Table of Contents

Rights-Based Constitutional Review

Rights-Based Constitutional Review

Constitutional Courts in a Changing Landscape

Studies in Comparative Law and Legal Culture series

Edited by John Bell and Marie-Luce Paris

Constitutional review has become an essential feature of modern liberal democratic constitutionalism. In particular, constitutional review in the context of rights litigation has proved to be most challenging for the courts. By offering in-depth analyses on changes affecting constitutional design and constitutional adjudication, while also engaging with general theories of comparative constitutionalism, this book seeks to provide a heightened understanding of the constitutional and political responses to the issue of adaptability and endurance of rights-based constitutional review. Providing structured analyses the editors combine studies of common law and civil law jurisdictions, centralized and decentralized systems of constitutional review, and large and small jurisdictions.

Chapter 5: Finland

Juha Lavapuro, Tuomas Ojanen and Martin Scheinin

Subjects: law - academic, comparative law, constitutional and administrative law

Abstract

Chapter 5 on Finland (‘Intermediate constitutional review in Finland: promising in theory, problematic in practice’) offers the perspective of a Nordic system. Although its legal culture is based on the civil law tradition, the Finnish system arguably lends itself to relevant parallels with the new Commonwealth model of constitutionalism. Authors Juha Lavapuro, Tuomas Ojanen and Martin Scheinin explain the developments—notably Finland joining the EU and the Strasbourg system as well as other domestic constitutional reforms—which resulted in a shift from a centralized legislative-based constitutionalism to an institutionally pluralist and predominantly rights-based paradigm. However, they also argue that this shift has fallen short of materializing into fully-fledged constitutionalism. In that respect, the Finnish system stands as a ‘peculiar example of intermediate constitutionalism’ characterized by a tension between old doctrines and institutions which emphasize the legislative supremacy of Parliament—with an intact prohibition of judicial review of legislation—and a new paradigm which underline the importance of rights and the role of courts. The authors then question the extent to which the Finnish system offers a genuine third alternative of constitutional review. Indeed, the transformation of the system has resulted in institutional confusion—with the main constitutional actors missing a clear understanding of their role—rather than led to a meaningful constitutional dialogue between the courts and the legislature.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information