Talk:Judiciary of Sweden
|WikiProject Sweden||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class)|
Judiciary, Law and Police
I think this article confuses judicial system, law enforcement and law. Possibly the name should be changed or the article should be rewritten to only cover the court system. Any thoughts? -Duribald (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Rule of Law in Sweden?
Interestingly, the Swedish courts are described as government agencies. According to the 1974 Swedish constitutional charter, that is by and large correct. But it will need some explaining to an English speaking audience. Especially if you claim that they uphold the rule of law.
Most of all, it suggests that there is no rule of law in Sweden, because the executive alone can not and will not uphold the rule of law. To the contrary, the purpose of rule of law is to check government excerise of power. This is also the case. Sweden has a legal political doctrine that stipulates rule by law, not rule of law. There is no rule of law in Sweden for Swedes, unless you take recourse to the European court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Swedish Instrument of Government describes Sweden as a "democratic rechtsstaat" and clearly stipulates that the exercise of government power is to be done "under the laws". Executive decisions and laws are reviewed by the courts (who are not allowed to apply any law that clearly violates the constituion or EU law), by the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and by several ombudsmen. --Reign of Toads 10:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you seriously consider this as an argument? You cite, what seems to be Regeringsformen. You actually believe everything that is stated in this document? Besides, your rendering of it contradcits you. Under the laws does not mean rule of law. It is not possible to interpret it that way. Laws and acts of government are not reviewed by the courts. The Regeringsform states that the violation has to be "uppenbar". This has been interpreted to mean never, by the Swedish parliament. This is basic knowledge about the Swedish constitution, found in university text books (see, for example, Nergelius). Actually there is a reform pending of the Regeringsform in which a limited form of legal review will be introduced. Why would that be needed, if Sweden already has legal review? You clearly know nothing about Swedish constitutional debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The Rule of law does not only concern reviewing the legitimacy of laws. It concern how states are governed. The Swedish Constitution could not make the Rule of law any clearer; the third sentence of the first paragraf of the first section reads: "Government is exercised under law". What constitutions have clearer, more prominent rules of law than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Courts are usually government agencies, in most countries. The big difference is that whether or not policies are set by an executive ministry (eg. the Ministry of Justice), like in most of Europe, or an independent judicial agency, like the United States (eg. the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Council of California). Int21h (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)