%{search_type} search results

• General introduction
• Status of religious communities
• Relations between the state and Islam
• State funding for Islamic religious communities
• Muslims in integration law
• Mosques and prayer houses
• Burials and cemeteries
• Education and schools
• Further and higher (tertiary) education
• Islamic chaplaincy in public institutions
• Employment and social law
• Islamic slaughter and food regulation
• Islamic goods and services
• Islamic dress
• Criminal law
• Family law.

This volume of Annotated Legal Documents on Islam in Europe covers Norway and consists of an annotated collection of legal documents affecting the status of Islam and Muslims. The legal texts are published in the original Norwegian language while the annotations and supporting material are in English. By legal documents are meant the texts of legislation, including relevant secondary legislation, as well as significant court decisions. Each legal text is preceded by an introduction describing the historical, political and legal circumstances of its adoption, plus a short paragraph summarising its content. The focus of the collection is on the religious dimensions of being Muslim in Europe, i.e. on individuals' access to practise their religious obligations and on the ability to organise and manifest their religious life.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• Introduction: Politics and the Norwegian Supreme Court
• Institutional structure and process
• The decisional processes of the Norwegian Supreme Court
• Policy making by appointment : the composition of the Norwegian Supreme Court 1975-2009
• Public economic interests vs. private economic rights
• The presence and effect of women on the court : family and criminal law
• Government friendliness of Supreme Court justices
• "The super legislators" : Supreme Court justices as the guardians of the constitution
• Conclusion: Reflections on the attitudinal model.

How do the justices of a nation's highest court arrive at their decisions? In the context of the US Supreme Court, the answer to this question is well established: Justices seek to enshrine their policy preferences in their decisions, but they do so in a manner consistent with 'the law' and in recognition that they are members of an institution with defined expectations and constraints. In other words, a justice's behaviour is a function of motives, means, and opportunities. Using Norway as a case study, this book shows that these forces are not peculiar to the decisional behaviour of American justices. Employing a modified attitudinal model, Grendstad, Shaffer and Waltenburg establish that the preferences of Norway's justices are related to their decisions. Consequently, this book shows how an understanding of judicial behaviour developed and most fully tested in the American judicial system is transportable to the courts of other countries.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• A master plan
• The structure and organization of decision-making
• "... Like ordering soldiers toward a shower of bullets"
• The court's gatekeepers
• "A weakness of the system"
• Who are the law clerks?
• The development and impact of law clerks
• A Nordic comparative perspective
• Conclusion: Clerks count, justices decide

Norway's Supreme Court is one of the most powerful Supreme Courts in Europe. This position is in large parts due to the role and expansion of the law clerks on the Court. Beginning in 1957 with a single clerk, the number of law clerks has increased dramatically. Today, the clerks outnumber the justices, and their tasks have expanded considerably. In 1957 the task was to prepare civil appeals. Today, clerks assist in most stages of the Court's decisional process, including the writing of the final decision. The expansion and institutionalisation of the clerk unit have enabled the justices to commence on policymaking and on developing the law. The law clerks have been key in the development of a more proactive and powerful Norwegian Supreme Court. This book is the first comprehensive study of law clerks in a European Supreme Court. It will be valuable to lawyers, historians and political scientists who care about the expanding role of courts and the impact of courts on politics, society, and the legal system.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• Introduction
• Legal foundations and doctrinal specifics
• Foundations reviewed : the formative 1800s
• The emerging regulatory state and a constitutional watershed (early 1900s)
• Post-World War II : social democratic constitutionalism?
• Debates of ECHR review (1950-2000)
• Dual review expressed (2000-2010)
• A triple constitutional review revival : 2010
• 2014-2015 : rights reform and judicial review constitutionalization
• Looking back : and forward.

Outside the United States, Norway's 1814 constitution is the oldest still in force. Constitutional judicial review has been a part of Norwegian court decision-making for most of these 200 years. Since the 1990s, Norway has also exercised review under the European Convention of Human Rights. Judicial review of legislation can be controversial: having unelected judges overruling popularly elected majorities seems undemocratic. Yet Norway remains one of the most democratic countries in the world. How does Norway manage the balance between democracy and judicial oversight? Author Anine Kierulf tells the story of Norwegian constitutionalism from 1814 until today through the lens of judicial review debates and cases. This study adds important insights into the social and political justifications for an active judicial review component in a constitutional democracy. Anine Kierulf argues that the Norwegian model of judicial review provides a useful perspective on the dichotomy of American and European constitutionalism.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• 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 Klofta case
• 5.7. Klofta 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.
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

Outside the United States, Norway's 1814 constitution is the oldest still in force. Constitutional judicial review has been a part of Norwegian court decision-making for most of these 200 years. Since the 1990s, Norway has also exercised review under the European Convention of Human Rights. Judicial review of legislation can be controversial: having unelected judges overruling popularly elected majorities seems undemocratic. Yet Norway remains one of the most democratic countries in the world. How does Norway manage the balance between democracy and judicial oversight? Author Anine Kierulf tells the story of Norwegian constitutionalism from 1814 until today through the lens of judicial review debates and cases. This study adds important insights into the social and political justifications for an active judicial review component in a constitutional democracy. Anine Kierulf argues that the Norwegian model of judicial review provides a useful perspective on the dichotomy of American and European constitutionalism.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)