Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning pp 155–171Cite as

Quality of Legal Decisions: The Criteria Established by the Finnish Judiciary

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 722 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 69))

Abstract

This article examines the way the quality of legal decisions has been conceived by the Finnish judiciary and legal scholars. Furthermore, there is a description of how this issue has been regulated within the Finnish legal order and legal system in general. The study classifies and analyses the nature of various quality criteria within a methodological framework created for this purpose. In the end, there is a critical evaluation of the prevailing Finnish doctrine of legal sources and a proposal of more principled approach to legal decision-making and judicial motivation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is described briefly below.

  2. 2.

    Näyttöratkaisun perusteleminen riita- ja rikosasioissa. In addition to these projects, quality has also been seen as involving the training of judges, and improving the discursive relationship between prosecutors and attorneys. In 2003 and 2005 there were also many national projects involving studies relating to courts’ motivations as far as they concerned evidence, which I am not going to deal with in this chapter.

  3. 3.

    The considerations regarding financial requirements and the perspectives of the administration of the courts, parties, or the attorneys were excluded.

  4. 4.

    Decision made in the court without parties present.

  5. 5.

    The party has to request permission from the appeal court (or Supreme Court) to appeal.

  6. 6.

    The same constitutional committee statement Perustuslakivaliokunta (2006), 2.

  7. 7.

    See also Virolainen (1995), 48.

  8. 8.

    I exclude from the scope of this paper the discussion on motivations in criminal law cases. See Lahti (2005).

  9. 9.

    Books interpreting statutes, interpreting precedents, etc.

  10. 10.

    See also Ervasti and Aaltonen (2013).

  11. 11.

    For example, a criminal law case, Auer, Appeal court of Vaasa, R 14/232, 19.2.2015, 15/107766. The quality assessment of legal decisions and their motivations is, indeed, quite different when made by autonomous courts vis-à-vis the activities of legal academics. Legal academics can consider more openly the interaction between the substantive decisions of the courts and their motivations and the reasoning behind them in general, and to ‘assess’ them in a public discussion, and even criticize decisions.

  12. 12.

    The dissatisfaction expressed by judiciary […] was explained thoroughly in the Governmental proposals of the new legislation, see Suomen Hallitus (2010) HE 318/2010 vp, Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laiksi luvan saaneista oikeudenkäyntiavustajista ja eräiksi siihen liittyviksi laeiksi, chapter 2.4. ‘Evaluation of the current situation’.

  13. 13.

    On this, see Virolainen and Martikainen (2010), 575–646.

  14. 14.

    See also Ervasti and Aaltonen (2013).

  15. 15.

    Korkein oikeus, tuomio 16/02/2007, Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen et Mati Leppik/Virallinen syyttäjä.

  16. 16.

    I am using here the speech act theory of John Searle as a method for analysis for the legal reasoning and argumentation presented by the reports. He maintains that there are a limited number of speech acts, which correspond to various dimensions of human intentionality. According to Searle, what human beings are expressing in their argumentation are essentially their beliefs and desires in the form of assertions, declaratives or directives. In my theory, these various aspects relate to six different categories of legal reasoning and argumentation as ‘illocutionary legal speech acts’.

  17. 17.

    It is also interesting to note how the quality of legislative work has led, in my opinion, to the increasing role of pre-constitutional control in the constitutional committee and all the legal political debates concerning the great powers of the experts in the constitutional committee.

References

  • Aarnio A (1989) Laintulkinnan teoria: yleisen oikeustieteen oppikirja. Hki; Juva, WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahola R, Pajuniemi A, Pajukangas S (2014) Tuomioistuinten työtilastoja vuodelta 2013. Oikeusministeriön julkaisu, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusiin O (1938) Tuomarin harkinta normin puuttuessa. Suomalainen lakimiesten yhdistys, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervasti K, Aaltonen M (2013) Osapuolten kokemuksia siviilioikeudenkäynneistä. National Research Institute of Legal Policy. Research Communications. Rättspolitiskaforskningsinstitutet, Forskningsmeddelanden, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallbergin P (1996) Korkein hallinto-oikeus, täysistunto, 20.2.1996 päätösten perustelemisen kehittäminen hallintolainkäytössä. Korkein hallinto-oikeus, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Halttunen R (1993) Oikeudellisesta ratkaisusta joustavien oikeusnormilauseiden soveltamisalueella. Lapin yliopisto, oikeustieteiden tiedekunta

