constitutional critical judging 1082 tury. Even if there were other cases, where the Norwegian justices showed more restraint, they had indicated that they did not refrain from interpreting and applying the Constitution when that was required. As regards Finland, constitutional critical judging was of another kind: Judges opposed, in the periods 1899-1905 and 1908-1917, attempts of the Emperor-Grand Duke to set aside the Finnish constitutional order. This was not just, as in the other countries, about that the legislator wanted changes in society. In Finland, thus, the negative side of constitutional critical judging was relevant, where the judges maintained the constitutional order against unconstitutional ordinances. In Norway, on the other hand, the positive side of constitutional critical judging was relevant, where the judges interpreted and applied constitutional rules to set aside legislation. Although the protection through the courts of the individual against the state was expressed, both in case-law and doctrine in all the countries in the 1880s and 1890s, the Norwegian and Finnish judges protected the constitution in a completely different way from the Danish and Swedish judges. In the 1920s and 1930s, however, the approaches of the four Nordic countries showed signs of convergence: In Finland, judicial review of legislation ceased to be recognized by the constitution of 1919, whilst the compatibility of ordinances with statutes and the constitution could be tried by the judges. In Sweden, the Supreme Court declared that it could review the constitutionality of ordinances but did so with great restraint. In Norway, the Supreme Court – after a period of quite vigorous constitutional critical judging, at least from a large part of the judges – in 1918 turned into a more restrictive type of judicial review. In Denmark, the courts declared that they could try the constitutionality of statutes but did so with great restraint. Constitutional critical judging was, at most, something that could be used in extreme cases, but normally constitutional critical judging was not to be expected. Although parliamentarianism was established at different times in the Nordic countries, the change in constitutional critical judging coincides with the breakthrough of democracy. Parliamentarianism can lead to a greater legitimacy for constitutional critical judging, since the other two organs of state do not limit each other anymore. On the other hand, democratization can reduce the legitimacy of constitutional critical judging, since it can be seen as a counter-majoritarian force. The latter aspect, as well as the ambiWhy did a similarity between the countries arise in the 1920s and 1930s?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=