Premium
The Norwegian Supreme Court and Equitable Considerations: Problematic Aspects of Legal Reasoning
Author(s) -
Magnussen AnneMette
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
scandinavian political studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.65
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1467-9477
pISSN - 0080-6757
DOI - 10.1111/j.0080-6757.2005.00121.x
Subject(s) - supreme court , legitimacy , political science , law , enforcement , competence (human resources) , institution , autonomy , law and economics , judicial opinion , norwegian , judicial review , politics , sociology , psychology , social psychology , linguistics , philosophy
Legitimacy, confidence and autonomy in the court system are dependent on people trusting the institution to make decisions based on predefined legal rules. Simultaneously, confidence in the system is also dependent on the system's capability to adjust to changes in values in society. The Norwegian courts appear to be increasingly basing their rulings on ‘equitable considerations’. This involves the making of decisions by reference not only to predefined rules – as expressed in structures or pre‐existing legal practice – but also to policy considerations such as utility and fairness. Judicial decisions made with reference to political considerations imply that the courts are arrogating a role that democratic theory reserves for legislators. What happens when ‘equitable considerations’ play a large part in the decisions of the Supreme Court? Does the institution have capabilities and mechanisms that sustain such a judicial practice as a legitimate form of law enforcement? I argue that the capability to adjust to changes in society only seems possible if the judges act beyond the domain of traditional judicial competence. Through different kinds of mechanisms, elements of ‘equitable considerations’ over time become hidden and difficult to grasp. On the one hand, this makes it possible for the Supreme Court to sustain a judicial practice as a legitimate form of law enforcement, but simultaneously it creates problems of confidence and legitimacy because the premises for the decisions are not explicated.