WEBVTT 00:00:04.957 --> 00:00:09.457 Hi, I'm Paul Verschoor, and together with my colleague Andreas Roepstorff, 00:00:09.497 --> 00:00:15.317 we are speaking in this episode with Ernst Numa about collaboration in the judicial system. 00:00:16.117 --> 00:00:22.297 Ernst began his career as an attorney and received his first judicial appointment in 1983. 00:00:23.157 --> 00:00:28.077 In 2000, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands and served 00:00:28.077 --> 00:00:32.757 as its vice-president from 2011 until his recent retirement. 00:00:33.437 --> 00:00:38.217 Ernst, just to kick off the discussion, could you give us a short description 00:00:38.217 --> 00:00:43.157 of your professional trajectory that brought you in that position of being vice 00:00:43.157 --> 00:00:44.637 president of the national court? 00:00:46.017 --> 00:00:51.877 Yes, well, I started, I worked two years. 00:00:51.957 --> 00:01:01.937 I was in a position at university, And then I started, I was 26 at the time, as a lawyer, 00:01:02.177 --> 00:01:09.757 attorney in The Hague, which I did for about six and a half years, I think. 00:01:09.757 --> 00:01:16.397 And then I was appointed in the district court of The Hague, 00:01:16.497 --> 00:01:24.017 where I did both civil and criminal cases. 00:01:25.537 --> 00:01:34.497 After a couple of years, I think five years, we moved to Curacao, 00:01:34.777 --> 00:01:41.037 where I served four years, during four years, as a member of the Court of Appeal 00:01:41.037 --> 00:01:44.657 of the Netherlands, Antilles, as it was called at the time. 00:01:45.637 --> 00:01:52.757 Then I returned to The Hague, back to the district court where I became vice president, 00:01:53.037 --> 00:01:58.857 until in 2000 I was called to the Supreme Court, 00:01:59.017 --> 00:02:14.337 where I served exactly 20 years until the end of the month. 00:02:14.657 --> 00:02:22.997 Turned 70 where for legal reasons your appointment ends and you are being retired. 00:02:24.102 --> 00:02:28.782 Right. So that's roughly what I did professionally. 00:02:29.342 --> 00:02:34.962 Okay. So now, how would you define collaboration? So what is it? 00:02:38.122 --> 00:02:43.002 Jack, it is a very, very general term, of course, notion. 00:02:43.722 --> 00:02:49.662 Cooperation is what people do to 00:02:49.662 --> 00:03:00.722 gain certain goals which they are either willing or bound to strive for. 00:03:02.042 --> 00:03:12.562 And probably every way they try to reach that goal without blocking talking 00:03:12.562 --> 00:03:15.222 to each other could be called cooperation, 00:03:15.642 --> 00:03:21.262 but cooperation can of course be very intense or less. 00:03:21.722 --> 00:03:36.262 You can cooperate probably with having different goals as long as your interests are the same, 00:03:36.382 --> 00:03:44.222 but generally I would say there is a common goal you have to reach, 00:03:45.982 --> 00:03:48.602 where you need cooperation. 00:03:50.022 --> 00:03:56.322 Okay, so you emphasize the issue of goals, common goals, but then in your professional 00:03:56.322 --> 00:04:02.142 experience would you look at these processes of collaboration in different domains? 00:04:05.188 --> 00:04:08.248 Yeah, there is cooperation in several levels. 00:04:08.428 --> 00:04:16.528 First, in individual cases, the lawyers have completely adversary goals, mostly. 00:04:17.388 --> 00:04:25.948 The goal of the court, of a judge, is to reach a fair outcome, a fair decision, 00:04:26.248 --> 00:04:34.088 applying the law, whatever that may be at the time. 00:04:35.008 --> 00:04:40.408 But in order to reach that goal, there must be even between the two advisory 00:04:40.408 --> 00:04:49.248 parties and the judge some cooperation, because you have to go through the procedure together. 00:04:53.408 --> 00:05:01.188 Notwithstanding the fact that the procedure respects the contrary interests of the parties, 00:05:01.188 --> 00:05:11.708 But you have to cooperate in a certain way under the supervision of the judge 00:05:11.708 --> 00:05:15.688 who has to make decisions, if necessary, 00:05:16.108 --> 00:05:17.688 about the procedure itself. 00:05:19.868 --> 00:05:24.428 But that results in a certain form of cooperation. 00:05:25.808 --> 00:05:30.808 And then you have the cooperation between the judges to reach their decision. 00:05:32.588 --> 00:05:38.748 There can be quite different views on the situation, but, 00:05:40.288 --> 00:05:49.208 finally, there is only one decision which will be the formal one, the one who is brought. 00:05:52.648 --> 00:05:57.548 Who is the official decision and binding the parties. 00:05:59.828 --> 00:06:04.328 But before you reach it, you have to cooperate, 00:06:04.528 --> 00:06:10.268 you have to listen to each other as judges, and you have to find a way to make 00:06:10.268 --> 00:06:14.888 a decision whether the judge or the judges who are in in fact, 00:06:14.908 --> 00:06:17.388 opposed to it, can live with. 00:06:17.508 --> 00:06:24.688 That's, at least in the Supreme Court, an ambition we always have. 00:06:26.748 --> 00:06:32.868 And then there is a quite different form of cooperation. 00:06:33.248 --> 00:06:41.288 That's between the different powers in the state known as the trias politica. 00:06:41.288 --> 00:06:47.768 You have the legislation power, the executive power, and the judiciary power. 00:06:50.468 --> 00:06:54.068 Unlike in the United States, where the powers are divided between, 00:06:55.412 --> 00:07:01.012 institutions in the Netherlands, and I think in all Europe, 00:07:02.372 --> 00:07:10.432 you can, there is a distribution of tasks, of functions, but not strictly between the powers. 00:07:14.172 --> 00:07:21.252 The government has sometimes legislation powers, The legislation sometimes has 00:07:21.252 --> 00:07:25.352 some governmental powers. 00:07:25.572 --> 00:07:33.512 The judges have their own responsibility, but in a certain way, 00:07:33.612 --> 00:07:37.972 work together, cooperate with the legislation as well. 00:07:38.212 --> 00:07:43.752 I can give you an example. For example, there was a couple of years ago a new 00:07:43.752 --> 00:07:50.012 legislation on, yeah, now I don't know the English word, anti-crack. 00:07:50.752 --> 00:07:52.532 Ah, anti-squatting. 00:07:54.732 --> 00:08:01.932 Yeah, well, that was a new legislation come into force. 00:08:01.932 --> 00:08:08.812 And then the judge, it was the Supreme Court, I wasn't involved in that, 00:08:08.912 --> 00:08:13.992 but I said, yeah, this legislation is partly not valid because, 00:08:16.370 --> 00:08:20.190 I don't know the details, but there was a way of. 00:08:23.750 --> 00:08:26.990 Ontruimen, evacuate, is that evacuate? Yeah, evacuate. 00:08:27.390 --> 00:08:41.270 Yeah, evacuate a house, an occupied house, without the previous order of the court. 00:08:42.290 --> 00:08:51.710 So, the Supreme Court said that's not legal in view of fundamental rights and the Constitution. 