english summary 1077 questionable in a constitutional perspective, the judge uses a margin of judicial review. Such margins can be differentiated; formally, if the judge treats different types of norms differently, or materially, if the judge is stricter towards infringements of certain rights and freedoms than of others. In a time period prior to 1800, and increasingly again in recent decades, law can be said to be diverse rather than uniform. It contains several interpenetrated legal orders. Here, the attitudes of judges are even more important, because there is no one single legislator which a judge can follow in cases of doubt. Instead, the judge must choose to follow the assessment of the national legislator or of one of the courts on a European level, or do his or her best interpretation of the law in the individual case. Which choice the judge should make is not self-evident. An important commonality between the different Nordic constitutions of 1809, 1814 and 1849 was that there was no explicit rule about judicial review of legislation. An important difference between them was that two of the new constitutions (the Swedish and Danish) regulated existing states, while two others (the Finnish and Norwegian) became symbols of newly created states. In Norway, only the powers specified in the constitution were given to the state. Something similar applies to Finland, where the constitutional laws were older than the state but where the Emperor-Grand Duke promised to observe them. The formation of the Norwegian and Finnish states was not a result of a revolution, but of changes in the balance of power on a European level. Still, in Norway and Finland, the difference between the constitutional legislator and the ordinary legislator was more pronounced than in Sweden, where an existing king and parliament agreed to a reorganization of an existing state. In Denmark, a constituent assembly, not directly linked to an established parliament, was convened, but the state and the royal power were already established. On the other hand, an important difference between the Norwegian and the Danish constitutions from the other two was that rights and freedoms were made much clearer, as was the division of powers into the legislative, executive and judicial branches. In Norway and Denmark, rights and freedoms were guaranteed in the constitution, in Finland and Sweden, they were to be regulated by law. The need for constitutional checks and balances were, however, discussed in Sweden and Norway soon after the assumption of the constitutions. Norway differed from the other countries in that What was the difference between the Nordic constitutions of the 19th century?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=