Abstract
Notwithstanding its bicentennial system of judicial review, the constitutional system of Norway does not seem to justify a shift from a triangular to a bipolar perspective. In the single-tiered judicial system, the courts have competence in any legal matter, including administrative and constitutional law. Some lacunae in the constitutional protection have not given rise to serious concerns about its independence. However, judicial appointments by the executive give rise to some particular questions. The author argues that appointment completely isolated from the political branches of government, as sometimes advocated, undermines the legitimacy of judges with a permanent status to undertake constitutional and other norm-setting functions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Editor’s guidelines. As current literature tends to use the word ‘constitutionalism’ in different ways that are not always made apparent, it will not be further called upon in this chapter.
- 2.
For a prominent example, see Koopmans 2003, pp 248–251.
- 3.
See for instance Trondal 2012.
- 4.
Van der Schyff 2010, p 5.
- 5.
- 6.
The expression, forged by the playwright Henrik Ibsen during the nation-building years of the late 1800s, has been contested by historians.
- 7.
Cf. Langeland 2005.
- 8.
Cf. Christensen et al. 2015.
- 9.
Among several hundred constitutions adopted during the last years of the 18th and the first years of the 19th centuries, only few actually succeeded in constituting a new state and/or a new political regime.
- 10.
On the symbolic functions of constitutions, see Smith 2012c, pp 767–795.
- 11.
For a comparative look at the doctrine of precedent in Norway, see Eng 2000.
- 12.
Supreme Court of Norway 2017.
- 13.
In addition to the provisions on the National Court, Articles 55 and 64 of the Constitution, which confer the resolution of disputes over parliamentary elections to Parliament, provide examples.
- 14.
- 15.
Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution.
- 16.
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway 2018, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/ (unofficial translation). Accessed 1 March 2019.
- 17.
Of course, the statement about the absence of ‘serious threats’ does not exclude that a number of other concerns merit discussion. See further in the anthology published in Norwegian at the occasion of the centennial of the Norwegian Association of Judges (Engstad et al. 2012), including Smith 2012a (on the use of short-term appointments for filling vacancies, including the use of retired judges in short-term positions within the collegial formations of the courts of appeal).
- 18.
Engstad et al. 2014.
- 19.
The Supervisory Committee for Judges 2016.
- 20.
Since the very beginning, the generally framed non-retroactivity clause in Article 97 has constantly been the constitutional provision attracting the highest number of court cases.
- 21.
On the emergence of the Constitution of Norway as positive law, see Smith 1999.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
Cf. Langeland 2005, pp 369 ff.
- 25.
UfL 1866, p 165 (Wedel Jarlsberg) on a question of non-retroactivity.
- 26.
It is no surprise that Lasson’s core reasoning leans heavily on a kind of hierarchical argument close to those called upon by US Chief justice Marshall in the famous Marbury v Madison case (1802).
- 27.
Supreme Court of Norway, ‘den store konsesjonssak’, 19 October 1917, Rt. 1918, p 1.
- 28.
Supreme Court of Norway, ‘Kløfta’, 27 January 1976, Rt. 1976, p 1.
- 29.
Supreme Court of Norway, ‘tomtefeste III’, 21 September 2007, Rt. 2007, p 1308. On the recent history of the Supreme Court of Norway, see Sunde 2005.
- 30.
Supreme Court of Norway, ‘rederiskatt’, 12 February 2010, Rt. 2010, p 143.
- 31.
Supreme Court of Norway, ‘Opplysningsvesenets fond’, 12 May 2010, Rt. 2010, p 535.
- 32.
- 33.
For a telling example, see Supreme Court of Norway, ‘Maria’, 29 January 2015, Rt. 2015, p 93 on the legality of expulsing a Nigerian woman whose small daughter had obtained Norwegian citizenship.
- 34.
Supreme Court of Norway 2018.
- 35.
Bårdsen 2017.
- 36.
See further Smith 2017.
- 37.
Supreme Court of Norway, 24 November 2014, Rt. 2014, p 1105.
- 38.
See further Kinander 2016.
- 39.
A governmental commission appointed in 2017 is currently discussing whether the administration of the judiciary should turn to an even stronger version of encapsulation from the political branches of government; see also www.domstolkommisjonen.no. Accessed 1 March 2019.
- 40.
Madison 1961.
- 41.
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway 2018, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1814-05-17/ (unofficial translation). Accessed 1 March 2019.
- 42.
For a political science perspective, see Grendstad et al. 2015.
- 43.
- 44.
See for instance Stone Sweet 2012.
- 45.
Council of Europe 2010.