00:08:52.990 --> 00:09:02.570 And then the legislator listened to that and changed the legislation in this point. 00:09:02.710 --> 00:09:06.750 And then on the second round, the court said, well, now it's okay. 00:09:07.170 --> 00:09:09.070 That's a form of cooperation as well. 00:09:09.930 --> 00:09:19.110 Right. You described now a very multi-layered system of creation, as you call it, 00:09:20.250 --> 00:09:27.410 and also earlier indicated that shared goals is critical in making these kinds 00:09:27.410 --> 00:09:29.730 of cooperative processes work. 00:09:30.010 --> 00:09:35.850 But now in every layer of this system, the goals and the goal setting might 00:09:35.850 --> 00:09:37.050 not always be consistent. 00:09:37.310 --> 00:09:39.710 They might not always be transparent either. 00:09:40.790 --> 00:09:44.170 But then still, how do all these layers hang together? 00:09:44.650 --> 00:09:51.270 Because this would suggest there is still some meta-goal that all these layers serve. 00:09:51.570 --> 00:09:55.230 If you want the lawyer and his client or her client, and in the end, 00:09:55.270 --> 00:09:57.550 also the Supreme Court and its judges. 00:09:58.710 --> 00:10:03.570 How would you see then such a meta-level goal of that system? 00:10:04.910 --> 00:10:13.910 Well, in the examples I mentioned, there is one common goal that is the rule of law. 00:10:15.710 --> 00:10:20.090 What we call in Dutch de rechtsstaat, 00:10:20.250 --> 00:10:34.510 the notion that everything that is… every power in the state which is effective 00:10:34.510 --> 00:10:37.010 should be according to the law. 00:10:38.890 --> 00:10:48.510 In order to have that in a proper way, there is this division between the powers, the trias politica. 00:10:50.410 --> 00:10:55.070 They influence each other, and they must respect each other, 00:10:55.230 --> 00:11:04.550 and they might hate each other and have, on a short time, or in a certain view, different goals. 00:11:05.150 --> 00:11:11.030 But the common goal is to maintain the rule of law. 00:11:12.364 --> 00:11:18.924 But that is also hinting then to this third collaborative process I mentioned 00:11:18.924 --> 00:11:23.904 earlier because you, in some sense, are also collaborating or cooperating over 00:11:23.904 --> 00:11:26.084 time, over centuries even, 00:11:26.324 --> 00:11:34.624 in building what you call the rule of law because that is a human-created system, right? 00:11:34.624 --> 00:11:41.844 So do you also see that as a responsibility, as a goal that certainly the Supreme Court serves? 00:11:42.864 --> 00:11:50.964 It's like interpreting a whole tradition of law and also fine-tuning that for future application. 00:11:51.564 --> 00:11:57.024 So would you see that as a cooperative process as well within which you would operate? 00:11:57.984 --> 00:12:03.084 Yeah, but it's certainly not the courts only, and on top of them, 00:12:03.124 --> 00:12:05.984 the Supreme Court, or even you 00:12:05.984 --> 00:12:12.124 might mention as well the European Court on Human Rights and the EU Court, 00:12:12.344 --> 00:12:16.484 but that's not a matter of just the courts. 00:12:19.364 --> 00:12:25.584 The situation should not be that the government and or the legislation do whatever 00:12:25.584 --> 00:12:28.704 they want and the court has to correct them. 00:12:28.764 --> 00:12:37.484 No, the legislation and the executive power have to obey the rule of law as well. 00:12:37.484 --> 00:12:42.344 Well, the thing is only that the judge is finally 00:12:42.344 --> 00:12:59.184 the power to say loud and clear that something might be illegal or forbidden or not correct, 00:12:59.424 --> 00:13:04.564 but it's the responsibility of all these powers. 00:13:05.990 --> 00:13:15.490 From their own point of view, and with their own interests, to safeguard the rule of law. 00:13:18.170 --> 00:13:22.910 What I'm trying to understand is how should we look at this rule of law, right? 00:13:22.990 --> 00:13:26.130 On the one hand, you could look at it dogmatically and say, look, 00:13:26.250 --> 00:13:28.750 there's this rule of law and we follow it. 00:13:30.010 --> 00:13:32.170 Alternatively, you could have a position where you say, well, 00:13:32.190 --> 00:13:37.850 actually, it's up to us in the Supreme Court to interpret and advance that rule 00:13:37.850 --> 00:13:40.330 of law with a few in the future. 00:13:40.550 --> 00:13:43.490 That's a very different goal, right? Because then it's also about how to change 00:13:43.490 --> 00:13:48.070 the rule of law in order to make it more sustainable on the long run. 00:13:48.430 --> 00:13:51.710 Well, it's not just the courts. 00:13:53.870 --> 00:14:00.770 Where does come the law, which is the law of the rule of law? 00:14:00.830 --> 00:14:01.830 Where comes the law from? 00:14:02.050 --> 00:14:16.850 That's the legislation, the legislator, but it's also the interstate treaties and, for example, 00:14:16.970 --> 00:14:20.250 very important is the European Court on Human Rights. 00:14:21.410 --> 00:14:25.010 That is not the Dutch legislature as such. 00:14:25.410 --> 00:14:31.290 That's a, well, what it is, it's a cooperation between states, 00:14:32.770 --> 00:14:41.990 who formulate rules every state should obey to, 00:14:42.130 --> 00:14:50.250 rules which can be infringed by judges as well. 00:14:51.587 --> 00:15:01.287 There have been decisions from the Supreme Court of every country which have been found. 00:15:04.707 --> 00:15:15.127 Not complying with the European human rights treaty. 00:15:15.127 --> 00:15:24.847 Treaty, and that's not only a matter of the judges, of the government, 00:15:25.047 --> 00:15:28.427 but also judges can infringe human rights. 00:15:29.507 --> 00:15:36.327 So that's an important source of the rule of law. And then every country's constitution 00:15:36.327 --> 00:15:41.127 is a very important source of law. 00:15:41.367 --> 00:15:57.327 And all these sources of law together form the law which must be obeyed by every power in the state. 00:15:58.327 --> 00:16:03.907 This is extremely interesting. Interesting. So I would like just to go a few steps back, 00:16:03.947 --> 00:16:10.627 because you said that in the Supreme Court, it was seen as part of your work 00:16:10.627 --> 00:16:12.547 or maybe even critical to the work, 00:16:12.567 --> 00:16:19.987 also to come up with a solution that the party that was losing could somehow live with. 00:16:21.691 --> 00:16:27.271 Now, how does that space of agency unfold itself? 00:16:27.551 --> 00:16:32.531 Because it seems that it's not just a matter of imposing here or following the 00:16:32.531 --> 00:16:37.871 rule of law, but also doing it in such a way that there is a path forward for 00:16:37.871 --> 00:16:40.271 the people you are working with. 00:16:40.451 --> 00:16:45.531 And that would put the judge, I think, in a very important role for facilitating 00:16:45.531 --> 00:16:49.831 future, if not collaboration, then certainly not animosity. 