Hans Petter Graver – författare

This book is about heroes of law. It provides examples of when judges have exercised courage, moderation, wisdom, and justice rather than blindly following the law. It also discusses the contentious issue of whether a judge has a moral responsibility to defend the rule of law, regardless of what the law actually states. The work presents a collection of thirteen stories about judges who in different settings have stood up against the authorities and public opinion in the defence of the rule of law. An introductory chapter sets the scene with two examples of situations gone wrong when those applying the law have just followed the demands of those in power. The thirteen stories are followed by two theoretical chapters discussing the moral responsibility of the judge. Finally, the book explores the kind of ethical theory required to guide judges in the assessments they must make, and the choices they have to take in order to fulfil their moral responsibilities. It is argued that the classic virtues of courage, moderation, wisdom, and justice are all qualities that can contribute to both sound judgment and reflection. The book thus seeks to nurture a realistic culture and a tradition of cultivating lawyers who defend the rule of law. Against a background where the history of our legal institutions when put to the test, is largely nothing to be proud of, the work seeks to change this by highlighting and reflecting on the exceptions. The book will be illuminating reading for students and academics working in the areas of Jurisprudence, Legal Ethics, and Legal History.

This book is about heroes of law. It provides examples of when judges have exercised courage, moderation, wisdom, and justice rather than blindly following the law. It also discusses the contentious issue of whether a judge has a moral responsibility to defend the rule of law, regardless of what the law actually states. The work presents a collection of thirteen stories about judges who in different settings have stood up against the authorities and public opinion in the defence of the rule of law. An introductory chapter sets the scene with two examples of situations gone wrong when those applying the law have just followed the demands of those in power. The thirteen stories are followed by two theoretical chapters discussing the moral responsibility of the judge. Finally, the book explores the kind of ethical theory required to guide judges in the assessments they must make, and the choices they have to take in order to fulfil their moral responsibilities. It is argued that the classic virtues of courage, moderation, wisdom, and justice are all qualities that can contribute to both sound judgment and reflection. The book thus seeks to nurture a realistic culture and a tradition of cultivating lawyers who defend the rule of law. Against a background where the history of our legal institutions when put to the test, is largely nothing to be proud of, the work seeks to change this by highlighting and reflecting on the exceptions. The book will be illuminating reading for students and academics working in the areas of Jurisprudence, Legal Ethics, and Legal History.

The provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) determine the relations of the EFTA countries Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein with the EU and its Member States. On its basis, these three countries participate extensively in the internal market. The EEA is also discussed as a possible model for relations between the EU and the United Kingdom after Brexit.The new commentary, article by article, explores the importance of the legal practice agreement. It incorporates the extensive annexes and protocols to the agreement, which unlocks key secondary EEA law and establishes links with EU law. The current state of EEA law in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is summarized by legislation and case law.The focus of the presentations lies in the commentary of the EEA regulations on the free movement of goods, the movement of persons, services and capital, transport policy and competition law. The tasks and procedures of the two EEA bodies European Surveillance Authority and EFTA Court, which are used for monitoring and dispute resolution, are explained by commenting on the EEA Regulations and the supplementary agreement concluded between Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.The work offers- A comprehensive overview of the special situation in Switzerland- Cross-sectional views on the effects of EEA law in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein and on the effects of EEA law in the EU- Important references to the international agreements accompanying the EEA- A comprehensive analysis of the changed legal environment, including the Treaty of Lisbon and other European Treaties. In addition, the commentary provides information on the current state of EEA law in the light of the case law of the EFTA Court and the legislation and case law of the three countries Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.For ease of use, the otherwise not easily accessible annexes and protocols, where relevant, and the supplementary agreements are printed.

This important book provides the first systematic assessment of the so-called Norway Model, suggested as an off-the-shelf option for the UK to ‘square the circle’ after Brexit. Two preeminent Norwegian scholars of politics and law offer a comprehensive first-hand account of Norway’s relationship with the EU and how this affects the country’s legal and political system, setting out what Britain can learn from Norway’s experience and how transferable these lessons are. Their analysis also explores what impact the UK’s presence is likely to have on existing members of the European Economic Area (EEA) discussing both the opportunities and the challenges. The book will be a valuable resource for anyone interested in the future of the UK’s relationship with Europe.

The book addresses efforts to politically influence and curb the judicial system, by telling the story of the enactment of controversial laws in Norway in 1927. It draws parallels to current challenges to the autonomy of the legal order, both in countries where populist forces seek control over the courts, and in other countries where increasing levels of conflict, such as around the climate crisis and the pandemic, challenge the rule of law.In 1927 the Norwegian Parliament enacted three laws that changes the rules of the game in the relation between Labor and Capital. The law was weaponized in benefit of the employers. By this, the legislature departed from the classic ideal of equality before the law and law’s autonomy as a neutral order. The new laws were called the penitentiary laws.The demonstrations against one of the laws, the Arbitration Act in 1928 were the largest manifestation of civil disobedience in Norwegian history. They provoked a level of lawlessness that has not been matched, with exception of the situation during the German occupation 1940-1945. The book analyses the events with the aid of the theory of civil disobedience in liberal democracies put forward by the philosopher John Rawls and the theory of the legal complex developed by the socio-legal scholars Terence Halliday, Lucien Karpic, and Malcolm Feeley.This book tells the story of the Penitentiary Laws, how the laws came into being, how they were received and resisted, and how they were defeated through civil disobedience and with the support of a legal complex which reached far into the legal system. The outcome of the conflict may be one of the factors that explain the high level of trust that the legal institutions enjoy in present day Norway.

This book explores concrete situations in which judges are faced with a legislature and an executive that consciously and systematically discard the ideals of the rule of law. How can we, from a legal point of view, evaluate the actions of judges who contribute to oppression?

This book explores concrete situations in which judges are faced with a legislature and an executive that consciously and systematically discard the ideals of the rule of law. How can we, from a legal point of view, evaluate the actions of judges who contribute to oppression?