In this article, the #MeToo movement, as a socio-political form of e-discourse (discourse enacted on social media platforms and other types of online channels), will be examined in terms of the effectiveness of its discursive forms and the kinds of effects these have had on social consciousness generally with regard to sexual misconduct in the workplace, and in terms of the cases it has made famous against individuals via “trial-by-social-media,” and their outcomes in people’s lives. The specific cases discussed in this paper are those concerning well-known Swedish and American media personalities, which are assessed within a broad discourse and legal framework. Overall, we conclude that, while movement has had a profound effect on social consciousness, so far it has not impugned the validity of legal systems in countries such as Sweden and the United States.
This papers analyses the main contents of the Finland Constitution and the Judiciary. Finland Constitution is the basis of all legislation. It exercises of government power, and it details the fundamental rules, values and principles of Finnish democracy. According to the Constitution, judicial power lies with independent courts of law. The courts are independent: they are bound only by the law in force. Finnish procedural law has been both internationalized and constitutionalized since the 1990s and the result of court proceedings plays a more significant role for the parties.
In this chapter, the East-Nordic, that is Finnish and Swedish, court culture and mentality and its historical, cultural and societal roots are explored. The objective of the chapter is to uncover the mechanisms underlying the East-Nordic court mentality and the hallmarks of Swedish and Finnish court culture, as well as to identify how these processes influence adjudication. Emphasis is put on the historical development of these countries, since Finland was part of Sweden until 1809. After Finland became an autonomous Grand Dutchy of the Russian Empire, it suffered under Russification, whereas Sweden was still part of the western sphere. Even after Finland gained independence in 1917, the history of the two countries has differed to some extent. Therefore, it is interesting to explore the manner in which the differences in history are manifested in contemporary court proceedings. This study is based mainly on comparative and historical resources.
Human rights/ human considerations have started to carry more weight nowadays, especially in enforcement matters. Both rehabilitative and social aims in legal matters have been strengthened during recent decades. At the same time, increasingly intensive instruments to handle artificial arrangements and fraudulent debtors have emerged. Thus, the question arises whether the enforcement system embodies a creditor-biased or a debtor-biased framework. The present article debates this question in the context of Finnish legislation, focusing on two perspectives of the Finnish enforcement system: How are debtors protected? How can we ensure that the enforcement is efficient?
Parties need to co-operate to resolve their dispute consensually. This duty has developed into a common European standard over the last two decades. The objective is to avoid any misuse of procedure. It is also about saving resources and especially about conflict resolution. By confirming a settlement, a dispute is solved not only juridically but also from the psychological and sociological perspective. When reaching a settlement, the parties can also affect the contents of the solution. To promote friendly settlements and ADR it is significant to reach equivalent effects through a settlement compared with a judgment. Even though a confirmed settlement is enforceable, there are some other effects which may be weaker when a confirmed settlement is compared with a judgment. For instance, it is disputed whether res judicata covers confirmed settlements in the same way as a judgment. Even though, the parties are not able to unilaterally enlarge the court’s powers as defined by law, it is important to recognize the value of allowing parties to reach a settlement that includes matters not strictly covered by the legal dispute before the court. It is the parties who should be satisfied with the result, not the court. Therefore, the court should confirm even settlements which are not only judicial but include other aspects too, like an apology. Even the correspondence with substantive law should be interpreted quite flexibly, to cover as many contracts as possible.
Court proceedings should be fair. Accordingly, the right to be heard has traditionally been considered one of the fundamental principles of court proceedings. Earlier, this right was mainly interpreted in a normative and rather passive sense. Recently, however, the interpretation of the right to be heard has developed towards the requirement of active and factual participation of court parties on equal terms with the other parties involved. The explanation for this should be sought in modern (procedural) law, which is more sociologically influenced than has previously been the case. Nowadays fairness is also about feelings. Welfare in courts means not only the rule of law and legal security in its traditional form, but also a good atmosphere and the presence of concrete means to give fair experiences to people who visit courts. This places communication and interaction between judges and parties in a central position as some of the most important instruments for achieving a fair hearing. With regard to the formulation of judgments and decisions, it is important that court lawyers put themselves in the parties’ situation and give careful deliberation to the purpose of their texts and how they will be perceived and understood by those concerned. The media, too, has a key role to play as a communicating link between the courts and citizens. For the media to be able to give an all-round and balanced picture of the courts, decision-making processes in courts must, as far as possible, be observable, or, in other words, transparent. Therefore, courts are in the process of throwing open their doors and judges no longer tend to hide behind their law-books. Post-modern legal decision-making is “doing justice together” rather than isolated use of power. Courts need to face people. And to do that, they need to master the most crucial instrument of all, namely appropriate language use. The present article discusses how to realize/operationalize this “modern” form of fairness in courts and how to maintain it with reference to legal theory and practical needs.
In Sweden, a system of group actions has been in force since 2003. The original aim was to see about 20 such actions a year. In actual fact, in the 17 years of the existence of the system, 21 group action cases have been initiated, a number of which ended successfully for the plaintiffs. In Finland, only a public group action is allowed by the Group Action Act and the only authority that can bring the action is the Consumer Ombudsman. Up to the present time, there have been no group actions filed in Finland, even though the Act has been in force since late 2007. This cautious start was made in order to guarantee safeguards against the abuse of the group action system and to reach consensus to accept group actions in the country. Thus, so far East-Nordic (ie Swedish and Finnish) group actions have not been very successful. This has led to discussions in both countries as to the reasons why. In Sweden, discussions examine how to make the group action procedure more effective in the future. In Finland, discussions explore the scope of group actions and the possibilities to make them broader. However, those who are opposed to the group action system per se and its widening repeat the argument that the American way of litigation brings risks and does not fit well into Nordic legal culture. This argument was already common at the time the group action system was adopted in Sweden and in Finland as well. Does, in fact, this argument hold true? Or, can group actions actually correspond with East-Nordic culture? This contribution explores—and offers answers—to these questions.