Disputation: Anine Kierulf
Cand. jur Anine Kierulf will defend her thesis: Taking Judicial Rewiew Seriously - The case of Norway
- Professor Marit Halvorsen, University of Oslo
- Associate Professor José Luis Martí, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona (1. opponent)
- Ombudsman Aage Thor Falkanger, The Parliamentary Ombudsman (2. opponent)
Chair of defence
- Professor Ola Mestad, University of Oslo
- Professor Andreas Føllesdal, University of Oslo
- Professor Jan F. Bernt, University of Bergen
Outside the US, Norway is assumed to be the earliest country to exercise judicial review. To varying degrees it has been continuously exercised since its first explicit case manifestation in the mid-1800s. While certainly more deferential in practice, the Norwegian review tradition resembles the US form of review more than the continental European one, thus pointing out a “third way” in the traditional US-European review form dichotomy.
National, constitutional review supplied by international conventions
Review under the Norwegian Constitution was supplied by review under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) around 2000. Kierulf’s thesis questions what issues of legitimacy arise upon national courts' review under international human rights instruments, and how they differ from review under the Norwegian Constitution.
Is there a purely normative "core case" for or against judicial review – or do legitimacy assessments of existing practices require a combination of normative and cultural-historical inquiries? Following a study of normative arguments about review legitimacy and a recollection of historical debates over judicial review under the Norwegian Constitution and ECHR is an attempt at analysis: How does this dual Norwegian review example fare in such a combined legitimacy assessment?
Case study of two Norwegian free speech cases
Jumpstarting this synthesis is a case study of two Norwegian free speech cases, where ECHR law has been determinative for the scope of Norwegian Law. Modern Norwegian free speech law has to a substantial extent been incorporated through judicial review by the Norwegian Supreme Court, rather than through any detailed effort by the legislature. As a principled protection of free speech is central to all conceptions of democracy, this case study serves as one example that judicial review may reinforce, rather than threaten popular democratic rule. It also illustrates how the judiciary may be a necessary co-player to representative democratic organs when it comes to balancing the democracy/rule of law tension inherent in modern constitutionalism, particularly when this tension expands to constitutionalism beyond the state.
Tracing ideals of legitimacy furthered and challenged by national and international rights review in one national setting, this thesis hopes to introduce a traditionally national-focused discussion of review to the wider, international review debates. It also seeks to contribute a combination of normative and historical-empirical analyses to the international ruminations over the legitimacy of judicial authority in a post-national constellation.
Anine Kierulf (1974) is cand.jur. from the University of Oslo, holds an LL.M. from Northwestern University, Chicago (2001) and was admitted to the Norwegian Bar in 2003. She has previous experience as free speech consultant to the Council of Europe, deputy judge in Ringerike district court (2004-2006), and senior lawyer in Schjødt law firm, where she worked on general litigation and media law. Kierulf worked as a research fellow at the Department of Public and International Law UiO from 2009-2014, and was visiting researcher at Northwestern University and University of Chicago spring/summer 2010.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anine_Kierulf