To Örebro University

L’articolo analizza la proposta europea nota come “Chat Control” con specifico riferimento alla prevenzione e al rilevamento dell’adescamento di minori nelle comunicazioni digitali. Muovendo dall’esame del quadro normativo europeo e italiano, il contributo evidenzia un significativo disallineamento tra la definizione di «adescamento» accolta dalla Convenzione di Lanzarote e dalla direttiva 2011/93/UE, da un lato, e quella più ampia adottata dal legislatore italiano, dall’altro. Tale divergenza incide direttamente sulla compatibilità giuridica e sull’efficacia dei sistemi automatizzati di rilevazione previsti dalla proposta di regolamento. L’analisi mette in luce i limiti strutturali delle tecnologie di monitoraggio applicate alle comunicazioni testuali, il rischio di sovra- e sotto-inclusione delle condotte penalmente rilevanti e le conseguenti implicazioni per i diritti fondamentali, in particolare per la privacy e la certezza del diritto, auspicando un maggior coordinamento tra disciplina penale, soluzioni tecnologiche e obiettivi di armonizzazione europea.

This article presents the first comparative empirical study of constitutional reasoning in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). Drawing on 40 leading constitutional cases from each of the seven examined courts, the authors apply the CONREASON method to map how arguments and key constitutional concepts are used in judicial decision-making. The study situates Nordic courts within a global comparative framework, highlighting both shared regional features and notable divergences. It shows that, despite differences in constitutional texts and institutional arrangements, the Nordic courts exhibit a distinctive combination of deference to parliamentary intent and cautious judicial review. Preparatory works occupy an unusually prominent role in constitutional interpretation, particularly in Finland and Sweden, whereas Norway and Iceland rely more heavily on precedents. At the same time, all Nordic courts display high levels of engagement with international human rights law, especially the European Convention on Human Rights, while showing limited openness to foreign influence and intra-Nordic dialogue in this field. The article also examines the use of core constitutional concepts such as the rule of law and separation of powers, revealing how their application reflects deeper legal-cultural mentalities and historical contexts. By combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, the study provides new insights into the evolving Nordic constitutional culture and its position on the global spectrum of constitutional reasoning. It concludes by discussing the potential future challenges posed by Europeanization, internationalization, and political change for the traditionally restrained role of Nordic courts.

This book explores the argumentative style of the supreme courts in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden).

Its findings are based on empirical research involving 280 leading constitutional cases which demonstrate that the impact of a constitutional ruling often extends far beyond the cases actually adjudicated by the courts and that it is crucial to understand how judges justify their decisions in constitutional cases.

In the cases researched, the authors identify and explain the common features of the Nordic constitutional reasoning, situating the Nordic experience within a broader comparative framework. The book compares these practices with those of non-Nordic jurisdictions, analysing whether and how the approaches of Nordic supreme courts align with each other and with global trends. This is made possible through the use of a well-established conceptual and methodological framework, adapted to the Nordic context. Key aspects of judicial reasoning are examined, including the emphasis placed on specific constitutional concepts, the use of non-legal arguments, the reliance on precedents, and the types of sources typically referenced – such as preparatory works, foreign legal materials, and academic writings. The book is aimed at anyone interested in the constitutional culture of the Nordic countries and informs normative debates on constitutional law, both in scientific and political discourse. It contributes to the global academic discourse on constitutional reasoning with a unique perspective from the Nordic countries, which have often been overlooked in comparative research.

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.