界定法院决策角色的制度:斯堪的纳维亚最高法院的比较分析

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Anna Wallerman Ghavanini, Gunnar Grendstad, Johan Karlsson Schaffer
{"title":"界定法院决策角色的制度:斯堪的纳维亚最高法院的比较分析","authors":"Anna Wallerman Ghavanini, Gunnar Grendstad, Johan Karlsson Schaffer","doi":"10.1093/icon/moad068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Scandinavian supreme courts have been described as deferential to the elected branches of government and reluctant to exercise their limited review powers. However, in recent years, these courts have increasingly decided cases impacting public policy making. Yet we lack comprehensive, comparative knowledge about the legal rules and judicial practices that govern the policymaking role of courts in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Addressing this gap, this article develops an analytical framework and systematically compares the evolving laws, rules, and practices that regulate the supreme courts’ constitutional review powers and court administration, the appointment and tenure of judges, access to the supreme courts, and their decision-making procedures over the last fifty years. The comparison reveals notable institutional differences across these judiciaries and finds that judicial expansion in Scandinavia has coincided with institutional changes that enhance judicial autonomy. This suggests that consequential reforms of domestic origin may have played a larger part in this development than previously appreciated.","PeriodicalId":51599,"journal":{"name":"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutions that define the policymaking role of courts: A comparative analysis of the supreme courts of Scandinavia\",\"authors\":\"Anna Wallerman Ghavanini, Gunnar Grendstad, Johan Karlsson Schaffer\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icon/moad068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Scandinavian supreme courts have been described as deferential to the elected branches of government and reluctant to exercise their limited review powers. However, in recent years, these courts have increasingly decided cases impacting public policy making. Yet we lack comprehensive, comparative knowledge about the legal rules and judicial practices that govern the policymaking role of courts in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Addressing this gap, this article develops an analytical framework and systematically compares the evolving laws, rules, and practices that regulate the supreme courts’ constitutional review powers and court administration, the appointment and tenure of judges, access to the supreme courts, and their decision-making procedures over the last fifty years. The comparison reveals notable institutional differences across these judiciaries and finds that judicial expansion in Scandinavia has coincided with institutional changes that enhance judicial autonomy. This suggests that consequential reforms of domestic origin may have played a larger part in this development than previously appreciated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moad068\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moad068","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

斯堪的纳维亚最高法院被描述为对选举产生的政府部门恭敬,不愿行使其有限的审查权力。然而,近年来,这些法院越来越多地裁决影响公共政策制定的案件。然而,我们对支配丹麦、挪威和瑞典法院决策作用的法律规则和司法实践缺乏全面、比较的了解。为了解决这一差距,本文开发了一个分析框架,并系统地比较了过去50年来规范最高法院宪法审查权力和法院行政、法官任命和任期、进入最高法院及其决策程序的不断发展的法律、规则和实践。比较揭示了这些司法机构之间显著的制度差异,并发现斯堪的纳维亚半岛的司法扩张与加强司法自治的制度变革相吻合。这表明,国内根源的相应改革可能在这一发展中发挥了比以前所认识到的更大的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Institutions that define the policymaking role of courts: A comparative analysis of the supreme courts of Scandinavia
Abstract Scandinavian supreme courts have been described as deferential to the elected branches of government and reluctant to exercise their limited review powers. However, in recent years, these courts have increasingly decided cases impacting public policy making. Yet we lack comprehensive, comparative knowledge about the legal rules and judicial practices that govern the policymaking role of courts in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Addressing this gap, this article develops an analytical framework and systematically compares the evolving laws, rules, and practices that regulate the supreme courts’ constitutional review powers and court administration, the appointment and tenure of judges, access to the supreme courts, and their decision-making procedures over the last fifty years. The comparison reveals notable institutional differences across these judiciaries and finds that judicial expansion in Scandinavia has coincided with institutional changes that enhance judicial autonomy. This suggests that consequential reforms of domestic origin may have played a larger part in this development than previously appreciated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
67
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信