Judicial Review in Norway

Anine Kierulf is Research Director at the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution.

1. Introduction; 1.1. Background and context; 1.2. Norway in a nutshell; 1.3. Review under the constitution – and the ECHR; 1.4. Book structure and terminology; 2. Legal foundations and doctrinal specifics; 2.1. Introduction; 2.2. The Norwegian Supreme Court; 2.3. The form of and basis for constitutional review; 2.4. The basis for ECHR review; 3. Foundations reviewed: the formative 1800s; 3.1. Outline of a nation constituted; 3.2. Courts, lawyers and background for judicial review; 3.3. On not losing sight of (some) individuals; 3.4. Review discussions prior to the 1866 case; 3.5. The 1866 case; 3.6. Arguments following 1866; 3.7. Liberal constitutionalism defined; 4. The emerging regulatory state and a constitutional watershed (early 1900s); 4.1. Constitutional questions arising – and discussed; 4.2. The waterfall case; 4.3. Legal opinions of 1912 and 1916; 4.4. Legal opinions following the 1918 case; 4.5. Parliamentary debates on review abolishment; 4.6. Constitutional case adjourned; 5. Post-WWII: social democratic constitutionalism?: 5.1. Introduction: review revival; 5.2. Occupation and post-war adjudication; 5.3. Regulatory reconstruction; 5.4. Law, politics and history; 5.5. Conquer and divide – preparing the expropriation statute; 5.6. The Kløfta case; 5.7. Kløfta case follow-up; 5.8. Judicial review confirmed; 6. Debates of ECHR review (1950–2000); 6.1. Introduction; 6.2. 'Original intent'; 6.3. On ECHR review prior to the HRA – the doctrine of clarity; 6.4. Preparations for the human rights act of 1999; 6.5. The power and democracy project; 6.6. Post-national constitutionalism?; 7. Dual review expressed (2000–2010); 7.1. Basis and case selection; 7.2. Speech vs personality rights: reputation; 7.3. Speech vs policy: political advertising; 7.4. Free speech review: a synthesis of ideals?; 8. A triple constitutional review revival: 2010; 8.1. Prelude; 8.2. 2010 Cases; 8.3. 2010 Cases Debate and Follow up; 8.4. Constitutional review reflections; 9. 2014–2015: rights reform – and judicial review constitutionalization; 9.1. The 2014 Constitutional Reform; 9.2. Judicial review constitutionalization; 9.3. Constitutional revitalization; 9.4. Dual review constitutionalized; 10. Looking back – and forward: 10.1. Legitimacy ideals disentangled; 10.2. Political review challenges; 10.3. Judicial review challenges; 10.4. A bicentennial debate.