There is a limited number of seats at the disputation. There will therefore be registration in advance and you will find the form HERE Deadline for registration is 14th of January.
You can also follow the disputation by zoom.
You will find the link HERE
Trial lecture - time and place
Adjudication committee
- Professor Geir Ulfstein, University of Oslo (leader)
- Professor Astrid Kjeldgaard Pedersen, University of Copenhagen (1. opponent)
- Professor Stig Solheim, University of Tromsø (2. opponent)
Chair of defence
Vice Dean Vibeke Blaker Strand
Supervisors
- Professor Benedikte Moltumyr Høgberg
- Professor Christoffer Conrad Eriksen
SUMMARY
The relation between Norwegian and international law – the basic principles
What is the relation between Norwegian and international law? This project first explores two principles of Norwegian law. First, the so-called principle of dualism, which tells us that international law cannot be applied here without the prior authorization of the Norwegian parliament. The principle’s history, its factual, normative and legal basis, as well as its presence in legal literature and practice, is analyzed. The principle sees international law as something fundamentally different from domestic law, an idea imported to Norway somewhat more than a century ago, which may not be fully adapted to modern times.
Second, the principle of consistent interpretation (“presumpsjonsprinsippet”) is scrutinized, a principle which tells us that Norwegian law should be construed so as to avoid the breach of international obligations. Sometimes we say domestic law should be interpreted this way because it is what the parliament would have expected. That notion overlooks that respecting international law is a value independently recognized in the Norwegian legal tradition.
In addition to the investigations of said two principles, the project analyzes how the principle of legality limits domestic use of international law, as well as what other legal grounds there could be for applying domestic law in harmony with international law.
An integrated source of law in the Norwegian Supreme Court’s reasoning
In its second part the project analyzes more thoroughly the Norwegian Supreme Court’s use of traditional international law. That term refers to such things as the Refugee Convention, the Svalbard Treaty, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention and General tax conventions between Norway and other states – in short: other international law than EEA law and what is incorporated by the Norwegian Human Rights Act. A summary would be that traditional international law functions – whether or not incorporated by the parliament – as a well-integrated source of domestic law in the Supreme Court’s reasoning. Incorporated international law is applied fully, without resistance. International law not incorporated by the parliament, will still be applied. Does international law point towards one particular result in a case, you can expect this result to be obtained, at least as long as there is no conflict with traditional sources of domestic law. Is there a conflict with a statute, that statute risks being interpreted away in favor of international law. Whether or not this occurs seems to depend on fundamental values: democracy and separation of powers, rule of law and internationalism. In the case law period analyzed, it is only rarely that the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to let an international obligation be breached.