part ii • legal cultures • jørn øyrehagen sunde History too plays a role when shaping the ideas and expectations of the law. No one starts from scratch understanding and speaking a language, because we inherit the language usages of previous users. This is also true of legal culture and court culture, and can be labelled path dependency.42 It does not mean that all lawyers share the same ideas and expectations of courts, though; it only implies there will always be existing ideas and expectations with which new ideas and expectations will have to interact. When Sweden and Finland have well-established systems of administrative courts, while Iceland, Norway, and Denmark have no separate administrative courts or chambers for administrative cases in general courts, it is hard to see any other reason than history.43 It is less obvious that the communication between institutions and between institutions and people also have to be taken into consideration as a separate kind of interaction. Each institution consists of people that act on its behalf and in its name, but differs from groups of people in general. Social, ethnic, and religious groups are often organized, but organization is not their primary objective. The interaction of and with institutions is hence more efficient, far-reaching, and forceful than that between people. That said, wemust not forget that the interaction of and with institutions has less effect when it does not correspond with existing ideas and expectations. Hence, institutions are forceful, but they also exist in a dialogue, and their ideas and expectations are shaped by their interactions. The importance of nature for legal culture has long been stressed, hinted at by the responses of Isidor of Seville and Montesquieu above. Historically, interaction with nature was key because it was the precondition for survival. This is less the case for many people today. However, as we have seen, historical interactions shaped the ideas and expectations of the law, just like contemporary interactions do. We must thus consider interaction with nature as a framework for all other interaction that 138 42 See Jaakko Husa, Kimmo Nuotio &Heikki Pihlajamäki (eds.), Nordic Law: Between Tradition and Dynamism(Antwerp: Intersentia, 2007), 10–13. 43 See Forvaltningsdomstoler i Norge? Kort gjennomgang av begreper og synspunkter, Difi-notat 2013:3, 15–16.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=