision extend beyond the individual dispute. As a result of the foregoing, judges are increasingly confronted with the potential societal consequences of their rulings. In such cases, macro consequences arise. But what should judges do with such potential effects of their judgments? If a judge wishes to consider macro-effects in their decision-making, this raises complex questio. For instance, how can they obtain relevant information beyond the parties involved when they have to base their judgment solely on the input of the litigating parties? And how far can they go in considering macro-effects without encroaching on the political domain? This research aims to provide judges with a compass to navigate between the domains of society, the litigating parties, and politics in tort cases where macro consequences may arise