00:16:51.691 --> 00:17:01.571 Yeah, what I was aiming at to give a decision, the loser, the minority can live, was calling judges. 00:17:02.011 --> 00:17:06.291 But the same is for the party who is losing a case. 00:17:07.491 --> 00:17:14.811 We always think, I'm not so sure about the truth of it, 00:17:14.891 --> 00:17:31.451 but we pretend that formulating good grounds for your decision can be a comfort to the party who loses, 00:17:31.591 --> 00:17:39.111 that he has been hurt and that he gets reasons why his point of view is not accepted. 00:17:40.451 --> 00:17:45.851 That is, well, as I just said, we present that as a factor. 00:17:45.931 --> 00:17:52.891 I'm not sure that's always the case, but that's one of the important reasons 00:17:52.891 --> 00:17:56.171 that judicial decisions must be motivated. 00:17:58.431 --> 00:17:59.251 And that's... 00:18:00.284 --> 00:18:05.584 But also on the level of the calling judges, in the Supreme Court, 00:18:05.704 --> 00:18:07.584 we have mostly panels of five. 00:18:08.244 --> 00:18:14.964 And sometimes you have a minority of one or two who don't agree with the decision of the majority. 00:18:15.444 --> 00:18:20.884 In Holland, we don't have a system of dissenting opinions. 00:18:20.884 --> 00:18:25.944 So, you are not allowed to bring out what your opinion is, 00:18:26.064 --> 00:18:41.244 but there can be a fierce opposition against a certain new path that the jurisprudence has taken. 00:18:43.584 --> 00:18:47.944 Then, in our Supreme Court, we always find it important. 00:18:48.944 --> 00:18:53.964 We do. I'm not sure that I don't know how that is in other countries, 00:18:54.064 --> 00:19:04.864 but we try to find a formulation of what you, the new decision you give, the new rule you give, 00:19:05.064 --> 00:19:08.924 that the minority can live with. 00:19:08.924 --> 00:19:14.184 That the minority can say, well, I don't agree, but if you put it this way, 00:19:14.344 --> 00:19:23.224 I can live with it because the dangers are less than otherwise might be the case or something. 00:19:23.944 --> 00:19:36.124 So that's another level where the cooperation is directed also to the feelings 00:19:36.124 --> 00:19:37.984 of the minority or the loser. 00:19:39.644 --> 00:19:46.104 But, Aaron, within that context, it actually means that also accepting a loss 00:19:46.104 --> 00:19:53.024 is also done within a codex, where you also know, if I don't accept a loss, 00:19:53.104 --> 00:19:57.644 it has certain consequences, certain courses of action I can take with a certain 00:19:57.644 --> 00:19:59.204 cost associated with that. 00:19:59.204 --> 00:20:07.084 That, while if I accept this within the codex that exists, I also in some sense 00:20:07.084 --> 00:20:11.144 accept that the cost of continuing is higher than just giving in. 00:20:12.144 --> 00:20:17.824 So that raises the question to what extent within the legal system and the rule 00:20:17.824 --> 00:20:23.384 of law actually implicitly there are incentives and suggestions of how this 00:20:23.384 --> 00:20:25.004 cooperation should take place. 00:20:28.447 --> 00:20:33.267 Yes, but don't forget the rule of law is not a fixed thing. 00:20:33.487 --> 00:20:39.287 I mean, the law, the rule is fixed, but the law is developing all the time. 00:20:39.727 --> 00:20:46.527 The law is developed by treaties. The law is developed by decisions of the European 00:20:46.527 --> 00:20:48.107 Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. 00:20:48.347 --> 00:20:56.887 The law is developed by the national legislator, sometimes by the government, and by the judges. 00:20:59.167 --> 00:21:14.127 So, this is a continuous confrontation of certain powers, 00:21:14.327 --> 00:21:14.827 krachten. 00:21:16.747 --> 00:21:23.347 Sometimes it goes a little to the left or sometimes it goes a little to the right or up or down. 00:21:23.347 --> 00:21:32.467 It's a result of the mentality of an era as well. 00:21:32.667 --> 00:21:43.907 We accept things now broadly and even gladly, which a century ago wouldn't have been accepted at all. 00:21:44.187 --> 00:21:46.587 And all these. 00:21:48.338 --> 00:22:01.258 Opinions and all these conventions influence the law, the broad law, and the more concrete, 00:22:02.418 --> 00:22:06.698 legislation which is ruling us all. 00:22:07.038 --> 00:22:14.078 I understand, but I was shooting for something a bit more specific in the sense 00:22:14.078 --> 00:22:17.498 that within the system of law, 00:22:17.798 --> 00:22:23.398 there are also very clear guidelines defined of how you are supposed to cooperate 00:22:23.398 --> 00:22:27.618 with each other as actors in that system and with the system. 00:22:28.178 --> 00:22:34.078 So, I would like to understand what these specific rules, implicit or explicit, 00:22:34.238 --> 00:22:38.358 are. For instance, you already know that you could go, let's say, 00:22:38.418 --> 00:22:42.038 you can contest a decision of a lower court. 00:22:42.598 --> 00:22:47.358 And that, in some sense, suggests, look, I can still cooperate within the broader 00:22:47.358 --> 00:22:51.458 system of law, but I don't need to accept this decision at this point in time. 00:22:51.538 --> 00:22:57.718 I can go to the next level in the court system. So that's an example of how 00:22:57.718 --> 00:23:05.138 you build guidelines inside the jurisprudence and your legal system to make people cooperate. 00:23:05.538 --> 00:23:07.638 But there will be more examples of that. 00:23:09.078 --> 00:23:16.538 Yeah, well, that's, of course, important. Well, I once heard someone say, or write, 00:23:16.878 --> 00:23:25.398 that one of the essentials of democracy is that no decision ever is definite. 00:23:27.598 --> 00:23:37.318 Everything you decide, you can, in future, recall, review. view. 00:23:38.278 --> 00:23:47.798 So the decision of a judge, like the day before yesterday, this ruling on Shell, 00:23:47.978 --> 00:23:53.098 for example, that's a legal opinion. 00:23:53.298 --> 00:23:57.818 It's not just an opinion, but it's in force at this moment. 00:23:58.798 --> 00:24:06.258 But the court of appeal can have another opinion and come with another decision. 00:24:06.378 --> 00:24:11.998 And then And the Supreme Court, again, can review that. 00:24:12.198 --> 00:24:16.418 So that's essential for a democracy that nothing... 00:24:17.418 --> 00:24:23.498 Yeah, of course, at a certain point, there is a definite decision, but... 00:24:25.293 --> 00:24:32.993 After the Supreme Court has given a decision, very often the legislature can 00:24:32.993 --> 00:24:35.273 overrule that with a new law. 00:24:35.933 --> 00:24:42.133 Because the judge is only giving a decision in the framework of the law as it is. 00:24:42.433 --> 00:24:44.833 And the law can change because that's democracy. 00:24:46.693 --> 00:24:56.333 And of course, since you want to have the best decisions there are, 00:24:56.693 --> 00:25:04.753 the legislation process is very, in fact, it takes much time. 00:25:04.973 --> 00:25:09.653 The government is bind by all kinds of rules rules, and restrictions, 00:25:09.973 --> 00:25:14.353 and the decision of the judge can be reviewed as well. 00:25:15.073 --> 00:25:22.593 Right. But that would mean that this whole system is floating on a shared belief 00:25:22.593 --> 00:25:25.013 that that system is effective. 00:25:26.333 --> 00:25:31.393 So that would mean that, certainly in the Supreme Court, you have to balance 00:25:31.393 --> 00:25:36.333 multiple goals, because that would mean what is just, in some sense, 00:25:36.333 --> 00:25:40.893 given our legal framework, work, but also how do we maintain credibility? 00:25:42.093 --> 00:25:47.853 And these two goals are not necessarily always aligned. No, that's correct. 00:25:48.473 --> 00:25:55.793 Therefore, being a judge or a Supreme Court justice is not always very simple. 00:25:58.533 --> 00:26:05.793 Because sometimes you must say, well, the law is the law, be it that way, 00:26:05.913 --> 00:26:11.153 but we can't comply here, we have to find a way out. 00:26:11.593 --> 00:26:15.833 A good example is, that was not the Supreme Court, but the, 00:26:18.153 --> 00:26:25.253 Raad van State, the highest court in administrative law matters, 00:26:26.533 --> 00:26:32.013 in the affair of what you call in Holland the Toeslagenaffaire, 00:26:32.013 --> 00:26:37.853 where it was about allowances for parents for payment for the... 00:26:40.013 --> 00:26:48.513 It was child support. Yeah, child support for access, especially the kindergarten, 00:26:48.833 --> 00:26:54.053 where they put the children at the daytime when the parents were working. 00:26:55.493 --> 00:27:02.613 There was a very strict legislation that there was no possibility if you did 00:27:02.613 --> 00:27:05.633 anything wrong, you had to pay it, 00:27:06.757 --> 00:27:14.277 all the the complete amount back which you ever received and um there was no 00:27:14.277 --> 00:27:22.537 way for the for the for the for the government to uh to pardon uh to say well 00:27:22.537 --> 00:27:25.217 okay that's uh leave it by. 00:27:26.837 --> 00:27:34.257 Repaying this and and i'm that was all in the legislation loud and clear no 00:27:34.257 --> 00:27:37.157 no such things And then finally, 00:27:37.377 --> 00:27:46.217 the judges said, well, yes, but here the consequence is absurd and unfair, 00:27:46.477 --> 00:27:54.337 and even, well, not complying with the rule of law. 00:27:54.337 --> 00:28:06.517 Yes, sometimes legislation is not complying with higher principles, 00:28:06.837 --> 00:28:13.757 and then it's up to the judge to correct it. 00:28:13.757 --> 00:28:23.977 So that these things do something and another problem is that sometimes the the. 00:28:26.097 --> 00:28:39.837 The the the the I should give you a word yeah the the stand of the technique 00:28:39.837 --> 00:28:43.957 the state The state of the art, 00:28:44.017 --> 00:28:52.337 the state of the legal art is sometimes developed in some decades or sometimes. 00:28:54.637 --> 00:28:58.737 It must be nuanced, 00:28:59.117 --> 00:29:11.897 it must be fine-tuned, it must be changed even, because developments in the society require that, 00:29:12.017 --> 00:29:15.817 have a need for new rules. 00:29:16.877 --> 00:29:23.637 And if the legislature doesn't offer them, then the judge sometimes has to do it. 00:29:23.797 --> 00:29:31.137 We saw that in the Netherlands already in the 60s and 70s with the. 00:29:33.597 --> 00:29:37.817 Jurisprudence, the legislation. No, there was no legislation, 00:29:37.917 --> 00:29:42.817 but the jurisprudence case law on strikes. 00:29:43.946 --> 00:29:50.286 In the industry, there was no rule at all about strikes at the time. 00:29:50.346 --> 00:30:01.386 And there was no, what we have now, the European social, how to call it, social hunt fest. 00:30:04.166 --> 00:30:11.786 There was nothing. So, it was the judge who had to find a way to find conditions 00:30:11.786 --> 00:30:14.026 under which a strike was allowed. 00:30:14.606 --> 00:30:20.166 Another example is euthanasia, another example is abortion. 00:30:21.946 --> 00:30:32.706 For a long period, there was no legislation at all, but there was a social need for new rules. 00:30:33.226 --> 00:30:40.426 And then it was the judiciary who had to find out. 00:30:40.706 --> 00:30:48.306 And very often you see that the legislation then happy that they don't have 00:30:48.306 --> 00:30:49.966 to figure it out themselves. Take it out. 00:30:51.226 --> 00:30:55.266 This is a very interesting case, Ernst, because you said earlier that in a democratic 00:30:55.266 --> 00:31:02.886 society, in a sense, every rule, every decision has at some point to potentially to be unmade. 00:31:03.026 --> 00:31:09.786 We could almost see the democratic society as being the collaborative society par excellence. 00:31:10.446 --> 00:31:15.526 And I think what you're describing here is a situation where the overarching 00:31:15.526 --> 00:31:20.246 goal is no longer the rule of law per se, but there is something that seems 00:31:20.246 --> 00:31:25.146 to be, in a sense, more important or not formulated yet in the rule of law. 00:31:25.806 --> 00:31:29.746 That one needs to adhere to in order to move forward. 00:31:30.486 --> 00:31:34.206 So there is a rule of law. And what would define that? 00:31:34.446 --> 00:31:39.166 How do you navigate in those situations where the rule of law isn't there or 00:31:39.166 --> 00:31:42.026 somehow seems to be unfitting for that situation? 00:31:42.206 --> 00:31:46.226 Because it suggested the idea that at the end of the day, it's the rule of law 00:31:46.226 --> 00:31:48.586 that decides. Yeah. But the first step. 00:31:49.146 --> 00:31:54.706 You might have to have a two-formal conception of the rule of law, of the law. 00:31:54.706 --> 00:32:03.606 The law is not the written legislation found in the publications of the legislator, 00:32:03.666 --> 00:32:07.246 but the law is much broader. 00:32:07.446 --> 00:32:16.546 That's the complete set of legal notions and legal principles. 00:32:23.709 --> 00:32:28.229 On the matter of strikes, I mentioned, 00:32:28.669 --> 00:32:37.429 if everybody or a majority in the society feels that there are circumstances 00:32:37.429 --> 00:32:43.969 that you are allowed to have a strike in a company, 00:32:44.129 --> 00:32:48.129 in the industry, But the 00:32:48.129 --> 00:33:02.189 legislator is not able to make a revision of the law which gives the conditions 00:33:02.189 --> 00:33:04.189 under which a strike is possible. 00:33:04.629 --> 00:33:11.329 At the time it was discussed in Parliament for years, a new law on strikes. 00:33:12.309 --> 00:33:17.389 People were convinced that something must happen, must change, 00:33:17.509 --> 00:33:26.749 because traditionally strikes were forbidden as such until the 60s. 00:33:26.789 --> 00:33:30.589 And then there was a 00:33:30.589 --> 00:33:33.689 legal feeling that 00:33:33.689 --> 00:33:36.929 that's not correct there are there are situations that a 00:33:36.929 --> 00:33:40.649 strike is very much justified but the 00:33:40.649 --> 00:33:43.949 legislation couldn't do it then you you 00:33:43.949 --> 00:33:47.009 can't say that the rule of law implies that that strikes 00:33:47.009 --> 00:33:50.209 are not um allowed that's that's 00:33:50.209 --> 00:33:55.689 not true it it then has to be the judge because there's nobody else then to 00:33:55.689 --> 00:34:04.069 to to find a way to find and that's what happened then the the the the the The 00:34:04.069 --> 00:34:08.029 courts didn't say under this and this situations, 00:34:08.129 --> 00:34:14.209 when the interests are this or this, you are allowed to strike. 00:34:14.249 --> 00:34:21.829 No, they formulated procedures that if you want to strike, you must at least... 00:34:22.746 --> 00:34:30.266 Give notice and you have a majority of the workers or whatever. 00:34:31.386 --> 00:34:41.746 They formulated principles of procedure which gave a certain guarantee that strikes were 00:34:41.826 --> 00:34:53.846 serious and well considered without telling when a strike or for what kind of 00:34:53.846 --> 00:34:55.686 interest a strike was allowed. 00:34:56.426 --> 00:35:06.546 Now that could then, the courts could do so, but it was all in the framework of the rule of law. 00:35:07.306 --> 00:35:11.626 I think the instance of a strike is very interesting because you could see the 00:35:11.626 --> 00:35:17.366 strike as a situation where the collaboration breaks down, at least temporarily, right? 00:35:17.466 --> 00:35:21.226 And we are very interested in what happens when collaboration breaks down. 00:35:21.386 --> 00:35:27.586 And here it seems to be a matter of, in a sense, creating a framework that allows 00:35:27.586 --> 00:35:33.406 the collaboration to break down in such a way that it can actually be restarted or be moved forward. 00:35:33.406 --> 00:35:39.346 And it would be very interesting to hear something, and I think the law and 00:35:39.346 --> 00:35:43.286 the juridical system seems to be critically involved in, 00:35:43.366 --> 00:35:49.606 so to say, buffering those situations where collaboration sort of ends and yet it has to restart. 00:35:50.066 --> 00:35:54.586 And what do you do in that middle period? How do you avoid it to go completely 00:35:54.586 --> 00:35:59.206 way higher while still respecting the positions of the different people? 00:35:59.206 --> 00:36:04.546 And it seems to me that the position that you describe here is critically important 00:36:04.546 --> 00:36:09.906 to create that space for collaboration to both break down and continue underneath 00:36:09.906 --> 00:36:12.326 it. And that would be very interesting for us to understand. 00:36:13.626 --> 00:36:24.386 Well, it depends. In the first place, to start with, you can say that every case, 00:36:24.546 --> 00:36:35.126 every procedure between two civilians has to do with the failure of cooperation. 00:36:36.926 --> 00:36:43.146 But mostly, you can restore the cooperation by saying, well, 00:36:43.266 --> 00:36:57.426 the law tells you that you are wrong and you have to comply with Article 24 of this code. 00:36:57.426 --> 00:37:02.526 Vote, but when it's on a more level state level. 00:37:05.219 --> 00:37:13.419 The judge is not a magician, 00:37:13.679 --> 00:37:16.919 but what you can do, 00:37:16.999 --> 00:37:20.999 and the example of strikes give so, 00:37:20.999 --> 00:37:35.419 So you can give the powers a way to give a path that they should walk 00:37:35.719 --> 00:37:48.799 in order to find a way of coexist. 00:37:51.859 --> 00:37:56.359 If that is the best thing that can be reached at the time. 00:37:59.519 --> 00:38:00.559 Coexistence is, 00:38:03.979 --> 00:38:10.619 not cooperating, but not the contrary either. That's between the two probably. 00:38:11.779 --> 00:38:18.259 But with that, what you're saying, Arjen, is hidden in what's called a rule 00:38:18.259 --> 00:38:23.699 of law is actually not so much a singular rule of law, 00:38:23.899 --> 00:38:32.359 but a system in which coordination among many parties can take place that is rational, 00:38:33.319 --> 00:38:35.919 and just, however we define that. 00:38:36.279 --> 00:38:39.699 But in that process, like in your example of the strike, 00:38:40.839 --> 00:38:44.379 you said, and rightly so, that it was the, 00:38:45.359 --> 00:38:53.439 judiciary arm of the trias politica who influenced the change in the legal system 00:38:53.439 --> 00:38:56.059 so that strikes could be accommodated. 00:38:56.319 --> 00:39:03.259 But now, in principle, in the trios politica, this step has to be taken by the 00:39:03.259 --> 00:39:04.679 legislature, parliament. 00:39:05.099 --> 00:39:10.739 So did that also happen then? Was this like a hint to parliament to change legislation? 00:39:11.139 --> 00:39:19.739 Or that's where just the developing jurisprudence is enough to maintain a credible rule of law? 00:39:20.939 --> 00:39:30.199 Well, I think what happened here was that the courts didn't feel that they were 00:39:30.199 --> 00:39:34.399 able, or at least not entitled, 00:39:34.699 --> 00:39:44.019 to tell under which circumstances which interests may be served by a strike. 00:39:46.224 --> 00:39:55.644 And there was no legislation at all. So they formulated the procedural rules to follow. 00:39:56.424 --> 00:40:00.344 And if you would follow them, then in general, the strike was not forbidden. 00:40:02.524 --> 00:40:06.564 Nobody said it was justified, but it is not forbidden. 00:40:07.064 --> 00:40:10.964 And then what came then was, 00:40:11.104 --> 00:40:23.844 if my memory is well, Well, it's that the national legislator didn't find a solution. 00:40:24.184 --> 00:40:32.084 There is still today no law on strikes, but there is a European treaty, 00:40:32.424 --> 00:40:34.264 het Europees Sociaal Handvest. 00:40:36.884 --> 00:40:40.224 Handvest in English. Hoe heet het? Handvest van de Verenigde Naties. 00:40:41.704 --> 00:40:44.644 Will it be a code? No, it's more than that. 00:40:46.084 --> 00:40:50.524 I'm not sure. Let me look it up. You can cut this out. 00:40:53.784 --> 00:40:55.144 That's a nice word for it. 00:40:57.944 --> 00:40:58.464 Chart. 00:41:04.844 --> 00:41:08.624 Charter. It's a European social chart. 00:41:09.844 --> 00:41:20.364 That this legislation tell under which circumstances which interests may be 00:41:20.364 --> 00:41:24.364 served by a strike and what is allowed and what is not allowed. 00:41:24.564 --> 00:41:36.424 That came to existence and ever since when there are cases, trials about strikes, 00:41:36.624 --> 00:41:37.644 this is applied applied. 