References
Bårdsen A (2015) The Nordic Supreme Courts as Constitutional Courts. Main Features as Seen From the Norwegian Perspective. https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/artikler-og-foredrag/nordic-constitutional-courts—vienna-29102015.pdf Accessed 1 March 2019
Bårdsen A (2017) The Norwegian Supreme Court as the Guardian of Constitutional Rights and Freedoms. https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/artikler-og-foredrag/supreme-court—constitutional-rights—bardsen18092017.pdf Accessed 1 March 2019
Christensen J P, Erichsen J, Tamm D (2015) The Supreme Court of Denmark. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen
Council of Europe (2010) Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16807096c1 Accessed 1 March 2019
Eng S (2000) The Doctrine of Precedent in English and Norwegian Law. Some Common and Specific Features. Scandinavian Studies in Law. Stockholm Institute for Scandinavian Law, Stockholm
Engstad N, Frøseth A L, Tønder B (eds) (2012) Dommernes uavhengighet. Den norske dommerforening 100 år. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen
Engstad N, Froseth A L, Tonder B (eds) (2014) The Independence of Judges. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague
Grendstad G, Shaffer W R, Waltenburg E (2015) Policy Making in an Independent Judiciary. The Norwegian Supreme Court. ECPR Press, Colchester
Holmøyvik E (2007) Årsaker til utviklinga av prøvingsretten i Noreg og Danmark. Tidsskrift for rettsvitenskap pp 718–779
Kierulf A (2018) Judicial Review in Norway. A Bicentennial Debate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kinander M (2016) Fra tilbakeholdenhet til aktivisme: Nyere utviklingslinjer i forholdet mellom rett og politikk i Høyesterett. Lov og rett 2016 pp 141–164
Koopmans T (2003) Courts and Political Institutions. A Comparative View. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Langeland N R (2005) Siste ord. Høgsterett i norsk historie. Bind I, 1814–1905. Cappelen, Oslo
Madison J (1961) The Federalist Papers. No. 51. The New American Library, New York
OECD (2017) How’s Life? Measuring Well-Being. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/how-s-life-2017_how_life-2017-en#page1 Accessed 1 March 2019
Ortiz-Spinosa E, Roser M (2017) Trust. https://ourworldindata.org/trust Accessed 1 March 2019
Sandmo E (2005) Siste ord. Høyesterett i norsk historie. Bind II, 1905–1965. Cappelen, Oslo
Slagstad R (1995) The Breakthrough of Judicial Review in the Norwegian System. In: Smith E (ed) Constitutional Justice under Old Constitutions. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 81–112
Smith E (1993) Høyesterett og folkestyret. Prøvingsretten overfor lover. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
Smith E (1999) On the formation and development of constitutional justice in a democratic society. In: Marcusson L et al (eds) Festskrift till Fredrik Sterzel. Iustus, Uppsala, pp 289–305
Smith E (2011) Norway. Supreme Court strongly reaffirms supremacy of constitution by striking down controversial legislative provisions. Public Law, London, pp 188–190
Smith E (2012a) Høyesterett som statsmakt: Innordnet, men uavhengig? In: Engstad N et al (eds) Dommernes uavhengighet. Den norske dommerforening 100 år. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen, pp 149–179
Smith E (2012b) Norway. Supreme Court on non-retroactivity of new legislation regarding crimes of war. Public Law, London, pp 577–578
Smith E (2012c) Les fonctions symboliques des constitutions. In: Troper T, Chagnollaud D (eds) Traité international de droit constitutionnel. Tome I: Théorie de la Constitution. Dalloz, Paris
Smith E (2017) Er Høyesterett en konstitusjonsdomstol? Jussens Venner (Oslo) 2/2017, pp 98–121
Smith E (2018) Judicial Review of Legislation. In: Krunke H, Thorarensen B (eds) The Nordic Constitutions. A Comparative and Contextual Approach. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Ch. 5
Stone Sweet A (2012) Constitutional Courts. In: Rosenfeld M, Sajó B (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Ch. 38
Sunde J Ø (2005) Høgsteretts historie 1965–2015. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen
Supreme Court of Norway (2017) Annual Report 2017. https://indd.adobe.com/view/1bc9c6b9-75c2-4d3d-8af2-c950e08fff40 Accessed 1 March 2019
Supreme Court of Norway (2018) The Supreme Court. https://www.domstol.no/en/Enkelt-domstol/-norges-hoyesterett/ Accessed 1 March 2019
The Supervisory Committee for Judges (2016) Annual Report. https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/tu/arsmelding-2016_eng.pdf Accessed 27 November 2018
Trondal J (2012) The Agency Phenomenon in the European Union. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Van der Schyff G (2010) Judicial Review of Legislation. A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and South Africa. Springer, Heidelberg
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, E. (2020). ‘… destroy all sense of dependence’: On the Selection and Independence of the Judiciary in Norway. In: Hirsch Ballin, E., van der Schyff, G., Stremler, M. (eds) European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019. European Yearbook of Constitutional Law, vol 1. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-359-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-359-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-358-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-359-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)