How do the justices of a nation’s highest court arrive at their decisions? In the context of the US Supreme Court, the answer to this question is well established: justices seek to enshrine policy preferences in their decisions, but they do so in a manner consistent with ‘the law’ and in recognition that they are members of an institution with defined expectations and constraints. In other words, a justice’s behaviour is a function of motives, means, and opportunities. Using Norway as a case study, this book shows that these forces are not peculiar to the decisional behaviour of American justices. Employing a modified attitudinal model, Grendstad, Shaffer and Waltenburg establish that the preferences of Norway’s justices are related to their decisions. Consequently, the authors show how an understanding of judicial behaviour developed and most fully tested in the American judicial system is transportable to the courts of other countries.
their collective action. The more unique the case, the more we need to study it not only to understand the case itself but also to understand the structure and limits of environmentalism in general. We hope that we have been able to show the value of this research strategy. The way we have organized our study is different from the Rootes study (2003). This study emphasizes the importance of different environmental cultures and of political conjunctures in a single country of which different environm- tal groups take advantage. We are not arguing against the fact that branches of environmentalism have features in common across countries (e.g., animal rights and antinuclear movements). However, we would not go as far as the Rootes study. We argue that looking at political conjunctures, even if important, does not tell the whole story. Researchers need to understand the broader context in which political conjunctures and environmental culture operate.
Click here to read an interview with Gunnar Grendstad and Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde about the book in Juristen; a Norwegian journal. Norway's Supreme Court is one of the most powerful Supreme Courts in Europe. This position is in large parts due to the role and expansion of the law clerks on the Court. Beginning in 1957 with a single clerk, the number of law clerks has increased dramatically. Today, the clerks outnumber the justices, and their tasks have expanded considerably. In 1957 the task was to prepare civil appeals. Today, clerks assist in most stages of the Court's decisional process, including the writing of the final decision. The expansion and institutionalisation of the clerk unit have enabled the justices to commence on policymaking and on developing the law. The law clerks have been key in the development of a more proactive and powerful Norwegian Supreme Court. This book is the first comprehensive study of law clerks in a European Supreme Court. It will be valuable to lawyers, historians and political scientists who care about the expanding role of courts and the impact of courts on politics, society, and the legal system.
How do the justices of a nation’s highest court arrive at their decisions? In the context of the US Supreme Court, the answer to this question is well established: justices seek to enshrine policy preferences in their decisions, but they do so in a manner consistent with ‘the law’ and in recognition that they are members of an institution with defined expectations and constraints. In other words, a justice’s behaviour is a function of motives, means, and opportunities. Using Norway as a case study, this book shows that these forces are not peculiar to the decisional behaviour of American justices. Employing a modified attitudinal model, Grendstad, Shaffer and Waltenburg establish that the preferences of Norway’s justices are related to their decisions. Consequently, the authors show how an understanding of judicial behaviour developed and most fully tested in the American judicial system is transportable to the courts of other countries.
their collective action. The more unique the case, the more we need to study it not only to understand the case itself but also to understand the structure and limits of environmentalism in general. We hope that we have been able to show the value of this research strategy. The way we have organized our study is different from the Rootes study (2003). This study emphasizes the importance of different environmental cultures and of political conjunctures in a single country of which different environm- tal groups take advantage. We are not arguing against the fact that branches of environmentalism have features in common across countries (e.g., animal rights and antinuclear movements). However, we would not go as far as the Rootes study. We argue that looking at political conjunctures, even if important, does not tell the whole story. Researchers need to understand the broader context in which political conjunctures and environmental culture operate.
How do the justices of a nation's highest court arrive at their decisions? In the US Supreme Court, the answer is well established: justices seek to enshrine policy preferences in their decisions, but do so in a manner consistent with 'the law' and in recognition that they are members of an institution with defined expectations and constraints. Using Norway as a case study, this book shows that such forces are not peculiar to the decisional behaviour of American justices. Employing a modified attitudinal model, the authors establish that the preferences of Norway's justices are related to their decisions. Consequently, they show how an understanding of judicial behaviour developed and most fully tested in the American judicial system is transportable to the courts of other countries.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.