00:41:42.284 --> 00:41:49.024 But this all was in the framework of the rule of law. 00:41:49.844 --> 00:41:59.844 Because the unions, when 00:41:59.924 --> 00:42:06.124 they lost their case or the companies, 00:42:06.384 --> 00:42:12.624 the employers, when they lost their case, they complied with the decisions of the court. 00:42:13.604 --> 00:42:21.104 And that's essential for the working, the. 00:42:24.502 --> 00:42:31.162 The working of the machine of a society, and therefore the rule of law is essential 00:42:31.162 --> 00:42:34.522 for a good working society. 00:42:34.962 --> 00:42:41.262 In Belarus, there is no rule of law. There is just power. 00:42:42.522 --> 00:42:44.002 And this society isn't working. 00:42:45.742 --> 00:42:51.882 So, just one follow-up on this question here, because what you describe is the 00:42:51.882 --> 00:42:56.142 juridical system and the judge, not just as someone who becomes an arbiter, 00:42:56.302 --> 00:43:00.302 but also as someone who can facilitate a path forward. 00:43:00.602 --> 00:43:04.702 And in a sense, set a path in motion that you can't control, 00:43:04.882 --> 00:43:08.242 but that potentially allows things to go in other directions. 00:43:08.722 --> 00:43:13.482 And I'm very interested in that process as well. So could you say a little bit 00:43:13.482 --> 00:43:19.962 about both the intellectual but also the, in a sense, emotional stages one goes 00:43:19.962 --> 00:43:22.842 through when you have to follow such a process? 00:43:23.302 --> 00:43:29.302 What is it that happens when you're trying to open up such a space and then seeing what happens? 00:43:31.434 --> 00:43:44.754 Yeah, well, what you see is that judges always can be very emotional about certain legal questions. 00:43:44.854 --> 00:43:47.994 That's possible, but most judges 00:43:47.994 --> 00:43:57.394 are of the type who don't allow their emotions to guide them too much. 00:43:57.394 --> 00:44:01.374 You always work in an illegal framework. 00:44:02.994 --> 00:44:12.494 Also, if there is no clear legislation, no, not a law where you can find in 00:44:12.494 --> 00:44:15.954 Article 48 the answer on your question, 00:44:16.074 --> 00:44:21.494 you work in the framework of legislation of different sources. 00:44:24.494 --> 00:44:35.754 But, of course, believe me, in the framework of that legal system, 00:44:35.954 --> 00:44:38.394 you can give quite different, 00:44:40.814 --> 00:44:45.014 decisions if you want to. So there is always, 00:44:45.254 --> 00:44:57.374 very often, an aspect of the possibilities that the law gives me. What do I want? 00:44:57.514 --> 00:45:00.594 And what do I want? Why? 00:45:00.834 --> 00:45:15.514 In order to have a system which works or which is fair or can be executed. 00:45:15.514 --> 00:45:15.914 Execute it. 00:45:17.074 --> 00:45:19.854 Is it possible? Is it fair? 00:45:20.134 --> 00:45:30.754 Is it not too expensive for certain parties? 00:45:33.554 --> 00:45:40.494 Is everybody surviving with this? and all kinds of things like that. 00:45:40.654 --> 00:45:45.954 Is it compatible with what we decide on another field? 00:45:46.614 --> 00:45:52.274 Isn't it strange when we decide here this and here that, and now that? 00:45:53.854 --> 00:46:05.814 You want to keep a system, to uphold a system, because otherwise everybody is getting get lost. 00:46:08.902 --> 00:46:18.202 But now, that's some of the questions you can be forced to answer first. 00:46:18.562 --> 00:46:24.162 But, Arendt, you now listed a number of criteria that might come forward in 00:46:24.162 --> 00:46:27.482 such a discussion, and you mentioned, for instance, fairness. 00:46:28.842 --> 00:46:32.682 I mentioned? You mentioned fairness. You said fairness is fair. 00:46:33.222 --> 00:46:38.042 But that seems to be a tremendously subjective notion, isn't it? 00:46:39.322 --> 00:46:44.202 Does that bring you in this emotional space that Andreas was talking about? 00:46:44.202 --> 00:46:52.382 But it's not always the fairness, your personal idea of fairness, 00:46:52.522 --> 00:47:04.842 but on a more general level, that you give protection to victims of traffic accidents, 00:47:06.362 --> 00:47:08.902 pedestrians against cars. 00:47:08.902 --> 00:47:17.782 Mars, there is an idea of fairness that the weak party is protected. 00:47:19.142 --> 00:47:24.462 That's a matter of fairness as well, and that's not so subjective. 00:47:26.042 --> 00:47:30.582 Well, of course, it would relate to also your social-cultural context. 00:47:31.222 --> 00:47:38.122 Certainly, certainly. Certainly, but judges function in a certain cultural context. 00:47:38.322 --> 00:47:40.082 Of course, they have to. 00:47:40.902 --> 00:47:47.842 Yeah, but now, did you ever experience situations in your career that you felt 00:47:47.842 --> 00:47:53.382 this is the moment that the cooperation is breaking down in the system? 00:47:54.822 --> 00:47:58.022 That you felt that you really hit the wall, this is a breakdown, 00:47:58.222 --> 00:48:02.022 and what would be the cause of such a breakdown? 00:48:04.617 --> 00:48:11.377 Well, I cannot say that I have experienced in my, what is it, 00:48:11.477 --> 00:48:17.837 37 years of being a member of the judiciary, 00:48:18.077 --> 00:48:21.837 that I have experienced a situation like that. 00:48:21.957 --> 00:48:26.557 But, of course, there was one during the occupation in World War II. 00:48:28.457 --> 00:48:34.997 What should the judge do? What should the Supreme Court do confronted with what 00:48:34.997 --> 00:48:42.857 happened then with the Nazis implying, 00:48:44.917 --> 00:48:54.177 rules which were not only inhuman, but also contrary to the Land-Oorlog-Reglement, 00:48:54.397 --> 00:48:58.297 some international treaties about that, 00:48:58.797 --> 00:49:02.977 should you accept it? 00:49:03.037 --> 00:49:07.377 Should you remain in your position or should you step down? 00:49:07.617 --> 00:49:13.937 And then if you don't step down, do you have to accept it unconditionally or 00:49:13.937 --> 00:49:15.717 not? What happened in Holland? 00:49:18.517 --> 00:49:30.777 That was a very bad outcome because the Supreme Court at the time decided that the legislation, 00:49:32.117 --> 00:49:41.877 of the occupier, the court couldn't review them to international treaties, 00:49:42.117 --> 00:49:50.837 they had not the authority, so accepted them as the law, which was very much criticized, 00:49:51.717 --> 00:49:54.237 at that time and after the war even more. 00:49:55.657 --> 00:49:56.937 But those. 00:49:58.865 --> 00:50:05.265 Situations like that are very, very difficult, very difficult. 00:50:05.685 --> 00:50:11.845 Where should you put up a barrier? 00:50:13.685 --> 00:50:19.165 That's the point of no return, and we won't pass that point. 00:50:20.265 --> 00:50:25.685 That's difficult. You showed that in that period, you show fragility of the 00:50:25.685 --> 00:50:28.465 rule of law, that actually very easily could be switched around. 00:50:28.865 --> 00:50:36.485 So, then post the Second World War, were new laws adopted in order to prevent 00:50:36.485 --> 00:50:38.645 that from happening? Yes. 00:50:40.205 --> 00:50:46.725 Both on the level of treaty, for example, the European Treaty on Human Rights, 00:50:46.865 --> 00:50:48.225 Convention on Human Rights. 00:50:48.225 --> 00:50:51.945 But also in our own constitution, 00:50:52.325 --> 00:50:55.645 we have the unique situation 00:50:55.645 --> 00:51:04.505 that a Dutch court is 00:51:04.505 --> 00:51:13.705 not entitled to review a legislation of the national legislation to the own 00:51:13.705 --> 00:51:15.725 constitution. We're not. 00:51:16.565 --> 00:51:19.305 We are not. Judges are not. 00:51:19.445 --> 00:51:24.925 I'm not in judgment, so I shouldn't say we. A judge is not allowed to say, 00:51:24.985 --> 00:51:35.485 well, this legislation by the Regering and the Tweede Kamer is not complying 00:51:35.485 --> 00:51:38.805 with Article 6 of the Dutch constitution. 00:51:39.565 --> 00:51:45.385 Simply not simply not entitled to say so but if. 00:51:47.605 --> 00:51:56.165 The judge would be correct in that assessment what are the options well the options are the options, 00:51:57.425 --> 00:52:04.145 are thank god are there because one of the measures taken after the world war 00:52:04.145 --> 00:52:10.365 was that in the constitution is this possibility of reviewing is possible, 00:52:11.085 --> 00:52:14.625 allowed when it comes to international treaty. 00:52:16.205 --> 00:52:18.485 So Dutch legislation can be reviewed, 00:52:20.120 --> 00:52:34.000 in view of the European Treaty on Human Rights, or the European Union Charter of Human Rights. 00:52:35.700 --> 00:52:41.860 The European Union has its own charter now, more or less the same as the European Convention. 00:52:41.860 --> 00:52:53.960 So, that gives the judge an instrument the court during the Second World War didn't have. 00:52:54.620 --> 00:53:00.460 But now, I could imagine that would keep you up at night if you're a Supreme 00:53:00.460 --> 00:53:05.580 Court judge, because now you are anchoring the coherence of your own legal system 00:53:05.580 --> 00:53:08.960 into an even more complex operative process, 00:53:09.260 --> 00:53:13.720 which is the developing European Union, with its own fragilities. 00:53:13.980 --> 00:53:22.000 So how solid is that link then? And this layer of legislations we have, 00:53:22.160 --> 00:53:28.920 national, European, international, is sometimes very complicated. Okay. 00:53:29.300 --> 00:53:39.360 But as far as the European Convention and the European Charter are concerned, 00:53:39.560 --> 00:53:49.960 there are judges to interpret those rules. 00:53:50.240 --> 00:53:55.880 There is the European Court of Appeal of the European Union in Luxembourg, 00:53:55.880 --> 00:54:05.460 who is the final authority to explain what the European rules really say, 00:54:05.620 --> 00:54:11.300 and we have the court in Strasbourg to say what the German convention says. 00:54:13.035 --> 00:54:19.295 Right. It means. But now, Aaron, so given that you're retired, 00:54:19.555 --> 00:54:22.435 you can do whatever you want. 00:54:22.515 --> 00:54:26.455 So if now it would become your project to bring down the rule of law, 00:54:26.655 --> 00:54:28.975 how would you go about doing that? 00:54:30.135 --> 00:54:32.055 Breaking down the rule of law? Yeah. 00:54:35.535 --> 00:54:40.655 Well, I haven't thought of that yet. But you, you of anyone should know how 00:54:40.655 --> 00:54:42.475 to do that. So how would you do it? 00:54:43.035 --> 00:54:51.135 Well, the rule of law is, although many rulings of judges' 00:54:51.315 --> 00:55:03.555 decisions can be executed by bailiffs and you name it, essential for the rule of law is, 00:55:03.695 --> 00:55:09.355 at the end, the trust of the people in the system. 00:55:10.835 --> 00:55:19.295 So it's a very important task of a judge to do everything to maintain, 00:55:19.615 --> 00:55:27.715 uphold the trust of the people, not every single individual, 00:55:27.895 --> 00:55:35.895 but the people in general in the system, because otherwise the system collapses. 00:55:35.895 --> 00:55:42.155 But then in the face of this onslaught of industrial scale disinformation, 00:55:42.635 --> 00:55:45.455 how much chance does the system really have? 00:55:47.475 --> 00:55:51.495 Yeah, good question. I don't know. I don't know. 00:55:52.335 --> 00:55:58.775 My hope is that people more and more, when the time develops, 00:55:59.015 --> 00:56:06.555 time goes on, realize what misinformation is and how to find it. 00:56:06.675 --> 00:56:12.275 But this is a threat to the rule of law, certainly. Certainly. 00:56:12.375 --> 00:56:17.555 But I would have expected... Through democracy as well. Absolutely. 00:56:18.435 --> 00:56:24.275 I would have expected that you would say something like that also legal decisions 00:56:24.275 --> 00:56:29.675 should be better explained and propagated on social networks that are also abused for disinformation. 00:56:30.595 --> 00:56:34.595 There's a place of information out there, but it seems the legal system stays 00:56:34.595 --> 00:56:40.835 stuck in very old-fashioned traditions of communication and trust-building without 00:56:40.835 --> 00:56:43.355 responding to the world around it? 00:56:43.475 --> 00:56:46.915 Would that be a fair criticism or do you think they are responding? 00:56:49.251 --> 00:56:58.411 Well, no, I do not agree with your opinion that it's old-fashioned. 00:56:59.331 --> 00:57:13.131 The judiciary is giving good efforts to explain decisions, 00:57:13.471 --> 00:57:17.351 to discuss them, not by individual judges. 00:57:17.351 --> 00:57:31.071 That's not very simple, but to have them discussed also on the regular TV channels and in the media. 00:57:31.071 --> 00:57:43.711 Media, the Supreme Court has a Twitter account and we make press releases for 00:57:43.711 --> 00:57:47.951 important decisions and so do other courts. 00:57:48.211 --> 00:57:57.591 This Shell decision of the day before yesterday had it as well, a press release. 00:57:59.171 --> 00:58:02.311 You must explain what you 00:58:02.311 --> 00:58:05.351 do although sometimes when you 00:58:05.351 --> 00:58:12.951 look at the case law of the Supreme Court there are many many decisions who 00:58:12.951 --> 00:58:25.311 are very technical about bankruptcy law for example very difficult to explain plain, but. 00:58:28.771 --> 00:58:42.431 You can always tell what the importance of a certain ruling is and what is said and very important, 00:58:42.491 --> 00:58:45.031 what is not said in a certain decision. 00:58:45.431 --> 00:58:54.371 And I think that the judiciary understands very well that it's important for 00:58:54.371 --> 00:59:00.231 the trust in the judges to do so. 00:59:00.571 --> 00:59:05.191 Do you think that now the preceding period, the COVID-19 period, 00:59:05.531 --> 00:59:13.331 also of confinement, of emergency law, are there important lessons in this period 00:59:13.331 --> 00:59:18.171 for this aspect of cooperation that we have been discussing? 