121 Hejesteret 1661—1961. Forste bind. Kobenhavn 1961: Artikler av Bent Christensen og Georg Norregaard. Hojesteret 1661—1986. [Sxrutgave av Ugeskrift for Retsvxsen.] Kobenhavn 1986: Artikkel av Ditlev Tamm. Kaartvedt, Alf, Det norske Storting gjennom 150 år. Bind 1: Fra Riksförsamlingen til 1869. Oslo 1964. Modéer, Kjell Å., Granskning eller prövning? Högsta domstolen som normbildare. Några rättshistoriska synpunkter. I: Omlagrddsgranskning, s. 13-31. Lund 1987. Pedersen, OddJarl, Funksjonsfordeling og normkontroll — Kompetansetvistteorien og andre teorier om domstolenes kompetanse. [Institutt for privatrett. Universitetet i Oslo, Stensilserie nr. 46. Oslo 1976.] Sandvik, Gudmund, Domande kommisjonar i Norge. Ein rettshistorisk studie. [Institutt for privatrett. Universitetet i Oslo, Stensilserie nr. 1. Oslo 1974.] Seip, Jens Arup, Den norske hoyesterett sompolitisk organ. Lov og rett 1965 s. 1-21. Smith, Eivind, Grunnlov og lov i Floyesteretts praksis. [Upublisert manuskript, 1986.] Smith, Eivind, Rettslig proving av lovgivning og regjeringsbeslutninger. I: Rättssäkerhet & demokrati. Stockholm 1985, s. 117-136. Stang, Friderich, Systematisk Fremstilling afKongeriget Norges constitutionnelle eller grundlovbestemte Ret. Christiania 1833. Westman, Karl Gustaf, Den gustavianska Högsta Domstolen och dess hävdatecknare. [Svensk] Flistorisk Tidskrift 1924 s. 317 flg. Orsted, Anders Sandoe, Haandbog over den danske og norske lovkyndighed . . ., Sjette bind. Kjobenhavn 1835. Summary: TheJudicial Power under Constitutional law during the first half ofthe nineteenth century The article concentrates upon the activities of the supreme courts of Denmark, Norway and Sweden during the first half of the nineteenth century but also looks at the relationship these courts had with their respective kings. (The king of Sweden also became king of Norway in 1814, when the two countries were united, although the administration and crowns of the two countries were kept largely separate.) The constitutional perspective embraces in particular the independence of the judges and the courts from the legislative and executive powers and their control over these powers’ activities. The main purpose of the article is to see the constitutional role of the courts in a Scandinavian context. The period of study can give important clues to understanding the subsequent developments in this area. The boundaries of the time period are however not strictly defined. The contrast between the period in question and the preceding period is most strongly felt in Norway, where inter alia the enactment of the Constitution of 1814 created a new and independent Supreme Court, although even here developments were strongly influenced by traditions fromthe eighteenth century. An attempt is made to place the courts in a larger historical context. Two factors in particular should be stressed here. The first is the maintainance of absolute royal power in Denmark. The second is the traditional close relationship in Sweden between the executive power of the King and the courts. The constitutional position of the courts can also be evaluated from the perspective of the legal philosophy of the time, which saw the judge as “la bouche qui prononce les paroles de la loi” (Montesquieu) and the tradition created by the French revolution which granted the judge a less important role
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=