Suchergebnisse

On 1 January 1995 Sweden became member of the European Union. This basic fact is not mentioned in Sweden's fundamental law. Nor does the Swedish constitution have anything to say about the important changes to the practice of public policymaking that have taken place since Sweden joined the EU. At the same time, it is indeed apparent that the basic rules of the political game in Sweden have been transformed dramatically after EU accession. This constitutional change, however has taken place without any substantial changes being made to the wording of the most important of Sweden's four fundamental laws, i.e., the Instrument of Government (regeringsformen). Constitutional change can be brought about in two different ways: Constitutional amendment, or explicit constitutional change, refers to a change of the rules of the game which implies a modified wording of the constitutional text. Constitutional alteration, or implicit constitutional change, means the constitutional document itself remains unaltered while its meaning is changed through judicial interpretation or legislative action. How frequently used are these different methods when it comes to the constitutional changes brought about by EU membership? How can we explain the differences between member states? How can these competing methods for constitutional change be normatively justified? Is one of them to be preferred? The research project "Hur regleras EU-medlemskapet?" seeks to answer these questions in a comparative study on how EU membership regulated in different member states. Adapted from the source document.