• Abstract: Show

  Institutions that produce sequential outcomes, such as education, labour markets, and criminal justice, can generate cumulative disadvantage when small initial inequalities are amplified at later stages. Yet, research on sanctioning disparities often focuses narrowly on ethno-racial differences, overlooks socio-economic stratification, and seldom examines how disparities unfold across multiple decision points. Drawing on detailed Dutch administrative data covering all 12–17-year-olds suspected of a first offence between 2010 and 2022, this study analyses how migration background and socio-economic status shape youths’ trajectories as they move through police, prosecutorial, and judicial stages of case processing. We test whether disadvantage accumulates both processually (across successive decisions) and intersectionally (through combinations of status characteristics), following DiPrete and Eirich’s (2006) distinction between path-dependent and status-dependent cumulative disadvantage. Results show that second-generation migrants and youths in vocational education face elevated risks of advancing at multiple stages, with the largest disparities emerging at the earliest decision point. Courts partially correct disparities for first-generation suspects but not for those in lower educational tracks. Intersectional patterns are additive rather than multiplicative. Overall, Dutch juvenile justice functions as a multi-stage stratifying institution in which early differences, linked to migration background and educational pathways, produce durable inequalities in outcomes.

• Co-authors: Petra de Jong, Arjen Leerkes

• Awards: Prize for Best PhD Research on Repression, Surveillance and Censorship in Contemporary Russia; Brenno Galli Award for Best Young Scholar of Italian Society of Law and Economics; Honourable Mention in Nappert Prize in International Arbitration

From Suspicion to Imprisonment: A Statistical Study into the Influence of Migration Background on Outcomes in the Dutch Criminal Justice System

Are Debtor-State Relations a Ground to Apply Public Policy Clause? (in Russian)

Arbitration Law Journal, 2021

• Abstract: Show

  The article examines the application of the public policy clause to debtors linked to the Russian Federation. It identifies two main types of connections: the debtor being a strategic state enterprise, and the state being the ultimate beneficiary of the debtor. The author notes that when evaluating the connection between the debtor and the state, Russian courts often fail to consider legal mechanisms designed to protect state interests, which influences their judicial decisions. By analyzing Russian legislation and comparing it with international practices from France, China, and Ukraine, the author argues that a connection between the debtor and the state should not automatically justify the application of the public policy clause.

Case Law Trends on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the Russian Federation (in Russian)

Matters of Russian and International Law, 2020

• Abstract: Show

  The study explores the case law of Russian arbitrazh (commercial) courts in enforcing foreign arbitral awards. The first part of the study delves into the legal regulations governing these relationships, assesses the outcomes of claims submitted to arbitrazh courts, and discusses the timelines for their resolution. It also identifies the preferred countries for arbitration according to Russian parties. The second part focuses on the public policy exception, examining its role and significance through case law and legal doctrine. The study highlights instances where courts have incorrectly interpreted this exception, in effect re-evaluating cases on merits. Although Russian courts implement interim measures on the assets of Russian debtors at foreign arbitration institutions – seemingly to ensure timely enforcement of decisions – this intended facilitation does not typically materialize.