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirvonen A (2012) Oikeuden ja lainkäytön teoria. Oikeustieteellinen tiedekunta (Helsingin yliopisto), Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Huovila M (2003) Periaatteet ja perustelut: Tutkimus Käräjäoikeuden Tuomion Faktaperusteluista Prosessuaalisten Periaatteiden Valossa Arvioituna. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Jääskeläinen P (2010) Tuomioistuinten valvonnan perusteet, rajoitukset ja sisältö. In: Paunio R-L (ed) Eduskunnan Oikeusasiamies 90. Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, Helsinki, pp 178–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiikeri M (2012) Comparative legal reasoning and European law. Springer Science & Business Media

    Google Scholar 

  • Klami HT (1979) Finalistinen oikeusteoria: tutkimus oikeudellisen päätöksenteon ja oikeusnormipropositioiden tavoitteellisesta justifioinnista ja kontrollista. Turun yliopisto, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Laakso S (1990) Oikeudellisesta säätelystä ja päätöksenteosta. [S.n.], Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahti R (2005) Rikosoikeudellisesta oikeuslähde-ja lainsoveltamisopista. In: Teoksessa Huovila M, Lahti R, Ojala T (eds) Rikostuomion perusteleminen. Helsingin hovioikeus, Helsinki, pp 100–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappi-Seppälä T, Tala J, Litmala M, Jaakkola R (1999) Luottamus tuomioistuimiin: haastattelututkimus väestön asenteista 1998. Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Oikeusministeriö (2006) Lainkäytön Laadun Arviointi Tuomioistuimessa: Arvioinnin lähtökohdat ja laatumittaristo. Rovaniemen hovioikeuspiiri, Maaliskuu

    Google Scholar 

  • Perustuslakivaliokunta (2006) Perustuslakivaliokunnan Lausunto 55/2006 Vp

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J (2010) Making the social world: the structure of human civilization. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Suomen Hallitus HE 1/1998 vp. Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle uudeksi Suomen Hallitusmuodoksi

    Google Scholar 

  • Suomen H (2010) Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle laiksi luvan saaneista oikeudenkäyntiavustajista ja eräiksi siihen liittyviksi laeiksi

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomioistuinten tulosohjaustyöryhmä (1999) Laatu ja tuloksellisuus tuomioistuimessa. Tuomioistuinten tulosohjaustyöryhmän mietintö 17.12.1998, OM 433/31/98. Oikeusministeriö, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieruaho H (2011) Tuomion perusteluvelvollisuus Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen käytännössä. In: Huovila M, Lahti R, Ojala T (eds) Rikostuomion perusteleminen. Helsingin hovioikeus, Helsinki, pp 131–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Virolainen J (1995) Lainkäyttö: oikeudenkäynnin perusteet ja lainkäyttöelimet siviili-ja rikosprosessissa. Lakimiesliiton kustannus, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Virolainen J, Martikainen P (2003) Pro & Contra: tuomion perustelemisen keskeisiä kysymyksiä. Talentum, Saarijärvi

    Google Scholar 

  • Virolainen J, Martikainen P (2010) Tuomion perusteleminen. Talentum, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelmsson T (1992) Critical studies in private law: a treatise on need-rational principles in modern law. Springer Science & Business Media

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

    Markku Kiikeri

Authors
  1. Markku Kiikeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markku Kiikeri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Lawt, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Mátyás Bencze

  2. School of Law, University of Buckingham, Buckingham, UK

    Gar Yein Ng

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kiikeri, M. (2018). Quality of Legal Decisions: The Criteria Established by the Finnish Judiciary. In: Bencze, M., Ng, G. (eds) How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 69. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97316-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97316-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97315-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97316-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation