Senate’s Election procedures in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. By Roy Lie A Tjam.   The Senate is a component legislative chamber of the Dutch parliament. The 75 members of the Senate of the Dutch Parliament are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. Voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate. Requirement for membership of the Senate are the same as those for the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament. Since the 1983 revision of the constitution, the Senate has been elected in its integrality every four years by the members of the Provincial Council. The election of Senators takes place within three months after the Provincial Council elections. The Senate’s main duties are in the legislative field, but it also plays a role in scrutinizing Government’s actions. Formally the Senate could only reject or accept legislation. However, it now has rather more possibilities and debates are of importance. For example, statements made by government Ministers in debates on bills (draft legislation) can play a role in future lawsuits. The debates in the Senate contribute to the interpretation of a law. Moreover, members of the Senate can elicit undertakings from ministers about the implementation of a law. Like their counterparts in the House of Representatives, members of the Senate are entitled to put written questions to the Government. The debate on the Government’s budget also gives them the opportunity to debate current and future policy with the government. Members of the House of Representatives are full-time politicians, whereas members of the Senate are part-timers who often hold other positions. Senators receive an allowance which is about a quarter of the salary of the members of the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is mainly engaged in day-to-day politics. As such, it calls ministers to account, holds debates on new policy and undertakes detailed examination of bills. The Senate is remote from day-to-day politics, if only because the parliamentary parties in the Senate are not formally bound by a government programmed. The Senate is concerned only with the broad outline of policy. It can operate rather more independently than the House of Representatives. The Senate has a revising role in relation to draft legislation. Its members do not have the right to amend bills They can only vote on them and either accept or reject them. Nor are questions answered orally in the Senate. Furthermore, the members of Senate make much less use of the right to ask written questions than the members of the House of Representatives. Finally, the House of Representatives has exercised its right to institute an inquiry on several occasions, particularly in recent years, whereas the Senate has to date never exercised this right. History The Senate has existed since 1815, the year in which it was instituted by King William I. When the Netherlands and Belgium were united in 1815 the Belgians in particular pressed for the introduction of a bicameral system. In its early years the Senate served as a bulwark of the Crown (i.e. the King and his ministers) since it was still able to block bills that displeased the King. Such bills were usually private member’s bills from the House of Representatives. At that time, the members of the House of Representatives too were elected indirectly. The members of the Senate were not elected, but were confidants of the King and were appointed for life. The Senate remained in existence after the separation from Belgium in 1830. Much changed in the political sphere as a result of the introduction of a new constitution in 1848. The position of the Senate and the criteria governing, eligibility to stand for election were among the changes. Monitoring the quality of legislation gradually came to be the main function of the Senate after 1848. It thus became a revising chamber or ‘Chamber de reflection’. Directly after a bill has been passed by the House of Representatives it is sent to the Senate. Here the bill is submitted to a parliamentary committee. The committee decides whether the bill can be immediately put on the agenda of the full chamber or whether there should first be preparatory study of the bill. If a bill is immediately put on the agenda of the full chamber, it will be passed as a formality without a debate. The preparatory study of a bill consists mainly in written correspondence and the exchange of documents. The members of the committee present the views of their parliamentary party in writing and put questions to the Government. The Government replies in a note or memorandum of reply. Sometimes, there may be several rounds of correspondence, but one is generally considered sufficient. After the written preparations have been completed, the Senate is notified that the bill is ready for debate by the full chamber. In due course the bill is then put on the plenary agenda. Operation of the Senate The main function of members of the Senate is to scrutinize and revise bills. To do this effectively, they read the official papers and reports as well as letters and articles from newspapers and periodicals. The members sometimes receive hundreds of letters before a bill is dealt with. Members of the Senate also confer internally and externally. Internal consultations are held for the most part within the parliamentary party or committee concerned. The procedure to be adopted is one of the matters discussed in the committee meetings. External consultations are held with organizations and citizens. Sometimes members receive visitors or delegations. And in special circumstances a committee may decide to hold a hearing. Members of the Senate also have the right to ask the Government written questions about issues unconnected with a bill. However, they make only limited use of this right. The general view is that scrutinizing the policy and actions of the Government is first and foremost the responsibility of the House of Representatives. The Senate carefully examines bills, which are proposed laws, to make certain that they are the best they can be. Sir John A. MacdonaldC’da) called the Senate a place of “sober second thought.”      