00:59:22.411 --> 00:59:31.411 Keep your head calm, be as open as you can be. 00:59:36.135 --> 00:59:39.855 And don't accept everything from everybody. 00:59:41.875 --> 00:59:50.275 Okay. That's how I am. But now, would you believe, so we discussed rule of law, 00:59:50.435 --> 00:59:55.475 which is an abstract concept, right? It's not something we can touch. 00:59:55.615 --> 01:00:00.315 It's an evolving concept with lots of contextual elements to it. 01:00:00.315 --> 01:00:08.495 But do you believe that humans are able to have a sustainable cooperation under 01:00:08.495 --> 01:00:09.655 this notion of rule of law? 01:00:09.815 --> 01:00:12.615 Or would you predict, look, it's just a matter of time before it will break 01:00:12.615 --> 01:00:18.695 down again, as it did 75 years ago or 80 years ago during the Second World War, 01:00:18.755 --> 01:00:20.595 or now in other countries, also in Europe? 01:00:20.595 --> 01:00:31.395 The rule of law and democracy as a other side of the same metal is very vulnerable 01:00:31.395 --> 01:00:35.375 very very vulnerable and. 01:00:37.835 --> 01:00:44.015 It's I think it's an illusion to think that what we hear talking only about 01:00:44.015 --> 01:00:52.675 Western Europe be very careful only Western Europe, that is forever. 01:00:53.055 --> 01:00:54.595 No, I'm afraid it's not. 01:00:54.995 --> 01:01:03.415 It can be... 80 years ago, we have seen how quickly it can be completely overthrown. 01:01:04.415 --> 01:01:11.495 It won't disappear forever, but it's vulnerable. 01:01:12.695 --> 01:01:17.235 There is no automatism that it comes back, that it returns. 01:01:17.235 --> 01:01:23.835 If you would have this magic wand to change one thing about humans in order 01:01:23.835 --> 01:01:29.095 to make them more constructive contributors to this kind of property, 01:01:29.255 --> 01:01:32.815 what would the one thing be you would change in humans as we are today? 01:01:34.857 --> 01:01:35.437 Good memory. 01:01:38.697 --> 01:01:43.397 All right. That's the night I want to end on. Thank you very much for this. 01:01:45.697 --> 01:01:48.977 That was great. Okay. Thank you very much. 01:01:49.017 --> 01:01:56.497 What's actually interesting, we speak about collaboration, and you speak of 01:01:56.497 --> 01:02:01.337 cooperation, also because in Holland, collaboration has a very specific… Yeah, 01:02:01.437 --> 01:02:03.717 that's working together with the enemy. Exactly. 01:02:05.277 --> 01:02:10.857 Oh yeah, my English is not very good as you've said. 01:02:11.197 --> 01:02:15.657 I'm sensitive to this as well, but where did that differentiation come from? 01:02:15.777 --> 01:02:21.077 Because I know if we speak about constructive collaboration in Holland, 01:02:21.137 --> 01:02:22.757 we would never use that word collaboration. 01:02:22.757 --> 01:02:34.357 There is not such a collaboration in Dutch, specifically what happened during World War II. 01:02:35.037 --> 01:02:37.357 Working together with the occupying. 01:02:38.557 --> 01:02:43.177 And otherwise, we speak of cooperation, samenwerking. Exactly. 01:02:45.377 --> 01:02:48.877 I'm not sure. Of course, I'm not a native speaker, but I don't think in English 01:02:48.877 --> 01:02:53.377 you would make that differentiation. Collaboration is a much more neutral connotation, 01:02:53.457 --> 01:02:57.817 as my Danish colleague will confirm. 01:03:00.077 --> 01:03:02.897 And I think we have the same distinction in Danish, actually. 01:03:03.017 --> 01:03:08.637 So we would also talk of a collaborator, someone who worked with the occupation 01:03:08.637 --> 01:03:09.997 during the Second World War. 01:03:10.317 --> 01:03:14.597 Right. And the word collaborator, we use samarbeider, which is like you're a samverker. 01:03:15.217 --> 01:03:19.377 So in that sense, they're interconnected. But now there's another issue, 01:03:19.557 --> 01:03:22.357 Ernst, that we should think about. 01:03:22.377 --> 01:03:24.857 It's the role of humans in the whole process. 01:03:24.997 --> 01:03:29.617 Because, for instance, there's this famous case of they followed the judgments 01:03:29.617 --> 01:03:31.977 of Israeli judges over the day. 01:03:33.157 --> 01:03:37.557 And at what time of day they would give what kind of decisions. 01:03:38.577 --> 01:03:43.917 And that is not uniformly distributed. Like they gave much more severe punishments 01:03:43.917 --> 01:03:46.677 just before lunch than after lunch. 01:03:47.597 --> 01:03:59.737 Yeah, I know. Yeah, there are many researchers on that, I think, can be correct. 01:04:00.177 --> 01:04:03.257 For example, also, how is a 01:04:03.257 --> 01:04:10.657 judge influenced by the fact that he has a bad relation with his partner? 01:04:11.767 --> 01:04:21.147 Or stomach ache more do you ever when you were in chamber with the Supreme Court 01:04:21.147 --> 01:04:25.627 would you sometimes say look okay let's discuss this that's another point in 01:04:25.627 --> 01:04:30.907 the day or let's do this tomorrow when everybody is rested this happens, 01:04:31.787 --> 01:04:39.767 but mostly because you reach a point that you don't get any progress let's bring 01:04:39.767 --> 01:04:41.327 it back next week because 01:04:41.587 --> 01:04:48.867 we want to rethink it or exchange some papers on this. 01:04:50.887 --> 01:05:01.407 And sometimes you might say, listen, this is going to be, 01:05:03.167 --> 01:05:07.447 we don't get any progress, let's have lunch now. Yeah. 01:05:08.067 --> 01:05:11.367 Yes. Yes, but not on 10 o'clock in the morning. 01:05:13.167 --> 01:05:20.427 So did our questions help you to formulate your thinking about cooperation? 01:05:21.147 --> 01:05:25.187 Or did we miss certain questions? Did we miss things that you feel are really 01:05:25.187 --> 01:05:26.627 critical to understand? 01:05:26.967 --> 01:05:36.127 No, no, I don't think so. It's always good to see the system from different 01:05:36.127 --> 01:05:40.467 points of view, from different entries. 01:05:41.167 --> 01:05:49.347 And this was another one because it was not so much about the brain. 01:05:49.527 --> 01:05:52.447 The neural rule of law doesn't exist. 01:05:53.687 --> 01:05:59.587 Maybe it does exist. I will convince you otherwise. Just give me some time. 01:06:00.207 --> 01:06:03.867 After lunch. I will convince you after lunch. Okay. 01:06:05.367 --> 01:06:08.407 Okay, Erik, so really, thank you very much. This was great. 01:06:10.627 --> 01:06:15.687 Hi, you listened to one of our podcasts in the series on collaboration produced 01:06:15.687 --> 01:06:18.627 by the Ernst Trommel Forum and the Conversion Science Network. 01:06:19.347 --> 01:06:22.287 You can find more episodes on our website.