Constitutional Jurisdiction in the Small State – the Example of Liechtenstein

Abstract

The example of Liechtenstein shows that, like the entire legal system, constitutional jurisdiction is characterized by the scarcity of resources typical of a small state and, as a reaction to this, by openness to foreign law. The resource scarcity exists in terms of suitable justices, but also in terms of the small staff and limited constitutional law research. This scarcity of resources is counteracted by an extensive adoption of law from Austria and Switzerland and a strong comparative jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court; as well as by the fact that the Constitutional Court traditionally includes justices from the two neighboring countries. Although Liechtenstein’s constitutional jurisdiction was largely adopted from Austria and Switzerland, the comprehensive review competence of the Constitutional Court, which resulted from the combination of the two reception templates, was a pioneering act and a great achievement in terms of the rule of law. This was recognized by academia, politics and the public from the beginning. Despite selective criticism from the Prince and the ordinary courts, the Constitutional jurisdiction in Liechtenstein has proven its worth.