By Peter Knoope, Associate Fellow ICCT – The Hague.   It so happened that I addressed a meeting on violent extremism in Cape Town, South Africa. One of the other speakers, a journalist, discussed the role of media in terrorism and counter terrorism. It is not my favourite topic. In fact it is a pretty rough and always a tough topic. Simply because counter terrorism is not a duty or the role of the media. The media have a very clear, yet different, assignment and should never be instrumentalised by law enforcement or government, let alone by counter terrorism professionals. The media are there to discover and uncover. It is their role to do research and report on their findings. Following their own agenda. Nobody else’s. Still some interesting points were made. Interesting enough to make me think twice. One of them is the speed of media these days. `Breaking news´ is the thing of today. You´ll see it floating at the bottom of your TV screen. It is in headlines only. Bumper-sticker-like text messages. The more concise, the better. The faster the better. There seems ever less time or space to analyse, let alone to give profound background to the one liners of the day. The news is brought to us in sound bites. This stems from the competition between media outlets to be the first. It is a competitive environment, the media, where speed has become as important as thorough knowledge. This new and growing trend seems contradictory, or at least at odds, with the assignment of media to discover, analyse, educate, unveil and inform. There is a real risk that fast news and sensational events take the upper hand and that depth of analytical coverage of the news loses out. So during the discussion the term `responsible journalism` was introduced as a concept. Because when you think about it, Journalists do have responsibilities. They are our eyes and ears. When they uncover and expose and place events into context we expect them to be informed and balanced and open minded. So far so good. Then some-one in the audience raised his hand and claimed that western journalists and media are biased and are all anti-Muslim. They, the media in the West, connect a religion to violence and killing. They go along in the frame offered to journalists on a platter by the ISIS, AQ, Boko Haram and other violent organisations. There is no responsible journalism in the West and the blame for Charlie Hebdo, and similar incidents, is put on Muslims and their religion. Whenever other (read non-Muslim) perpetrators are responsible for killings or incidents, the religious background is never mentioned. It only happens when the suspect is a Muslim. All this according to the person that asked the question. In my answer I came to the defence of the press. Because I know from my own experience that most European journalists are trying to be balanced and well informed. I know that many journalists prefer and are trying hard to stay away from the competition, the race to be first, and try to be as balanced as humanly possible. Even now, a couple of days later, I still think that such is generally the case. But the inverse does happen. Media can sometimes be forced to work at a very high speed when judging or quoting without allowing enough time for proper analyses. Let us face it. Judgements are sometimes made in split seconds, quotes are published without a proper check on their relevance or their impact, language is used that may incite or create the wrong picture. And the risk of that happening is increasing when time is limited. When speed is more important than analytical depth and when the race is about `who is first´ and not ´who is most precise, informative and analytical´. And if the effect of the media race and the need for speed, the competition and modern journalism, if the effect thereof is that people on the other side of the planet get the impression that Western media are anti-Muslim than we have a real challenge. In that case something needs to be fixed. For the very reason that we must prevent to fall into the trap of going along in the frame of ISIS, AQ and Boko Haram, that this is about `us` against `them`. Too much damage has been done to social relationships in many countries by identity politics and `us` versus `them` thinking and talking. Language matters. We all must be precise and responsible when we choose our words. And especially journalists. They are our eyes and ears. We depend on them to be properly informed. By the end of the day we all agreed on this one thing. Which seems to be that the media should want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I guess that is what responsible journalism is all about. Peter Knoope, Associate fellow ICCT – The Hague.        

By Richard T. Griffiths, Leiden University.   As you read this column, about eight thousand people from almost every country in the World will have watched at least one of my lectures in a course entitled “Configuring the World: A Political Economy Approach”. It runs until the end of March, so there is still time to take a look, but it will run again in its entirety next September. The course is hosted on a platform called Coursera to which 120 universities are affiliated, including Leiden. Over twelve million students have already followed one of the courses. There is no charge. Welcome to the World of MOOCs – Massive Open Online Courses. There is a great on-going debate about MOOCs. One end of the spectrum predicts the end of traditional universities. Why pay for a second rate education when you can get one free from some of the top universities in the World? At the other extreme there are those who dismiss MOOCs as all hype and no substance. How can one boast about replacing universities, when only about ten per cent of those registered ever complete a course? My own position is that traditional universities are safe. They are no more likely to disappear now than they were when the printing press was invented. Why go to classes, when you can read the book? The answer is also the same now as it was then – good teachers can help, explain, explore and inspire. Even so, MOOC lectures can enhance the learning experience. Some advantages are built into the MOOC itself. The MOOC videos are usually short, bite-sized expositions of a topic, which can be watched where, when, and as often as they desired. They are accompanied by English language subtitles and, in my own case, by subtitles in another eight languages. This bonus is entirely the result of those who followed the first run of the course and who volunteered to translate the transcripts, which speaks volumes for their identification with and commitment to this particular MOOC and to MOOCs in general. Within each MOOC there is a built-in forum where participants from many different backgrounds and with different experiences can explore issues. We have also used visualizations to breakdown and reconstruct maps of World data, something that is difficult to convey in a lecture and impossible to do in a book. MOOCs can also enhance classroom teaching. Videos can be used to frame class discussions. They can also link classes in different parts of the World together. For example, last year we had a Skype session with university students in Kenya. Finally, they can give students thinking of following a course at university a taste of what they can expect, to help them make the correct choices for themselves and prepare for an exciting future where university class-rooms coexist in cyberspace .

