An Unlikely Rights Revolution: Legal Mobilization in Scandinavia Since the 1970s

ABSTRACT

Why have civil society groups in Scandinavia increasingly turned to legal mobilization in recent decades? In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, a legal-political culture based on parliamentary supremacy, deferential judiciaries, strong-state corporatism, and jurisprudential scepticism towards rights talk supposedly discourages groups in civil society from seeking societal change through litigation. Yet, in all three countries, diverse groups and organizations in civil society have increasingly adopted litigation strategies for a broad range of causes. In this paper, we seek to account for how and why this shift has occurred. Drawing on socio-legal mobilization theory, we compare Denmark, Norway, and Sweden across three episodes from the 1970s to today. Litigation has gradually moved from the political margins to the mainstream. Our findings suggest that while European law, domestic institutional reforms, and a proliferating human rights discourse have opened new ways for resourceful groups and entrepreneurial individuals to challenge the status quo, parliamentary and corporatist channels remain often viable and preferred alternatives for mainstream organizations. The paper thus contributes to the emerging literature on how civil society groups in Scandinavia employ litigation strategies by offering a comparative and historical assessment and contributes to knowledge about the factors that shape legal mobilization by civil society groups.

KEYWORDS:

• Civil society
• corporatism
• legal mobilization
• strategic litigation
• Scandinavia

Notes

1 Malcolm Langford and Johan Karlsson Schaffer, ‘The Nordic Human Rights Paradox: Moving Beyond Exceptionalism’ (2015) University of Oslo Faculty of Law research paper no. 2013-25. For in-depth historical analyses, see Malcolm M Feeley and Malcolm Langford (eds), The Limits of the Legal Complex: Nordic Lawyers and Political Liberalism (Oxford University Press 2021).

2 Anine Kierulf, Judicial Review in Norway (Cambridge University Press 2018); Ran Hirschl, ‘The Nordic Counternarrative: Democracy, Human Development, and Judicial Review’ (2011) 9 International Journal of Constitutional Law 449.

3 Toomas Kotkas, ‘The Short and Insignificant History of Social Rights Discourse in the Nordic Welfare States’, Social Rights in the Welfare State (Routledge 2016).

4 Peter Munk Christiansen, ‘Still the Corporatist Darlings?’ in Peter Nedergaard and Anders Wivel (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Scandinavian Politics (Routledge 2018).

5 Lisa Vanhala, ‘Legal Mobilization under Neo-Corporatist Governance: Environmental NGOs before the Conseil d’Etat in France, 1975–2010’ (2016) 4 Journal of Law and Courts 103; Malin Arvidson and others, ‘A Swedish Culture of Advocacy? Civil Society Organisations’ Strategies for Political Influence’ (2018) 55 Sociologisk Forskning.

6 Johan Strang, ‘Scandinavian Legal Realism and Human Rights: Axel Hägerström, Alf Ross and the Persistent Attack on Natural Law’ (2018) 36 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 202. The influential doctrine of ‘Scandinavian legal realism’ was distinct from the homonymous academic legal research programme.

7 Ola Wiklund, ‘The Reception Process in Sweden and Norway’ in Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet (eds), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems (Oxford University Press 2008).

8 Feeley and Langford (n 1).

9 Hirschl (n 2).

10 Cf. Langford & Schaffer (n 1).

11 Emilio Lehoucq and Whitney K Taylor, ‘Conceptualizing Legal Mobilization: How Should We Understand the Deployment of Legal Strategies?’ (2020) 45 Law & Social Inquiry 166. We thus define legal mobilisation narrowly, excluding e.g., legal reform advocacy and discourse – cf. e.g., Malcolm Langford, ‘Privatisation and the right to water’ in Malcolm Langford and Anna Russell, The human right to water: Theory, practice and prospects (Cambridge University Press 2017).

12 Sandra Botero and Daniel M Brinks, ‘A Matter of Politics: The Impact of Courts in Social and Economic Rights Cases’ in Malcolm Langford and Katherine Young (eds), Oxford Handbook on Economic and Social Rights (Oxford University Press 2023); Yoav Dotan, ‘The Boundaries of Social Transformation through Litigation: Women’s and LGBT Rights in Israel, 1970 – 2010’ (2015) 48 Israel Law Review 3.

