East Nordic Model of Pre-Enactment Constitutional Review: Comparative Evidence from Finland and Sweden

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW European Public Law Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.54648/euro2020053
Serkan Yolcu
{"title":"East Nordic Model of Pre-Enactment Constitutional Review: Comparative Evidence from Finland and Sweden","authors":"Serkan Yolcu","doi":"10.54648/euro2020053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the last three decades, legal scholarship on the judicial review of legislation has dominated comparative constitutional studies. Moreover, one of the emerging interests in comparative constitutional law is pre-enactment (ex ante) control of constitutionality. Historically, legal thinking in the US has advanced judicial review, while British tradition has prioritized parliamentary sovereignty, in which parliament, not courts, is the ultimate decision maker related to constitutional disputes. The current scholarship, nevertheless, argues that a particular constitutional model has emerged in a number of Commonwealth countries in which courts and legislatures are not considered alternative to each other, contrary to the traditional paradigms that prioritize either courts or legislatures. One of the defining features of this model is the pre-enactment constitutional review of proposed legislation. In some of those countries, pre-enactment review of legislation is available only in the form of executive responsibility, while the legislature has a key role in the remaining countries, in addition to the commitment of the executive. This article investigates whether similar pre-enactment constitutional review mechanisms exist elsewhere. For this purpose, it will examine East Nordic constitutional practice and ask whether there is a particular type of pre-enactment constitutional review in Finland and Sweden. The function to review constitutionality of proposed legislation belongs to non-judicial mechanisms in both Finland and Sweden. However, pre-enactment constitutional review mechanisms in these two polities are hardly considered in comparative constitutional law. This article aims to fill this gap by drawing comparative scholars’ attention to the East Nordic constitutionalism.\njudicial review, comparative constitutional law, pre-enactment constitutional review, Nordic constitutionalism, Finland & Sweden","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2020053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For the last three decades, legal scholarship on the judicial review of legislation has dominated comparative constitutional studies. Moreover, one of the emerging interests in comparative constitutional law is pre-enactment (ex ante) control of constitutionality. Historically, legal thinking in the US has advanced judicial review, while British tradition has prioritized parliamentary sovereignty, in which parliament, not courts, is the ultimate decision maker related to constitutional disputes. The current scholarship, nevertheless, argues that a particular constitutional model has emerged in a number of Commonwealth countries in which courts and legislatures are not considered alternative to each other, contrary to the traditional paradigms that prioritize either courts or legislatures. One of the defining features of this model is the pre-enactment constitutional review of proposed legislation. In some of those countries, pre-enactment review of legislation is available only in the form of executive responsibility, while the legislature has a key role in the remaining countries, in addition to the commitment of the executive. This article investigates whether similar pre-enactment constitutional review mechanisms exist elsewhere. For this purpose, it will examine East Nordic constitutional practice and ask whether there is a particular type of pre-enactment constitutional review in Finland and Sweden. The function to review constitutionality of proposed legislation belongs to non-judicial mechanisms in both Finland and Sweden. However, pre-enactment constitutional review mechanisms in these two polities are hardly considered in comparative constitutional law. This article aims to fill this gap by drawing comparative scholars’ attention to the East Nordic constitutionalism. judicial review, comparative constitutional law, pre-enactment constitutional review, Nordic constitutionalism, Finland & Sweden
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
东北欧颁布前宪法审查模式——芬兰和瑞典的比较证据
在过去的三十年里,关于立法司法审查的法律学术一直主导着比较宪法研究。此外,比较宪法中新兴的利益之一是对合宪性的颁布前(事前)控制。从历史上看,美国的法律思想推动了司法审查,而英国的传统则优先考虑议会主权,在议会主权中,与宪法争端有关的最终决策者是议会,而不是法院。然而,目前的学术界认为,在一些英联邦国家出现了一种特殊的宪法模式,在这些国家,法院和立法机构不被视为彼此的替代品,这与优先考虑法院或立法机构的传统模式相反。这一模式的一个决定性特征是对拟议立法进行颁布前的宪法审查。在其中一些国家,立法前审查只能以行政责任的形式进行,而在其余国家,除了行政部门的承诺外,立法机构还发挥着关键作用。本文调查了其他地方是否存在类似的立法前宪法审查机制。为此,它将审查东北欧的宪法实践,并询问芬兰和瑞典是否存在特定类型的颁布前宪法审查。审查拟议立法合宪性的职能属于芬兰和瑞典的非司法机制。然而,这两种政体的立法前宪法审查机制在比较宪法中几乎没有被考虑。本文旨在通过吸引比较学者对东北欧宪政的关注来填补这一空白
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
‘Respect for Religious Feelings’: As the Italian Case Shows, Fresh Paint Can’t Fix the Crumbling Wall of Blasphemy The ‘Then’ and the ‘Now’ of Forced Relocation of Indigenous Peoples: Repercussions in International Law, Torts and Beyond Subsidiarity v. Autonomy in the EU Book Review: Federalism and Constitutional Law: The Italian Contribution to Comparative Regionalism, Erika Arban, Giuseppe Martinico & Francesco Palermo (eds). London and New York: Routledge. 2021 The Tragic Choices During the Global Health Emergency: Comparative Economic Law Reflections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1