Description
Book SynopsisThe Norwegian constitution is the second oldest in the world and has much to teach the world about balancing the rule of law against majority rule. This is the story of Norwegian constitutionalism from 1814 onwards, told through Supreme Court cases reviewing legal statutes under the constitution and European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) law.
Trade Review'Brilliant and comprehensive, Judicial Review in Norway is a major contribution to constitutional theory. … Kierulf has a terrific understanding of democratic theory and constitutionalism, and her analysis of Norwegian constitutional law tells us a great deal about both. A tremendous achievement.' Cass R. Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard University
'The Norwegian Supreme Court acted in the 1800s as a European pioneer of judicial review, and the Parliament of 2015 incorporated the principle into the written Constitution. This penetrating analysis of the bicentennial road, by a brilliant young legal thinker, should be a classic in the literature on a burning issue in democratic societies.' Carsten Smith, former President of the Supreme Court of Norway
'This impressive book answers some of the questions I had all along. The relationship between democracy and the rule of law is a debate that is very much at the center of German constitutional discourse, particularly at a time in which constitutional review has come under severe stress not only in Eastern Europe but also the United States.' Andreas Paulus, Institute of International and European Law
Table of Contents1. Introduction; 1.1. Background and context; 1.2. Norway in a nutshell; 1.3. Review under the constitution – and the ECHR; 1.4. Book structure and terminology; 2. Legal foundations and doctrinal specifics; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. The Norwegian Supreme Court; 2.3. The form of and basis for constitutional review; 2.4. The basis for ECHR review; 3. Foundations reviewed: the formative 1800s; 3.1. Outline of a nation constituted; 3.2. Courts, lawyers and background for judicial review; 3.3. On not losing sight of (some) individuals; 3.4. Review discussions prior to the 1866 case; 3.5. The 1866 case; 3.6. Arguments following 1866; 3.7. Liberal constitutionalism defined; 4. The emerging regulatory state and a constitutional watershed (early 1900s); 4.1. Constitutional questions arising – and discussed; 4.2. The waterfall case; 4.3. Legal opinions of 1912 and 1916; 4.4. Legal opinions following the 1918 case; 4.5. Parliamentary debates on review abolishment; 4.6. Constitutional case adjourned; 5. Post-WWII: social democratic constitutionalism?: 5.1. Introduction: review revival; 5.2. Occupation and post-war adjudication; 5.3. Regulatory reconstruction; 5.4. Law, politics and history; 5.5. Conquer and divide – preparing the expropriation statute; 5.6. The Kløfta case; 5.7. Kløfta case follow-up; 5.8. Judicial review confirmed; 6. Debates of ECHR review (1950–2000); 6.1. Introduction; 6.2. 'Original intent'; 6.3. On ECHR review prior to the HRA – the doctrine of clarity; 6.4. Preparations for the human rights act of 1999; 6.5. The power and democracy project; 6.6. Post-national constitutionalism?; 7. Dual review expressed (2000–2010); 7.1. Basis and case selection; 7.2. Speech vs personality rights: reputation; 7.3. Speech vs policy: political advertising; 7.4. Free speech review: a synthesis of ideals?; 8. A triple constitutional review revival: 2010; 8.1. Prelude; 8.2. 2010 Cases; 8.3. 2010 Cases Debate and Follow up; 8.4. Constitutional review reflections; 9. 2014–2015: rights reform – and judicial review constitutionalization; 9.1. The 2014 Constitutional Reform; 9.2. Judicial review constitutionalization; 9.3. Constitutional revitalization; 9.4. Dual review constitutionalized; 10. Looking back – and forward: 10.1. Legitimacy ideals disentangled; 10.2. Political review challenges; 10.3. Judicial review challenges; 10.4. A bicentennial debate.
