Grandfather -- The years of great struggle -- The creation of the Penitentiary Law -- Challenging the Arbitration Act:The Construction Workers' Dispute -- Criminal law against industrial action -- The battle for the lay judges -- Civil disobedience and the legitimacy of the actions -- All's well that ends well -- Epilogue.
Denne boken behandler de grunnleggende hensynene i forvaltningsretten og gir samtidig en inngående behandling av spørsmål som er nyttige i praksis, som saksbehandlingsreglene, styring og instruksjon og forvaltningens avtaler. Den viser også forbindelsene mellom norsk rett og de europeiske reglene som følger av EØS og den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjonen. Denne utgaven er oppdatert med ny rettspraksis og endringene i forvaltningsloven som følge av grunnlovfestingen av det lokale selvstyret og med det nye kapittelet om forvaltningssanksjoner. Boken har fått et nytt avsnitt om behandling i nemnder, som i praksis er en viktig behandlingsmåte for forvaltningsklager. Forfatteren har også gjort rede for de grunnleggende vurderingene til komiteen som har utredet forslaget til ny forvaltningslov i NOU 2019: 5, og antydet hvor det vil kunne komme endringer med en ny lov
When we speak of judges who judge for Utopia, we speak about judges today who pursue a better world through their judging. In this contribution, it is argued that a judiciary that is actively engaged in making the world a better place is good for society, also from a legal point of view. Since the most urgent call for utopian law and utopian judging today is on the issue of climate change, litigation in this field forms the main case for discussion. Controversial issues of utopian judging arise when there is disagreement in society over the direction the judiciary is taking, or when the judiciary is taking a separate way from the legislator or the executive power. In such situations, utopian judges may come under criticism for judicial activism or excessive judicial review. It is submitted here that disagreements and differences are, however, not something that should be avoided; they drive the system forward in the exercise of checks and balances. Climate change litigation is an example where there is a need for this today.
La oss være optimister og tenke oss frem til en verden i 2040 der klimamålene er nådd. Her må vi som Hornburg og Sending peker på i sin artikkel i forrige nummer av Internasjonal politikk tenke internasjonalt, også om perspektivet er Norge. Hva slags scenarier kan ligge til grunn for en slik utvikling? Artikkelen trekker opp tre slike. Det ene er at USA og Kina slår seg sammen i et klimanøytralt energikartell. Gjennom bruk av både handelsmakt og militær makt presser de frem et belte av kjernekraftverk og fornybare kraftkilder støttet opp av amerikansk teknologi og kinesisk industri. Det andre er at tingene går sin skjeve gang og at klimaets «vippepunkt» passeres. Ekstremvær, tørke og havstigning skaper større ødeleggelser enn finansmarkedet kan bære, produksjon og handel stopper opp og utslippene synker. Det tredje er en utvikling hvor marked og stater går sammen om forskning, utvikling og gjennomføring av nødvendige tiltak. Dette krever internasjonalt samarbeid om offentlige regulering og innovative bedrifter som sammen med statene kan satse på teknologisk og sosial utvikling. Bare i det siste scenariet vil vi kunne redde både klodens klima og demokratiet som styringsform.
Abstract in English:
Inspired by Hornburg and Sending in the previous issue, this comment draws up three different scenarios where the climate goals have been reached by 2040. Two are dystopian, one is optimistic but the only way to save both democracy and earth's present climate. Solutions must involve the big emission countries like the US, China and India. What would the world look like if USA and China decide to form a Cartel backed by economic and military power to monopolise the energy sector based on nuclear power and other fossil free sources" Another alternative is "business as usual" leading to the "tipping point" of global warming, with devastating effects on the global economy. Industry and trade cease in most parts of the world, and emissions are thereby reduced. The third scenario is where business and governments cooperate in research and development. This entails innovative market leaders, but also the use of strict regulation and interventions in the markets by government. Global firms can cooperate with progressive governments to circumvent governments in countries that refuse to act.
In: Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht: The Rabel journal of comparative and international private law, Volume 83, Issue 2, p. 346
The purpose of this article is to examine how far, with due respect for the rule of law, criminal sanctions could be applied to judges for the exercise of their judicial functions. The main focus is on judges in authoritarian regimes, situations where judges are employed by the holders of power in the realisation of political oppression. The article presents the normative basis for holding judges accountable in some different examples of national laws, and looks into the few historical examples of judges that have been held accountable under criminal law. The article concludes that there exists a core of justice, present in the minds of 'all civilized people', and that to this core belong substantial and manifest human rights violations, intolerable disproportionate punishments and substantial violations of the right to a fair trial. Judges who disregard this core of justice may be held accountable for their judicial rulings, even when this formally entails applying laws retroactively. Criminal guilt can be established by the objective facts, together with the fact that no judge can claim with credibility that he was unaware of doing something wrong. A positive basis for this approach may be found in the statutes of the International Criminal Court.