13 Chris Hilson, ‘New Social Movements: The Role of Legal Opportunity’ (2002) 9 Journal of European Public Policy 238; Lisa Vanhala, ‘Legal Opportunity Structures and the Paradox of Legal Mobilization by the Environmental Movement in the UK’ (2012) 46 Law & Society Review 523; Gianluca De Fazio, ‘Legal Opportunity Structure and Social Movement Strategy in Northern Ireland and Southern United States’ (2012) 53 International Journal of Comparative Sociology 3.

14 Charles R Epp, The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective (Univ of Chicago Press 1998).

15 Malcolm Langford, ‘Revisiting the Theory of the Legal Complex’ in Malcolm M Feeley and Malcolm Langford (eds), The Limits of the Legal Complex: Nordic Lawyers and Political Liberalism (Oxford University Press 2021).

16 Bruce M Wilson and Juan Carlos Rodríguez Cordero, ‘Legal Opportunity Structures and Social Movements: The Effects of Institutional Change on Costa Rican Politics’ (2006) 39 Comparative Political Studies 325.

17 Holly J McCammon and Allison R McGrath, ‘Litigating Change? Social Movements and the Court System’ (2015) 9 Sociology Compass 128.

18 Sandra R Levitsky, ‘To Lead with Law: Reassessing the Influence of Legal Advocacy Organizations in Social Movements’ in Austin Sarat and Stuart A Scheingold (eds), Cause Lawyers and Social Movements (Stanford University Press 2006); Thomas M Keck, ‘Beyond Backlash: Assessing the Impact of Judicial Decisions on LGBT Rights’ (2009) 43 Law & Society Review 151.

19 Johannes Lindvall and Bo Rothstein, ‘Sweden: The Fall of the Strong State’ (2006) 29 Scandinavian Political Studies 47.

20 Mikael Rask Madsen, ‘Denmark: Between the Law-State and Welfare State’ in Malcolm M Feeley and Malcolm Langford (eds), The Limits of the Legal Complex: Nordic Lawyers and Political Liberalism (Oxford University Press 2021).

21 Mikael Rask Madsen, L’Emergence d’un champ des droits de l’homme dans les pays européens: enjeux professionnels et stratégies d’Etat au carrefour du droit et de la politique (France, Grande-Bretagne et pays scandinaves, 1945–2000), PhD dissertation (Paris: l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2005).

22 Semb, ‘How Norms Affect Policy — The Case of Sami Policy in Norway’ (2001) 8 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 177; Henry Minde, ‘Assimilation of the Sami – Implementation and Consequences’ (2003) 20 Acta Borealia 121.

23 Sunniva Olaussen, ‘Rettssikkerhet for den samiske befolkningen’ (UiT The Arctic University of Norway 2022) <https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/27148> accessed 25 January 2023.

24 Malcolm Langford, ‘Norwegian Lawyers and Political Mobilization: 1623-2015’ in Malcolm M Feeley and Malcolm Langford (eds), The Limits of the Legal Complex: Nordic Lawyers and Political Liberalism (Oxford University Press 2021).

25 Karl-Göran Algotsson, Medborgarrätten och regeringsformen: Debatten om grundläggande fri- och rättigheter i regeringsformen under 1970-talet (Norstedt 1987).

26 Ulf Brunfelter, ‘Historien kring processen’ in Jacob WF Sundberg (ed), Sporrong-Lönnroth: En handbok (Institutet för offentlig och internationell rätt 1985).

27 Johan Karlsson Schaffer, ‘The Self-Exempting Activist: Sweden and the International Human Rights Regime’ (2020) 38 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 40.

28 Johan Karlsson Schaffer, ‘Why Incorporate? The Domestic Politics of Human Rights Commitment in Scandinavia’ (26 May 2022) <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4120430> accessed 11 January 2023.

29 Joakim Nergelius, ‘The Nordic States and the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Rainer Arnold (ed), The Convergence of the Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe (Springer Netherlands 2016).

30 Kierulf (n 2) ch 5.

31 Harald Espeli, Hans E Næss and Harald Rinde, Våpendrager og veiviser: Advokatenes historie i Norge (Universitetsforlaget 2008) 349.

