Advanced

Maktdelning och samförstånd - Perspektiv på den svenska normprövningsdebatten

Andreev, Dennis LU (2012) JURM02 20122
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I denna uppsats analyserar jag den debatt som har förts i Sverige i frågan om normprövning – dvs. möjligheten att underkänna en norm med hänvisning till att den strider mot ett högre rättsbud – från 1828 till 1980. Jag utgår ifrån att normprövningsdebatten kan indelas i tre olika diskurser, som var och en utgör ett säreget sätt att argumentera i frågan. Jag försöker visa hur de olika diskurserna har påverkats och formats av utomjuridiska faktorer så som faktiska politiska förhållanden och den vid varje tidpunkt förhärskande filosofiska grunduppfattningen.
Det första sättet att argumentera, som jag kallar maktdelningsdiskursen, var dominerande från början av 1800-talet och fram till 1930-talet. Denna diskurs hade som sin utgångspunkt att... (More)
I denna uppsats analyserar jag den debatt som har förts i Sverige i frågan om normprövning – dvs. möjligheten att underkänna en norm med hänvisning till att den strider mot ett högre rättsbud – från 1828 till 1980. Jag utgår ifrån att normprövningsdebatten kan indelas i tre olika diskurser, som var och en utgör ett säreget sätt att argumentera i frågan. Jag försöker visa hur de olika diskurserna har påverkats och formats av utomjuridiska faktorer så som faktiska politiska förhållanden och den vid varje tidpunkt förhärskande filosofiska grunduppfattningen.
Det första sättet att argumentera, som jag kallar maktdelningsdiskursen, var dominerande från början av 1800-talet och fram till 1930-talet. Denna diskurs hade som sin utgångspunkt att makten skulle delas mellan kungen och riksdagen och att normprövning utgjorde en kontrollmekanism vars uppgift det var att tillse att vare sig den styrande eller den lagstiftande makten överträdde sina befogenheter.
Det andra här behandlade argumentationssättet – samförståndsdiskursen – omfattar perioden från tidigt 1900-tal till omkring 1980 (även om dess effekter fortfarande är kännbara i svenskt rättsliv). Denna diskurs byggde på idéerna om samförstånd, samverkan och enhet. Kompromisslösningar – snarare än rättigheter och de konflikter dessa för med sig – var det politiska idealet. Denna diskurs har i mångt och mycket påverkats av det socialdemokratiska tänkandet och har varit avgörande för normprövningens utformning under stora delar av 1900-talet.
Slutligen ska här nämnas rättighetsdiskursen, som sträcker sig från mitten av 1970-talet in i våra dagar. Detta argumentationssätt faller utanför ramen för denna framställning och behandlas därför inte närmare.
Min analys av maktdelnings- och samförståndsdiskurserna har lett mig till att konstatera att de två argumentationssätten uppvisar tydliga skillnader men också ett antal likheter. Båda kan förklaras med utgångspunkt i dels de faktiska politiska förhållandena, dels den samtida uppfattningen om samhället och dess roll. Utomjuridiska faktorer visar sig alltså vara viktiga för hur jurister pratar och hur rätten ser ut. (Less)
Abstract
In this essay I analyse the debate concerning judicial review – i.e. the possibility of disregarding a legal norm due to its incompatibility with a higher norm – which has been going on in Sweden between 1828 and 1980. I assume that the debate can be divided into three different discourses, each of which constitutes a distinctive way of arguing the issue. I try to show how the different discourses have been influenced and shaped by such non-legal factors as actual political circumstances and the basic philosophical paradigm prevalent at each point in time.
The first argumentational paradigm, which I call the discourse of division of power, was prevalent from the beginning of the XIX century until the 1930s. This discourse had at its... (More)
In this essay I analyse the debate concerning judicial review – i.e. the possibility of disregarding a legal norm due to its incompatibility with a higher norm – which has been going on in Sweden between 1828 and 1980. I assume that the debate can be divided into three different discourses, each of which constitutes a distinctive way of arguing the issue. I try to show how the different discourses have been influenced and shaped by such non-legal factors as actual political circumstances and the basic philosophical paradigm prevalent at each point in time.
The first argumentational paradigm, which I call the discourse of division of power, was prevalent from the beginning of the XIX century until the 1930s. This discourse had at its foundation the idea that power was shared between king and parliament and that judicial review constituted a control mechanism designed to ensure that neither the executive nor the legislative branch overstepped its competence.
The second argumentational paradigm treated here – the discourse of concord – was dominant from the early XX century until about 1980 (even though its effects are still noticeable in the Swedish legal thinking today). This discourse built on the ideas of concord, co-operation and unity. Compromise solutions – rather than rights and the conflicts they entail – were the political ideal. This discourse has been greatly affected by social democratic ideology and has been decisive for shaping judicial review during large parts of the XX century.
Lastly, the discourse of rights is to be mentioned. It covers the period from mid-1970s onwards. This argumentational paradigm falls outside the scope of this essay and will therefore not be discussed further.
My analysis of the discourses of division of power and concord has led me to the conclusion that the two paradigms exhibit clear differences but also a number of similarities. Both can be explained by reference partly to the actual political conditions and partly to contemporary ideas about society and its role. Non-legal factors have therefore proven important for the way lawyers talk and the law looks. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Andreev, Dennis LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Division of power and concord - Perspectives on the Swedish debate concerning judicial review
course
JURM02 20122
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Rättshistoria, statsrätt, normprövning
language
Swedish
id
3350512
date added to LUP
2013-01-28 13:12:51
date last changed
2013-01-28 13:12:51
@misc{3350512,
  abstract     = {In this essay I analyse the debate concerning judicial review – i.e. the possibility of disregarding a legal norm due to its incompatibility with a higher norm – which has been going on in Sweden between 1828 and 1980. I assume that the debate can be divided into three different discourses, each of which constitutes a distinctive way of arguing the issue. I try to show how the different discourses have been influenced and shaped by such non-legal factors as actual political circumstances and the basic philosophical paradigm prevalent at each point in time.
The first argumentational paradigm, which I call the discourse of division of power, was prevalent from the beginning of the XIX century until the 1930s. This discourse had at its foundation the idea that power was shared between king and parliament and that judicial review constituted a control mechanism designed to ensure that neither the executive nor the legislative branch overstepped its competence.
The second argumentational paradigm treated here – the discourse of concord – was dominant from the early XX century until about 1980 (even though its effects are still noticeable in the Swedish legal thinking today). This discourse built on the ideas of concord, co-operation and unity. Compromise solutions – rather than rights and the conflicts they entail – were the political ideal. This discourse has been greatly affected by social democratic ideology and has been decisive for shaping judicial review during large parts of the XX century.
Lastly, the discourse of rights is to be mentioned. It covers the period from mid-1970s onwards. This argumentational paradigm falls outside the scope of this essay and will therefore not be discussed further.
My analysis of the discourses of division of power and concord has led me to the conclusion that the two paradigms exhibit clear differences but also a number of similarities. Both can be explained by reference partly to the actual political conditions and partly to contemporary ideas about society and its role. Non-legal factors have therefore proven important for the way lawyers talk and the law looks.},
  author       = {Andreev, Dennis},
  keyword      = {Rättshistoria,statsrätt,normprövning},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Maktdelning och samförstånd - Perspektiv på den svenska normprövningsdebatten},
  year         = {2012},
}