By Barend ter Haar. On January 22 2015, the University of Pennsylvania published its annual ranking of think tanks: the Global Go-To Think Tanks Report. Many readers might have gone directly to the lists, to see how their think tank is ranked among the 6681 think tanks in the world. But if they did so, they missed the much more thought-provoking first part of the report. The good news is that think tanks are becoming a worldwide phenomenon. The best think tanks are still to be found in the United States and Europe, but the quality of think tanks in other parts of the world is growing steadily. In more and more countries the need of independent thinking is recognized. This development is of course closely connected with the demise of autocratic governments that pretend to have a monopoly on the truth. The worrisome message of the report is that as funding becomes scarcer, think tanks are increasingly tempted to take the views of their funders into account. As a result it is now difficult “to tell the difference between truly objective advice on the one hand, and high-priced advocacy for political or private profit on the other”. As “many politicians choose to focus on short-term issues and crises rather than addressing the large looming crises that are just ahead”, think tanks “are increasingly viewed as part of the problem in not forcing policymakers to address these issues”. The report also warns against the tendency of specialisation. When all think tanks are looking for their own niche, who is keeping the overview? Everybody seems to agree that health, development, environment and education are linked, but who is trying to put these links into perspective? Apart from Clingendael, that moved from the 15th to the 11th place on the list of the best of the west-European think tanks, eleven other Dutch think tanks are mentioned in the report. Two of them are newcomers: – The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (no 79 on the list of Top Defense and National Security Think Tanks) – The Hague Institute for Global Justice (for its report on The Hague Approach: six guiding principles for achieving sustainable peace in post-conflict situations). The following list of the other nine Dutch think tanks that are included in the report illustrates the problem raised in the report: their fields of enquiry clearly overlap, but do they even read each other’s reports? – Centraal Plan Bureau (CPB) – Socires (Education Policy) – Stichting Natuur en Milieu – Philips Center for Health and Well-Being – Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation – European Center for Development Policy Management – Wiardi Beckman Foundation – Max van der Stoel Foundation/Evert Vermeer Foundation – European Research Center on Migration and Ethnic Relations A final sobering thought is that the influence of think tanks should not be overstated. The World Bank recently revealed that nearly one third of its reports had never been downloaded, not even once.

By Jhr. mr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland, Justice (Judge) in the Court of Appeal and Special Advisor International Affairs of the City of The Hague.   In March there will be two elections in The Netherlands on the 18th. Not for  the national parliament, not for the local municipal council, but for two other democratic institutions. I will explain briefly. Although The Netherlands is a small country, we do have between the national State and the local cities and towns twelve ‘provinces’. In the past they were much more powerful and important than nowadays. Untill the French occupied us in 1795, this country hardly existed as a national state: the provinces were more or less independant in many fields. Some provinces were powerful, others were not. In the 17th century the most powerful province was Holland. That’s why many people in the world ever since confuse ‘The Netherlands’ with ‘Holland’: a lot of people think that they are the same. The elections of March 18th are about the governments of each of the twelve provinces. But something else is much more important. The members of the province’s parlement who will be elected on March 18th, will elect in May the members of the (national) Senate, the ‘Eerste Kamer’ (First Chamber). And that is of huge importance for the national politics. The parties of the coalition -now the liberal VVD and the social democratic PvdA- do have a majority in the ‘Tweede Kamer’ (Second Chamber) but not in the Senate and most people expect that after May they will have even a smaller minority in the Senate than they have now. If that happens, it will be for those two parties even more difficult to govern than it is now. And on the same day we will have other elections as well. As you probably will know The Netherlands is mostly situated under sea level. In this country there has always been a struggle against water . We have special institutions for that: the ‘Hoogheemraadschappen’, the ‘Waterschappen’ etc. and even those are controlled by democratic elected counsils. One can wonder what the difference is between a socialist dike, a liberal dike and a christian democratic dike, but nevertheless we can elect representatives of our own favorite political party in those democratic bodies about water.   a.beelaerts@planet.nl        