32 Erik Møse, ‘Den internasjonale rettens innflytelse i Norge: EMK og andre menneskerettskonvensjoner’ in Tore Schei, Jens Edvin A Skoghøy and Toril M Øie (eds), Lov Sannhet Rett. Norges Høyesterett 200 år (Universitetsforlaget 2015).

33 Majken Jul Sørensen, ‘Kreative aktører i det rettslige spill – et rettssosiologisk perspektiv på Kampanjen Mot Verneplikt’ (2016) 24 Sosiologisk tidsskrift 225.

34 Majken Jul Sørensen and Brian Martin, ‘The Dilemma Action: Analysis of an Activist Technique’ (2014) 39 Peace & Change 73, 83–87.

35 Sørensen (n 33).

36 ibid.

37 Preben Søegaard Hansen and Lars Adam Rehof (eds), Det danske menneskerettigheds-projekt (Dansk Røde Kors 1986). See also Madsen (n 21).

38 Justitsministeriet, ‘Den Europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention og dansk ret’ (Statens informationstjeneste 1991) Betænkning 1220/1991.

39 For instance, Swedish trade unions and employers’ organizations alike opposed legislating against discrimination in the 1970s and 1980s. Laura Carlson, ‘Access to Justice in Sweden from a Comparative Perspective’ in Barbara Havelková and Mathias Möschel (eds), Anti-Discrimination Law in Civil Law Jurisdictions (Oxford University Press 2019); Reza Banakar, ‘When Do Rights Matter? A Case Study of the Right to Equal Treatment in Sweden’ in Simon Halliday and Patrick Schmitt (eds), Human rights brought home (Social Science Research Network 2004).

40 Schaffer (n 28).

41 Jonas Christoffersen and Mikael Rask Madsen, ‘The End of Virtue? Denmark and the Internationalisation of Human Rights’ (2011) 80 Nordic Journal of International Law 257; Schaffer (n 27).

42 Wiklund (n 7) 199.

43 Jeffrey Miller, ‘Explaining Paradigm Shifts in Danish Anti-Discrimination Law’ (2019) 26 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 540.

44 Based on Johan Karlsson Schaffer, ‘Rättvisans entreprenörer: Mobilisering för tillgång till rättvisa i civilsamhället’ in Anna Wallerman Ghavanini and Sebastian Wejedal (eds), Access to justice i Skandinavien (Santérus Academic Press 2022) 370-371.

45 A Hollander, ‘Rights to Special Services for People with Developmental Disabilities in Sweden: The Risks and Benefits of a Legislative Approach’ (1993) 2 Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 63.

46 Schaffer (n 44).

47 Tor-Inge Harbo, ‘Social Rights in Norway and Scandinavia’, Diversity of social rights in Europe(s): Rights of the poor, poor rights (European University Institute 2010).

48 Asbjørn Kjønstad, ‘Rettsskapende virksomhet, Velferdstjenester og pasientrettigheter’ (2004) 43 Lov og Rett 385.

49 See also discussion in Thomas Mathiesen, Retten i samfunnet: En innføring i rettssosiologi (Pax 2001), 165.

50 Langford (n 24).

51 Kjersti Lohne and Marte Rua, ‘Rettspolitisk mobilisering og strategisk sakførsel mot isolasjon i norske fengsler’ (2021) 108 Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kriminalvidenskab 118.

52 ibid 128.

53 Daniela Alaattinoğlu and Ruth Rubio-Marín, ‘Redress for Involuntarily Sterilised Trans People in Sweden against Evolving Human Rights Standards: A Critical Appraisal’ (2019) 19 Human Rights Law Review 705.

54 Hanna Buer Haddeland, ‘“Victims Not Wrongdoers”: The Legal Consciousness of Rejected Asylum Seekers in Norway’ (2021) 48 Journal of Law and Society 645.

55 Gunnar Grendstad, William R Shaffer and Eric N Waltenburg, ‘When Justices Disagree. The Influence of Ideology and Geography on Economic Voting on the Norwegian Supreme Court’ (2011) 34 Retfærd: Nordic Journal of Law and Justice; Benedikte Moltumyr Høgberg, ‘Grunnloven § 97 etter plenumsdommen i Rt. 2010 s. 143 (rederiskattesaken)’ (2011) 123 Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 694.

