Judicial Constitutional Review as a Last Resort
This chapter starts by outlining the chapter's moderately critical analysis of external constitutional review of legislation and moves on to describes the ex post concrete constitutional review of legislation introduced in 2000 as it relates to the Finnish case, which was added to the pre-existing system of abstract ex ante review exercised by the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament. The latter is a quasi-judicial body composed of Members of Parliament and advised by constitutional experts whose opinions tend to be adopted by the Committee and are respected by the courts, but does not have to be followed by the Parliament. Ex post judicial review can bypass the legislation it considers ‘in evident conflict with the Constitution’ but the primary duty of the courts is to interpret legislation consistently with constitutional provisions. This is presented as a hybrid model which has retained a strong parliamentary involvement, although the chapter accepts that there is a certain juridification of legislative politics through the input of the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.