light on the interpretation of the Constitution. In the text it is stated that the Perustuslakivaliokunta has a central and an authoritative position in terms of the interpretation of the Perustuslaki. (16) Further, Antero Jyranki, for example, writes that the Perustuslakivaliokunta is the most authoritative interpreting body of the Perustuslaki. However, Jyranki states that other state bodies are also capable of making interpretations, because the Perustuslaki gives different kinds of opportunity, for example to the courts to apply the Perustuslaki and use it as an argument (17) As mentioned above. the Perustuslakivaliokunta is one of the committees in the finnish Parliament(Eduskunta), and members of the committee are Members of Parliament. According to the working order of Parliament(Eduskunnan tyojarjestys 40/2000), there have to be at least seventeen members on the committee and it has the authority to make decisions when at least two out of three of the members are present. The Perustuslakivaliokunta can issue statements Perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunto, PeVL)and produce reports(Perustuslakivaliokunnan mietinto Pe vM). First of all, these kinds of documents are given because of Government bills Interpretations of the Perustuslaki are usually given as statements, whereas the reports usually contain new doctrines. It can be said that the statements of the perustuslakivaliokunta are the most authoritative material in the interpretation of the Perustuslaki. (18)The committee is a provisional body, which means that Parliament has no obligation de jure to accept the committees solutions, except where Section 42.2 of the Perustuslaki is concerned. (19)Such a situation occurs when the Speaker of Parliament has refused to bring an issue to the vote, with the argument that it is against the Constitution or some other law In such a case. members of parliament can ask for a statement from the Perustuslakivaliokunta, to investigate whether the Speaker acted correctly However, solutions(as well as interpretations) of the committee have al ways been accepted de facto. There is no specific rule in the Perustuslaki concerning de facto binding statements, although in Section 74 it is stated that the duty of the Perustuslakivaliokunta is to give statements about matters that concern constitutionality and relations to international human rights treaties It can be said that the Perustuslakivaliokunta is at least at some level a political body, but it stil tries to be a judicial type of body. Various kinds of opinion can be found in Finnish legal writing concerning the Perustuslakivaliokunta's political role (20) Nevertheless, it seems to be so that almost everyone is willing to approve the authoritative role of the Perustuslakivaliokunta as both judicial and political. Much depends on the case, because some matters quite obviously have such strong political aspects that they cannot be bypassed in the interpretation process An important feature is that the Perustuslakivaliokunta regularly hears experts such as professors of law, civil servants, but also interest groups. Most of all, the Perustuslakivaliokunta hears experts on constitutional law. In practice, the de facto importance of these expert statements is noteworthy the recommended. Typical of the Perustuslakivaliokunta is the direct application of the statements given by the experts. For example, Ilkka Saraviita found that in many cases the committee writes almost exactly the same sentences that are found in the expert statements. (2 1) This fact has its effect in the case of argumentation: many of the arguments of the Perustuslakivaliokunta are, in fact, arguments of outsid
light on the interpretation of the Constitution. In the text it is stated that the Perustuslakivaliokunta has a central and an authoritative position in terms of the interpretation of the Perustuslaki.(16) Further, Antero Jyränki, for example, writes that the Perustuslakivaliokunta is the most authoritative interpreting body of the Perustuslaki. However, Jyränki states that other state bodies are also capable of making interpretations, because the Perustuslaki gives different kinds of opportunity, for example to the courts to apply the Perustuslaki and use it as an argument.(17) As mentioned above, the Perustuslakivaliokunta is one of the committees in the Finnish Parliament (Eduskunta), and members of the committee are Members of Parliament. According to the working order of Parliament (Eduskunnan työjärjestys 40/2000), there have to be at least seventeen members on the committee and it has the authority to make decisions when at least two out of three of the members are present. The Perustuslakivaliokunta can issue statements (Perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunto, PeVL) and produce reports (Perustuslakivaliokunnan mietintö, PeVM). First of all, these kinds of documents are given because of Government bills. Interpretations of the Perustuslaki are usually given as statements, whereas the reports usually contain new doctrines. It can be said that the statements of the Perustuslakivaliokunta are the most authoritative material in the interpretation of the Perustuslaki.(18) The committee is a provisional body, which means that Parliament has no obligation de jure to accept the committee's solutions, except where Section 42.2 of the Perustuslaki is concerned.(19) Such a situation occurs when the Speaker of Parliament has refused to bring an issue to the vote, with the argument that it is against the Constitution or some other law. In such a case, Members of Parliament can ask for a statement from the Perustuslakivaliokunta, to investigate whether the Speaker acted correctly. However, solutions (as well as interpretations) of the committee have always been accepted de facto. There is no specific rule in the Perustuslaki concerning de facto binding statements, although in Section 74 it is stated that the duty of the Perustuslakivaliokunta is to give statements about matters that concern constitutionality and relations to international human rights treaties. It can be said that the Perustuslakivaliokunta is at least at some level a political body, but it still tries to be a judicial type of body. Various kinds of opinion can be found in Finnish legal writing concerning the Perustuslakivaliokunta's political role.(20) Nevertheless, it seems to be so that almost everyone is willing to approve the authoritative role of the Perustuslakivaliokunta as both judicial and political. Much depends on the case, because some matters quite obviously have such strong political aspects that they cannot be bypassed in the interpretation process. An important feature is that the Perustuslakivaliokunta regularly hears experts such as professors of law, civil servants, but also interest groups. Most of all, the Perustuslakivaliokunta hears experts on constitutional law. In practice, the de facto importance of these expert statements is noteworthy, and the Perustuslakivaliokunta usually accepts the interpretation that the majority of experts recommended. Typical of the Perustuslakivaliokunta is the direct application of the statements given by the experts. For example, Ilkka Saraviita found that in many cases the committee writes almost exactly the same sentences that are found in the expert statements.(21) This fact has its effect in the case of argumentation: many of the arguments of the Perustuslakivaliokunta are, in fact, arguments of outside experts