56 This paragraph and the next three draw on Schaffer (n 44) 371–380.

57 Daniel Fjellborg, Karin Beland Lindahl and Anna Zachrisson, ‘What to Do When the Mining Company Comes to Town? Mapping Actions of Anti-Extraction Movements in Sweden, 2009–2019’ (2022) 75 Resources Policy 102514; Anshelm J, Haikola S and Wallsten B, ‘Politicizing Environmental Governance – A Case Study of Heterogeneous Alliances and Juridical Struggles around the Ojnare Forest, Sweden’ (2018) 91 Geoforum 206

58 Madsen (n 21). This stance was to continuously influence Danish politics. See Mikael Rask Madsen, ‘Two-Level Politics and the Backlash against International Courts: Evidence from the Politicisation of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2020) 22 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 728.

59 Jeffrey Miller, ‘Explaining Paradigm Shifts in Danish Anti-Discrimination Law’ (2019) 26 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 540.

60 Mikael Rask Madsen, Henrik Palmer Olsen and Urška Šadl, ‘Competing Supremacies and Clashing Institutional Rationalities: The Danish Supreme Court’s Decision in the Ajos Case and the National Limits of Judicial Cooperation’ (2017) 23 European Law Journal 140.

61 Mårten Schultz, ‘Rights Through Torts: The Rise of a Rights Discourse in Swedish Tort Law’ (2009) 17 European Review of Private Law 305.

62 Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde, ‘From Courts of Appeal to Courts of Precedent: Access to the Highest Courts in the Nordic Countries’ in Cornelis Hendrik (Remco) van Rhee and Yulin Fu (eds), Supreme Courts in Transition in China and the West: Adjudication at the Service of Public Goals (Springer 2017); Anna Wallerman Ghavanini, Gunnar Grendstad and Johan Karlsson Schaffer, ‘Institutions That Define the Policymaking Role of Courts: A Comparative Analysis of the Supreme Courts of Scandinavia’ (2023) 21 International Journal of Constitutional Law 3.

63 Silvia Adamo, ‘Protecting International Civil Rights in a National Context: Danish Law and Its Discontents’ (2016) 85 Nordic Journal of International Law 119.

64 R Daniel Kelemen, ‘Suing for Europe: Adversarial Legalism and European Governance’ (2006) 39 Comparative Political Studies 101.

65 But cf. Peter Munk Christiansen and others, ‘Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making’ (2010) 21 Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 22.

66 Aude Lejeune, ‘Legal Mobilization within the Bureaucracy: Disability Rights and the Implementation of Antidiscrimination Law in Sweden’ (2017) 39 Law & Policy 237; Jeffrey Miller, ‘Explaining Paradigm Shifts in Danish Anti-Discrimination Law’ (2019) 26 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 540.

67 R Daniel Kelemen, ‘The EU Rights Revolution: Adversarial Legalism and European Integration’ in Tanja A Börzel (ed), The State of the European Union, 6: Law, Politics, and Society (OUP Oxford 2003).

68 Charles R Epp, The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective (Univ of Chicago Press 1998).

69 Miller (n 66).

70 Schaffer (n 44) 381-384.

71 Lejeune (n 66).

72 Alaattinoğlu and Rubio-Marín (n 53).

73 Banakar (n 39).

74 Julie Mertus, Human Rights Matters: Local Politics and National Human Rights Institutions (Stanford University Press 2009) 22.

75 See case studies in Feeley and Langford (n 1).

A Rt. 1982 s. 241 (Alta-saken) Supreme Court of Norway 1982.

B NJA 1981 s. 1 (Skattefjällsmålet) Supreme Court of Sweden 1981.

C Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v Sweden [1976] European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 5614/72; Schmidt and Dahlström v Sweden [1976] ECtHR 5589/72.

D Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden [1982] ECtHR 7151/75, 7152/75.

E Svenska Managementgruppen AB v Sweden [1985] European Commission on Human Rights 11036/84; NJA 1987 s. 198 (Löntagarfonderna) Supreme Court of Sweden 1987.

F Rt. 1976 s. 1 (Kløfta-saken) Supreme Court of Norway.

