Finland: European Integration and International Human Rights Treaties as Sources of Domestic Constitutional Change and Dynamism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Constitution Act of 1919 was replaced in 2000 by a new Constitution, which was amended in 2012. While the institution of exceptive enactments, which enables the adoption of laws that are in conflict with the Constitution, had earlier assumed a key role in constitutional adjustment for EU integration, the 2012 amendments expressed a constitutional commitment to EU membership and provided for the transfer of powers to the EU. As a result, exceptive enactments are no longer needed for such transfer. Instead of a constitutional court, a key role in constitutional review is played by the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament through ex ante review of legislative proposals or other matters pending before Parliament, including proposals for EU legislation, for their compatibility with the Constitution and Finland’s international human rights obligations. From the late 1980s onwards, the constitutional tendency has increasingly been towards rights-based judicial review. Aside from the ECHR and other human rights treaties, EU membership has greatly contributed to both judicial empowerment and enhanced rights protection. Areas where EU law has presented constitutional challenges include: (a) the European Arrest Warrant, with regard to which Finland introduced constitutional and legislative safeguards for the sake of fundamental rights; (b) the Laval and Viking Line stream of case law; and (c) concerns around preserving ‘the quality of law’ when implementing EU law. In result of the ex ante constitutional review of the draft ESM Treaty, a change in the draft treaty stemming from constitutional concerns about increased financial liabilities without parliamentary control was proposed and achieved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".