5. who are the authoritative interpreters of the Constitution in norway In Norway too, some state bodies have authority in matters concerning the interpretation of the Constitution( Grunnlov, from the year 1814). In practice it is possible that many state bodies have to interpret the Grunnlov. More often this occurs in the courts, Parliament (Storting), the Government(Regjering) and the Parliaments ombudsman( Stortingets sivilombudsman ). Such a ituation may also arise when a person has appealed against a court decision. Local government bodies may have to interpret the grunnlov. Erik Boe mentions that a so-called fylkesman-local government body -can in practice make interpretations of the Grunnlov. (22)Although there seem to be several state bodies that have made their own interpretations of the Grunnlov, most of them, however, do not seem to be very authoritative In Norway, the Supreme Court(Hoyesterett) is the most authoritative interpreting body of the runnlov. (23) The central position of the Hoyesterett as regards matters concerning the interpretation of the Grunnlov is based primarily on constitutional customary law. (24)Thus, the Grunnlov does not state that the Hoyesterett is the most authoritative interpreting body of the Constitution. Interpretations are made in concrete court decisions. As constitutional judicial review is an important form of interpretation of the Grunnlov, so in Norway the control is concrete and takes place afterwards Members of the hoyesterett are professional judges who are chosen by the ministry of Justice (25) There is no fixed number of judges on the Hoyesterett, but usually their number does not exceed twenty (26)Cases to the Hoyesterett come from the lower courts and these may concern different kinds of affairs, for example criminal cases or compensation cases. It should be noticed that, in fact, very few cases concern constitutional matters (27)When the Hoyesterett makes a decision( a judgment), it includes the opinions of every judge. The decision is legally binding when it is made in the plenum, but the Hoyesterett can change its interpretation doctrines whenever it deems ecessary. (28) There has been a debate on the question whether the Hoyesterett can be labelled a political body. (29)Many Norwegian researchers have the opinion that the Hoyesterett also has a political function, because both law and politics belong to the role which the Hoyesterett has as a ' creator of law or as a 'negative legislator Thus, the Hoyesterett actually has two separate roles: on the one hand it is self-restraining and on the other it is active. 30) Nevertheless, the active side of the Hoyesterett is so strong that in Norway it is thought that the Hoyesterett is also some kind of political institution, a third state power. In other words, the Hoyesterett is not simply a court because it has constitutional functions that are not available in other courts ( 31) 6. Some examples of the argumentation of the Perustuslakivaliokunta and the Hoyesterett
5. Who are the authoritative interpreters of the Constitution in Norway? In Norway too, some state bodies have authority in matters concerning the interpretation of the Constitution (Grunnlov, from the year 1814). In practice it is possible that many state bodies have to interpret the Grunnlov. More often this occurs in the courts, Parliament (Storting), the Government (Regjering) and the Parliament's ombudsman (Stortingets sivilombudsman). Such a situation may also arise when a person has appealed against a court decision. Local government bodies may have to interpret the Grunnlov. Erik Boe mentions that a so-called fylkesman - local government body - can in practice make interpretations of the Grunnlov.(22) Although there seem to be several state bodies that have made their own interpretations of the Grunnlov, most of them, however, do not seem to be very authoritative. In Norway, the Supreme Court (Høyesterett) is the most authoritative interpreting body of the Grunnlov.(23) The central position of the Høyesterett as regards matters concerning the interpretation of the Grunnlov is based primarily on constitutional customary law.(24) Thus, the Grunnlov does not state that the Høyesterett is the most authoritative interpreting body of the Constitution. Interpretations are made in concrete court decisions. As constitutional judicial review is an important form of interpretation of the Grunnlov, so in Norway the control is concrete and takes place afterwards. Members of the Høyesterett are professional judges who are chosen by the Ministry of Justice.(25) There is no fixed number of judges on the Høyesterett, but usually their number does not exceed twenty.(26) Cases to the Høyesterett come from the lower courts and these may concern different kinds of affairs, for example criminal cases or compensation cases. It should be noticed that, in fact, very few cases concern constitutional matters.(27) When the Høyesterett makes a decision (a judgment), it includes the opinions of every judge. The decision is legally binding when it is made in the plenum, but the Høyesterett can change its interpretation doctrines whenever it deems it necessary.(28) There has been a debate on the question whether the Høyesterett can be labelled a political body.(29) Many Norwegian researchers have the opinion that the Høyesterett also has a political function, because both law and politics belong to the role which the Høyesterett has as a 'creator of law' or as a 'negative legislator'. Thus, the Høyesterett actually has two separate roles: on the one hand it is self-restraining and on the other it is active.(30) Nevertheless, the active side of the Høyesterett is so strong that in Norway it is thought that the Høyesterett is also some kind of political institution, a 'third state power'. In other words, the Høyesterett is not simply a court because it has constitutional functions that are not available in other courts.(31) 6. Some examples of the argumentation of the Perustuslakivaliokunta and the Høyesterett