G Rt. 1974 s. 935; Rt. 1982 s. 241 (Alta-saken); Rt. 1984 s. 1175; Rt. 1990 s. 312; Rt. 1990 s. 319; Rt. 1991 s. 177; Rt. 1993 s. 112 Supreme Court of Norway.

H Johansen v Norway [1996] ECtHR 17383/90.

I Hauschildt v Denmark [1989] ECtHR 10486/83.

J UfR 1972.903H Supreme Court of Denmark 1972.

K UfR 1973.694H Supreme Court of Denmark 1973.

L E v Norway [1990] ECtHR 11701/85.

M Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway [1999] ECtHR 21980/93; Justis- og politidepartementet, ‘Ytringsfrihed bør finde Sted’: Forslag til ny Grunnlov § 100 1999 [NOU 1999:27].

N Jersild v Denmark [1994] ECtHR 15890/89.

O E.g. A and Others v Denmark [1996] ECtHR 20826/92.

P UfR 1996.1300 Supreme Court of Denmark 1996.

Q UfR 1998.800H Supreme Court of Denmark 1998; for a commentary, see Sten Harck and Henrik Palmer Olsen, ‘Decision Concerning the Maastricht Treaty’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 209.

R Danfoss [1989] European Court of Justice (ECJ) C-109/88; Høj Pedersen [1998] ECJ C-66/96.

S Langborger v Sweden [1989] ECtHR 11179/84.

T Gustafsson v Sweden [1996] ECtHR [GC] 15573/89.

U AB Kurt Kellermann v Sweden [2004] ECtHR 41579/98; Laval [2007] ECJ C-341/05.

V Rt. 1990 s. 874 (Fusa-dommen) Supreme Court of Norway.

W TOSLO-2013-103468 District Court of Oslo 2013.

X HR-2019-2048-A Supreme Court of Norway 2019.

Y The case lost at first instance (TOSLO-2017-132417 District Court of Oslo 2013) and on appeal (LB-2018-190131 Borgarting Court of Appeal 2018); and the Supreme Court dismissed it on appeal (HR-2021-1392-U Supreme Court of Norway 2021). The case may be taken to the ECtHR given its judgment in A.p, Garçon and Nicot v France [2017] ECtHR 79885/12, 52471/13, 52596/13.

Z HR-2022-533-A Supreme Court of Norway 2022. See coverage in Kjetil Kolsrud, ‘Høyesterett opphever utvisning av rumener dømt for tyveri’ Rett24 (8 March 2022) <https://rett24.no/articles/hoyesterett-opphever-utvisning-av-rumener-domt-for-tyveri> accessed 10 February 2023.

AA HR-2018-1958-A Supreme Court of Norway 2018.

BB TOSLO-2019-59563 (Viste-saken) City Court of Oslo 2019.

CC Fellesforbundet for Sjøfolk (FFFS) v. Norway, European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint No. 74/2011, Decision on the merits, 2 July 2013.

DD HR-2019-2048-A Supreme Court of Norway 2019.

EE Through creative jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Sweden expanded the tort law liabilities of the state and municipalities for violations of the ECHR – see NJA 2005 s. 462 (Finanschefen på ICS) and NJA 2009 s. 463 (Kommunens olaga frihetsberövande). The Blake Petterson case established that in certain situations the constitutional bill of rights entailed similar liabilities. NJA 2014 s. 323 (Medborgarskapet I).

FF T 6161-16 Svea Court of Appeal 2017.

GG Case No. 1968-12 Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal 2012.

HH Grimmark v Sweden [2020] ECtHR 43726/17.

II HR-2020-2472-P (Klima-saken) Supreme Court of Norway 2020.

JJ At the time of writing, the suit filed on November 25, 2022, is still pending in Nacka District Court.

KK NJA 2020 s. 3 (Girjasdomen) Supreme Court of Sweden 2020.

LL Strøbye and Rosenlind v Denmark [2021] ECtHR 25802/18, 27338/18.

MM UfR 2011.984H Supreme Court of Denmark 2011.

NN UfR 2013.1451H Supreme Court of Denmark 2013.

OO UfR 2014.824H Supreme Court of Denmark 2014.

PP UfR 1999.841H Supreme Court of Denmark 1999.