Constitutional Mentality

  • Jaakko Husa
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 73)


Nordic Constitutions have both differences and similarities. This chapter explains certain key differences by reflecting legal-cultural and historical dimensions of living Nordic constitutional law. The underlying idea is to offer a thematic and comparative overview. First, the general comparative context of Nordic constitutions is explained shortly. Secondly, chosen key feature of each constitution is thematically highlighted. In Finland’s case, the focus is on the role of the parliament’s Constitutional Committee as the guardian of constitutionality. When it comes to Sweden, the focus is on the exceptionally central position of its parliament. Section for Norway explains the central role of the Supreme Court. Discussion on Denmark centres on national sovereignty. In the case of Iceland, the new creative manner of reforming constitution is addressed. Final section speaks of the Nordic experience—or “Nordicness”—and questions its future in the world of expanding judicial review.


  1. Andenæs J, Fliflet A (1995) Statsforfatningen i Norge. Universitetsforlaget, OsloGoogle Scholar
  2. Árnason ÁT (2011) A review of the Icelandic constitution—popular sovereignty or political confusion. Tijdschrift voor Constitutioneel Recht 3:342–351Google Scholar
  3. Bull T (2014) Constitutional identity—a view from Sweden. Retfærd 37:10–23Google Scholar
  4. Cameron I (2009) The influence of European human rights law on national law. In: Hollo EJ (ed) National law and Europeanisation. Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys, Helsinki, pp 63–84Google Scholar
  5. Duranti F (2009) Gli ordinamenti costituzionali nordici: Profili di diritto pubblico comparato. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  6. Elo Rytter J (2000) Grundrettigheder: domstolenes fortolkning og kontrol med lovgivningsmakten. Thomson-GadJura, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  7. Elo Rytter J, Wind M (2011) In need of juristocracy? The silence of Denmark in the development of European legal norms. Int J Const Law 9:470–504Google Scholar
  8. Eng S (1997) Precedent in Norway. In: McCormick ND, Summers RS (eds) Interpreting precedents. Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp 189–217Google Scholar
  9. Hautamäki V (2007) The question of constitutional court—on its relevance on the Nordic context. In: Husa J, Nuotio K, Pihlajamäki H (eds) Nordic law in between tradition and dynamism. Intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford, pp 153–171Google Scholar
  10. Helgadóttir R (2011) Nonproblematic judicial review: a case study. Int J Const Law 9:532–547Google Scholar
  11. Holland KM (1991) Introduction. In: Holland KM (ed) Judicial activism in comparative perspective. Macmillan, London, pp 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Husa J (2002) Nordic reflections on constitutional law: a comparative Nordic perspective. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  13. Husa J (2011) The constitution of Finland—a contextual analysis. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Krunke H (2014) Constitutional identity—seen through a Danish lens. Retfærd 37:24–40Google Scholar
  15. Nergelius J (2011) Constitutional law in Sweden. Kluwer, Alphen van den RijnGoogle Scholar
  16. Ojanen T (2009) From constitutional periphery toward the center—transformations of judicial review in Finland. Nord J Hum Rights 27:194–207Google Scholar
  17. Peczenik A, Bergholz G (1991) Statutory interpretation in Sweden. In: McCormick ND, Summers RS (eds) Interpreting statutes. Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp 311–358Google Scholar
  18. Schaumburg-Müller S (2009) Parliamentary precedence in Denmark—a jurisprudential assessment. Nord J Hum Rights 27:170–184Google Scholar
  19. Scheinin M (ed) (2001) The welfare state and constitutionalism in the Nordic countries. Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  20. Slagstad R (1995) The breakthrough of judicial review in the norwegian system. In: Slagstad R, Smith E (eds) Constitutional justice under old constitutions. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 81–111Google Scholar
  21. Smith E (2011) Old and protected? Isr Law Rev 44:369–388Google Scholar
  22. Suksi M (2014) Markers of Nordic constitutional identity. Retfærd 37:66–91Google Scholar
  23. Suteu S (2015) Constitutional conventions in the digital era: lessons from Iceland and Ireland. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 38:251–276Google Scholar
  24. Tushnet M (2015) Advanced introduction to comparative constitutional law. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Wind M (2009) When parliament comes first—the Danish concept of democracy meets the European Union. Nord J Hum Rights 27:272–288Google Scholar
  26. Zetterquist O (2008) A European res publica. In: Cramér P, Bull T (eds) Swedish studies in European law, vol 2. Hart, Oxford, pp 77–103Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations