constitutional critical judging 1076 judgments and decisions, and positions in jurisprudence. In a deeper layer – the legal culture – change occurs more slowly. There are the preconceptions of lawyers, their methods, and the basic concepts and principles of law. In the deepest layer, the deep structure or deep culture, are the most fundamental principles of law, the longue durée of law. The layers influence each other. The daily activities in law affect the legal culture and deep structure. The legal culture and the deep structure are used for example when difficult cases will be decided. This communication, according to the Finnish legal scientist Kaarlo Tuori, occurs in six distinct ways: through sedimentation, constitution, specification, limitation, justification and criticism. In the deeper layers, there are three different factors relevant to the way law and the development of law can be understood. First, even if law is developed through legislation or case-law, it can be understood as having some fundamental principles which cannot be changed – “law as right”. Secondly, it can be understood as being an organism which is constantly changing in small steps through continuous adaptation by the courts – “law as custom”. Thirdly, it can be understood as an instrument of change – “law as command”. These different ways of understanding law are generally relevant for the analyses in the dissertation. In the more specific analyses of the attitudes of judges to constitutional critical judging, there is a need to discuss firstly whether a legal order is uniform or diversified. Secondly, if the legal order is uniform, the question is whether the organs of state, and different types of norms, are ordered hierarchically or side by side: Where different types of norms are ordered side by side, a constitution can be understood as merely a guide-line for the legislator as the superior organ of the state. If, on the other hand, a constitution is hierarchically superior, the organs of state are ordered side by side in relation to it. Historically, it has not been generally accepted that a constitution has a superior position. In a uniform legal system where the organs of state are hierarchically ordered and the types of norms are ordered side by side, the courts usually have little opportunity to exercise constitutional critical judging. If, on the other hand, the types of norms are ordered hierarchically and the organs of state are ordered side by side, the judges have ample opportunity to exercise constitutional critical judging. An important factor is also, however, the attitudes of judges: Judges inclined to developing law are more likely to consider the constitution and other superior norms than a judge inclined to merely applying legislation. If a judge in a case of doubt applies a statute, which is
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=