professorspolitik och samhällsförändring he wrote in his memoirs, a different State was involved, adopting violent and sometimes wildly ambitious goals. The State had changed face and “stood there in all its true despotic guise, while the legal foundations of this power remained a mystery”. Herlitz thus changed his position, although this did not bridge the gap with Reuterskiöld and Sundberg. Robert Malmgren in Lund adopted an intermediate position. Although he did not make any deep impression in administrative law literature, he appears to have been very important to maintaining teaching the subject, among other things with extensive seminar and case studies. Furthermore, he defended the Swedish network of administrative law researchers and practitioners. When Malmgren was about to leave his professorship in Lund, it transpired to be difficult to recruit any competent successor, something that further illustrates the shortage of qualified administrative law researchers in Sweden even in the mid-1940s. Erik Fahlbeck was eventually appointed in Lund in 1943, though following great doubt on the part of all of the experts Herlitz, Malmgren, Sundberg and following extensive private correspondence between Herlitz and Malmgren. Fahlbeck took up his position in 1944 where he stayed until 1959. In Lund, as previously in Uppsala and Stockholm, the situation had stabilised in the mid-1940s. However, more professors had increased the scope for ‘Herren anderer Meinung’. The Swedish administrative law’s sparse representatives were split in the ‘fight for supremacy’ where there was a dividing line between on the one part Uppsala’s Reuterskiöld, with some support from his disciple Sundberg, and on the other part Stockholm’s Herlitz, with some support from Malmgren in Lund. Reuterskiöld made several negative assessments about Herlitz in reviews and articles, criticising inadequate legal scientific quality. Herlitz responded by, among other things, stating that Reuterskiöld did not have the only truth or had not kept up with general development within legal science, which called for an emancipation from ‘a more or less metaphysically established conceptual world’. The legal policy disagreements had not gone away. Herlitz’ motion in 1942 for more secure public administrative procedures had resulted in a 286
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=