To Örebro University

In this article, we analyze constitutional interpretations in the leading constitutional cases bythe Finnish Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus) and the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (Korkeinhallinto-oikeus), paying particular attention to the use of preparatory works and precedents in constitutionalinterpretations. The article is based on an empirical comparative study in which we analyze theconstitutional reasoning of the Nordic Supreme Courts, using quantitative methods. The article showsthat the Finnish courts (and Nordic courts in general) use legislative intent as an independent argument,a practice that is uncommon outside the Nordics. In addition, the article demonstrates that Finnish courtstend to lack confidence in their own authority, placing greater trust in the Constitutional Law Committeeand exercising self-restraint in constitutional adjudication. Finally, challenges relating to the courts’ deferentialand cautious approach to constitutional interpretation are highlighted.

The article explores the evolution of Nordic legal pragmatism through a comparison withother European legal traditions, particularly that of Italy. The authors analyze the definingcharacteristics and historical development of a pragmatic approach in Nordic law, particularly inSweden, one that prioritizes problem-solving over theoretical abstraction. Tracing Nordic legalpragmatism back to medieval statutes, which were casuistic and practical rather thanconceptually systematic, and the relatively minimal influence of Roman law, the authorshighlight the unique trajectory of Nordic law in contrast to the rest of Europe. Over time, thisapproach fostered an emphasis on social utility and democratic processes, notably expressedin Scandinavian legal realism, which rejected metaphysical legal concepts. The article furtherexamines how pragmatism continues to permeate Swedish law today, evident in legaleducation, legal scholarship and judicial practices, where court judgments emphasize concise,context-sensitive reasoning over conceptual and argumentative diversity. Comparativeanalyses underscore that this pragmatic approach is a hallmark of the Nordic legal tradition,setting it apart from the more theory-driven continental European legal systems.

Automation of the judicial process has been the subject of debate among researchers and policymakers for some time. Partial automation of the judicial process always involves interaction between humans (judges, jurors, and other parties involved in court proceedings) and machines (software programs). These human-machine collaborations can be considered "anthrobotic systems" and we argue they should be designed with an understanding of the specific groups they are intended to serve. This article proposes a philosophical-conceptual framework that could contribute to a socially and ethically sound automation of court procedures. The automation of court procedures should be to a certain extent optimized for the legal tradition or group ethos in which it is developed and implemented. The concept of esprit de corps can be a useful tool for introducing more pluralism in the design of anthrobotic systems.

Disagreement among judges has always existed, even though not all courts have been allowed to reveal it. Disagreements between the members of a judicial panel regarding the resolution of a case is referred to as dissent. Such disagreements may be reflected in one or more separate opinions written by the members who remain in the minority with their views. This chapter offers a comparative analysis of the phenomenon of judicial dissent, outlines the existing literature, and highlights areas and questions that require further research. To this end, the chapter first offers a definition of the terminology and then addresses the primary methodological challenges. Subsequently, it examines the main research questions that have captivated scholars studying judicial dissent. In legal research, separate opinions can be in and of themselves the object of research aiming to analyse court practice, and for researchers who study any legal problem, they may serve as a useful source of arguments and possible solutions. The primary research question regarding the practice of judicial dissent is the extent to which judges are influenced by their own political views when making decisions. Finally, the chapter takes a comparative approach, presenting several studies conducted in relation to various jurisdictions, to shed light on dissent and other separate opinions.

Today all five Nordic countries are counted among the legal systems that have a decentralized model of judicial review. All Nordic courts have the power of judicial review and may directly apply and enforce their national constitution. They are, however, also traditionally considered to have a model of weak judicial review, as judges are reluctant to use this power and give instead considerable deference to the legislature. The Nordic Supreme Courts have, however, not been an exception from the global trend of rising judicial power. They have often taken a firmer stand on constitutional issues in the last few decades, determining the fundamental questions of politics. In some cases, their decisions even provoked accusations of excessive judicial activism. This chapter, without being able to rely on the JUDICON dataset, will discuss the relationship between judicial and legislative power in the Nordic countries based on doctrinal and, in a smaller part, empirical research carried out in the last three decades.

We present a systematic quantitative approach how to analyze the reasons that judges in Nordic countries publicly adduce for their decisions in constitutional matters, as implemented in the Nordic CONREASON Project. Based on encodings of forty (per court) purposively selected landmark cases, common traits and patterns of constitutional argumentative practices in each of the Nordic supreme courts were identi ed and an international comparison were made to courts from related studies. Our results provided strong support that, regarding speci c aspects (on a univariate level), one or more courts typically tended to deviate from the other Nordic courts. Also, in a multivariate worldwide comparison there were variation between the Nordic supreme courts. However, although not detached from other supreme courts, the Nordic supreme courts seemed to occupy an area of their own on the international map of constitutional reasoning. 

In September 2022, a ministerial decree caused a stir in Hungary. The decree in question was intended to require doctors to have the woman listen to the vital signs of the foetus (or embryo) before signing the medical records required to apply for the termination of the pregnancy. The influence of the Dobbs ruling, published by the US Supreme Court two months earlier, comes inevitably to mind. This short note offers a context to and a reflection on this development in Hungary.

Nel settembre 2022, un decreto ministeriale ha suscitato scalpore in Ungheria. Tale decreto impone ai medici di far ascoltare i segni vitali del feto (o embrione) alla donna incinta prima di firmare la cartella clinica necessaria per richiedere l’interruzione della gravidanza. Viene spontaneo pensare ad un’associazione con la sentenza Dobbs, pubblicata dalla Corte suprema statunitense due mesi prima. Questa breve nota offre un contesto ed una riflessione su tali sviluppi in Ungheria.