The Remuneration of Members of Parliament. (Supervisors: Prof. dr. L.F.M. (Leonard) Besselink and Prof. dr. C.M. (Carla) Zoethout (Open Universiteit).)

Decisions of members of parliament to increase their own pay invariably cause public outrage. The resulting image of a detached, self-interested political class poses a real thread to the functioning of our democracies. Meeting this challenge requires a keen understanding of the underlying constitutional dilemmas. Does the parliamentarian’s role require increased financial independence or is equality to his voters the paramount characteristic of the representative? Is the question of representatives’ remuneration of intrinsically political nature, or can objective criteria neutralize it? Will the legislature’s ultimate accountability to the electorate provide the desired check and how can its effectiveness be ensured in practice? Which role might an outside regulator play and how could it be independent and legitimate at the same time? This PhD research will investigate how Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom answer those questions. It will show commonalities in approach, but also differences that demonstrate a notable divergence in constitutional thinking and practice within Europe.

Defending European Democracies: Democratic Legitimacy and the Constitutional Organisation of Military Authority in Europe (working title). (Supervisor: Prof. dr. L.F.M. (Leonard) Besselink.)

Defending European Democracies examines the constitutional conditions under which military authority can be organised and exercised at the European level. The deterioration of the European security environment, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and growing uncertainty regarding the long-term American security commitment to Europe have revived debates on European defence integration. While discussions often focus on military effectiveness, strategic autonomy and institutional design, considerably less attention has been devoted to the democratic and constitutional conditions under which military authority could be exercised beyond the nation state. The study first develops a normative framework for the democratic legitimacy of military decision-making. It subsequently analyses the constitutional traditions of France, Germany and the Netherlands concerning both decisions on the use of force and European integration. Building on this analysis, the book develops a typology of potential European Defence Structures and assesses their constitutional feasibility within the European constitutional order. Constitutional pluralism and differentiated integration play a central role as potential foundations for future European defence integration. The book seeks to contribute to constitutional and European legal scholarship by examining how democratic legitimacy, political accountability and military effectiveness can be reconciled in the exercise of military authority beyond the nation state.

Constitutionele Politiek [Constitutional Politics]. (Supervisors: prof. mr. J. (Jerfi) Uzman and Mr. dr. drs. N. (Niels) Graaf (co-promotor).)

This study focuses on constitutional politics: a form of politics that consists of implementing the constitution, which is understood as a form of higher law (“leges fundamentales). Constitutional politics comes in different forms and shapes. In its most extreme form, the constitution is presented as a blueprint that governs political life down to the last detail; in milder variants, the constitution may, for example, be invoked as a compass that points in the right direction.

This project involves a conceptual and legal-historical analysis of constitutional politics as a phenomenon. However, it is also interested in the underlying belief that politics ought to be “constitutional”, and what implications this conviction has for politicians: what does the constitution actually demand of them? For this reason, political practice is examined in light of the intellectual development of thinking about this practice. The research thus encompasses more than a study of political craftsmanship. It also seeks to understand this craftsmanship in relation to scholarly views on what politics should look like. After all, scholarship and practice do not develop in isolation from one another: there is always a cross-pollination. The research therefore also addresses constitutional and legal-philosophical views on the (political) significance of the constitution and how politicians should fulfill their duties.

Effective judicial protection in times of crisis. (Supervisors: prof. mr. J. (Jerfi) Uzman and prof. mr. R. (Rolf) Ortlep.)

Laurien Nijenhuis writes a dissertation on the role of the judiciary in times of crisis. Current times are characterized by large societal challenges worldwide. In politics and media these challenges have often been portrayed as ‘crises’, such as the climate change crisis, the COVID-19 crisis, the energy crisis, and the migration crisis. These crises are characterized and sometimes also partly caused by governments struggling to address them in an appropriate manner. Remarkably, both government intervention and government inaction have resulted in citizens going to court. Well-known Dutch examples include case law concerning a curfew that was imposed during COVID-19 and the Urgenda case. In the case about the COVID-19 curfew the government was accused of ‘overacting’, whereas in the Urgenda case the government was criticized for failing to take sufficient action against climate change. The research focuses on the question of whether and under which circumstances courts in crisis-related cases are entitled or even obliged to intervene when citizens’ fundamental rights are at stake. Central to the project is the tension between the principle of effective legal protection on the one hand and the principle of separation of powers on the other. In addition, the research examines to what extent the nature of a crisis influences this balancing exercise.

Vrij spel? De inzet van publieke prijsvragen ter toekenning van geld en grond door overheidsorganisaties [The Prize We Pay. The Use of Prize-Backed Competitions by Public Authorities to Award Money and Land]. (Supervisors: prof. mr. J.E. (Jacobine) and den Brink en prof. mr. drs. W. (Willemien) den Ouden.)

In many policy areas, public authorities make use of prize-backed competitions: competitions in which citizens and businesses are challenged to propose solutions to societal challenges. The winner receives money or land. In doing so, public authorities do not have a free hand. But which rules apply to these competitions?