By Khaossou Diallo.   Working as a diplomat in a foreign country can be very exciting. Besides to new adventures such as meeting new people and learning about another culture, there are several financial matters to take care of. One of them is your insurance package. Perhaps not always exciting, but often wise to arrange well in order to work and live carefree. Insurance you need to consider in the Netherlands:   Health Care Insurance According to the Dutch Health Insurance Act (Nederlandse Zorgverzekeringwet) all residents in the Netherlands, and everyone working and paying for social security in the Netherlands are required to be insured for healthcare. Exceptions are made for diplomats or employees who work for international organizations (‘volkenrechtelijke organisaties’, e.g. NATO, EUROPOL). In that case you are not entitled to the Dutch Basic Health system and it is important to find out whether your employer covers (all) the necessary costs for healthcare. If not, you can apply for a private insurance from an insurer in the Netherlands. Tip: An insurance broker will compare several offers and advise you which one fits your personal situation best.   Car Insurance You can take out insurance for business vehicles as well as for personal vehicles. In the Netherlands you are obliged to insure ‘Legal Liability’ for motor vehicles. This insurance provides coverage for damage to third parties caused with your motor vehicle. In addition, you can choose to insure damage to your own motor vehicle(s) (caused by fire, theft or even broader) with a ‘Limited or Fully comprehensive insurance’. Besides that, you can also insure your passengers for financial consequences of injury or damage to their belongings. Tip: An insurance broker gives advice about the insurance you should take out for both your business and personal vehicles and will arrange this for you. Tip: Not all insurers insure vehicles with a CD (Corps Diplomatique) license plate! Most insurance brokers (e.g. Kröller) are equipped to insure vehicles with CD and CDJ license plates.   Other insurance Besides for its tulips and cheese, The Netherlands are well known from the many insurance possibilities. The Dutch in general are risk avoiding people. You can literally insure everything. The main question to bear in mind is: Am I able to bear the costs resulting from an unfortunate event such as an accident or fire? For example: Can I pay for a new house if it burns down (Building insurance)? Can I buy a new car in case of theft (Car insurance)? Or can I pay for the damage that my kids caused to my neighbor’s TV (Liability insurance)? Tip: Virtually everything can be insured! It is wise to inform yourself properly in order to save costs while having peace of mind.   Mortgages When buying a house in the Netherlands there are a lot of things to be arranged. From financing the house, to notary and requesting a valuation report. A mortgage advisor can help you with all these issues. More information > Mortgage: The Kröller Ten-Stepplan, please click here for additional info kroller.brochure For quick download please click here:  https://kroller.nl/~/media/files/kroller/hypotheken/10stappenplan-hypotheek.pdf?la=en   Concluding tip: Contact an insurance broker who is well acquainted with staff of international organizations. He/she knows the exceptions that apply to your specific situation.   More information: Köller Assurantiën B.V. at The Hague. Contact person: Mr. Khaossou Diallo (Account Director International, speaking French, English and Dutch) Phone number: 070 302 89 06 or 06 12 06 42 60. E-mail: k.diallo@kroller.nl Website: https://kroller.nl/en/international

The tightening of the regulation regarding successive fixed-term contracts.   By Jan Dop. Jan Dop, LL.M. is a partner and Head of the Embassy Desk at Russell Advocaten (embassydesk@russell.nl). More information about the expertise at Russell Advocaten for Embassies, Consulates and Diplomats can be found on our website: www.russell.nl.   There has been and will be major changes to employment law in the Netherlands in 2015. These changes include strengthening of the legal position of flex workers, reforming dismissal law, and amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. Some of the changes will have serious consequences for the locally hired personnel of Embassies, Consulates and Diplomats. We will discuss these amendments in a series of articles in Diplomat Magazine. The first of these articles dealt with a number of changes to fixed-term employment contracts which became effective on 1 January 2015. This article deals with the tightening of the regulation regarding successive fixed-term contracts (ketenregeling) as of 1 July 2015. Employment contracts for an indefinite period will arise at an earlier stage The ketenregeling for employees with fixed-term employment contracts will be tightened so that employees will be entitled to an employment contract for an indefinite period at an earlier stage. In case of fixed-term employment contracts concluded in succession within a period of six months (currently: three), the fourth contract or a period of two years (currently: three) will by operation of law bring about an indefinite employment contract. Transitory law The old ketenregeling will remain applicable to fixed-term employment contracts concluded before 1 July 2015 that pass the term of two years after 1 July 2015. In the event a fixed-term employment contract will be concluded on or after 1 July 2015, the new ketenregeling will apply. In that case, the ketenregeling will not apply if the period between the employment agreement concluded on or after 1 July 2015 and the previous employment contract has been longer than six months. Intervals of more than three months between employment contracts concluded before 1 July 2015 will remain valid as an interruption of the regulation regarding successive fixed-term employment contracts. Our next contribution to Diplomat Magazine will deal with the new mandatory routes for dismissal: subdistrict court and UWV. Lunch meeting Russell Advocaten will host a lunch meeting titled “New Dutch Employment Law and your company” on these and other new employment law issues on 16 March 2015. This meeting can be useful for representatives of companies of your home country.