Nonproblematic judicial review: A case study

Abstract

There is considerably less reluctance regarding judicial review in Iceland than in other Nordic countries and, arguably, in Canada and the United States. This article analyzes probable reasons for this. Some are historical and some jurisprudential and they may, to a greater or lesser degree, shed some light on the judicial review debate in other jurisdictions and be relevant also outside Iceland. The main jurisprudential factors are the different conceptualization of questions regarding judicial review on the one hand and a legalistic, almost technocratic, view of judicial review that leads to limited constitutional review and undervalues the role of the courts in the constitutional system on the other. The advantages and disadvantages of these jurisprudential factors as well as other differentiating traits of Icelandic law on this point are discussed as well as to what degree they are transferable to other jurisdictions.