This dissertation is the first to systematically map the law of public prize-backed competitions of Dutch public authorities. Drawing on 144 prize-backed competitions with a total value of over sixty million euros, it examines which legal relationships can arise between the public authority and participants, the rules applicable to those relationships, and to what extent those rules are complied with. In this context, public procurement law, subsidy law, intellectual property law, and European Union law are studied in conjunction.

The result is a general legal‑normative framework for public prize-backed competitions, derived from three legal archetypes: the prize-backed competition as a public procurement procedure, as a subsidy allocation procedure, and as a private law relationship. On the basis of this framework, the author formulates concrete recommendations for public authorities, competition participants, legislators, and courts. In this way, the dissertation aims to contribute to the effective and lawful use of the knowledge and innovation capacity present in society.

Staatsnoodrecht in ontwikkeling. Een beschouwing van de systematiek, toepassing en modernisering van het Nederlandse staatsnoodrecht [Emergency law in progress. An analysis of the system, use and modernization of Dutch emergency law]. (Supervisors: prof. mr. A.J.C (Adrienne) de Moor- van Vugt and prof. mr. J. (Jerfi) Uzman.)

This study examines the structure, application, and modernization of modern Dutch constitutional emergency law. The structure and coherence of the emergency law framework are assessed in light of the financial crisis (2007–2009), the COVID-19 crisis (2020–2021), and the current modernization of constitutional emergency law. The study also investigates parliamentary involvement in the application of emergency powers and the judicial review thereof. The study concludes, among others, that non-statutory emergency powers are less suitable for regulating far-reaching emergency measures than formally activated emergency legislation. The study also concludes that the diversity of legal criteria governing the application of constitutional emergency law leads to reduced legal certainty, and that the current modernization plans will not achieve the government's objective of creating a coherent and transparent emergency law framework.

With a view to establishing a clear, coherent, and flexible system of constitutional emergency law, the study formulates a number of findings and recommendations, thereby centralizing the concept of  ‘extraordinary circumstances’. Among other things, the study finds that the standardization of constitutional emergency law is both possible and necessary through the adoption of a single application criterion and a single activation procedure. The study therefore recommends harmonizing formally activated emergency legislation and non-statutory emergency powers by applying one uniform criterion: ‘in the event of extraordinary circumstances.’

Revolverende fondsen als overheidsfinancieringsinstrument. De beginselen van de democratische rechtsstaat getoetst [Revolving funds as a financial governmental instrument. The principles of a democracy under the rule of law examined] - defended at the University of Amsterdam, 14 november 2025. (Supervisors: prof. mr. J.E. (Jacobine) van den Brink and prof. mr. R. (Rolf) Ortlep.)

The government provides funding in various ways to help get societally relevant projects by citizens and companies off the ground. One of these ways is through a revolving fund. Unlike a traditional subsidy, a revolving fund provides loans, guarantees, and equity participations, with the aim of having money flow back into the fund. Ideally, this allows the same public funds to be used multiple times: the money revolves.

This dissertation examines how the government gives legal form to revolving funds and what consequences this design has for safeguarding the principles of a democracy under the rule of law. It offers concrete recommendations for the legislature, public administration, revolving funds, and the judiciary on how the principles of a democracy under the rule of law can best be protected when using revolving funds. The dissertation is therefore valuable for anyone concerned with the rule of law, semi-public corporate law, and administrative law, in particular subsidy law.

The Art of Restitution: Pursuing Justice Through Restitution Committees for Nazi-Looted Art - defended at Utrecht University, 17 Oktober 2025. (Supervisors: prof. dr. M. (Marc) de Wilde and prof. mr. W. (Wouter) Veraart (VU Amsterdam.)

Looted art has long been associated with war, but the Nazi regime elevated cultural plunder to an unprecedented scale, making it a central instrument in the persecution of Jews and other targeted groups. Early post-war restitution proved limited, and since the late 1990s new mechanisms were established in response to international calls for long-overdue justice.

This thesis examines the evolving approaches to Nazi-looted art restitution in Austria, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, focusing on the committees created to adjudicate such claims. It argues that a paradigm shift has occurred: from a strictly legal to a morally driven, victim-centred framework. These committees prioritize recognition of suffering and procedural justice, yet face the challenge of balancing legal certainty with morally just outcomes.

From an institutional perspective, the study shows that all three committees deliberately departed from traditional legal frameworks, favouring flexible procedures and accessibility. While initially praised, this informality exposed weaknesses such as lack of transparency, juridification, and dependence on the executive. Substantively, their approaches diverge: Austria remains rooted in legal doctrine, the UK embraces moral reasoning, and the Netherlands has developed a discretionary framework that increasingly acknowledges historical injustices and victim agency.

Engaging with scholarly debates, this thesis advocates a hybrid model that embeds moral reasoning within a legal framework. Sustainable legitimacy requires legal safeguards to ensure transparency, independence, and procedural clarity, while leaving space for moral considerations. Only such a hybrid paradigm can reconcile legal structure with recognition of historical injustice, strengthening victims’ agency and ensuring context-sensitive restitution.