examination worthwhile is in plain sight: judicial powers are a part of the function
of government. Section 3 gives the mandate to judicial powers to courts that
are established by law. In addition, the highest instances are named, one for the
general courts and one for the administrative courts. The power to resolve
conflicts is granted to the judiciary by the power of the constitution. The
constitution itself derives legitimacy from the democratic legislative order, which
has enacted its reform based on the mandate given by the previous constitutional
instrument.
52 Hence, it is the democratic legislative procedure that grants the
jurisdiction to the courts and creates the instance order between lower and higher
courts. The function of the judiciary, the power to resolve disputes, is derived
from the link between the legal system and the political system, from the
constitution that can be understood by the languages of both systems.
In addition to the mandate of section 3, the constitution guarantees a certain
quality of dispute resolution. According to section 21, everyone has the right to
access to court. This access can be provided by some ‘other authority’ than the
courts, and a review can be conducted by an ‘independent organ for administration of justice’. The right to appeal is a part of a fair trial. The dispute should be
resolved ‘appropriately and without undue delay’. Other aspects of access to
justice, such as the publicity of proceedings, the right to be heard, the right to
appeal and the principles of fair trial are further elaborated elsewhere in legislation. In Finland, these detailed provisions are incorporated in the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Read together, these two sections of the constitution give a clear image what
dispute resolution should be on the territory of Finland. It is a societal function,
part of the government alongside the executive and legislative branches. It is
administered by courts of law that are established by national law and follow
national law while they execute their duties. Such duties can be delegated to
other authorities but the constitutional basic rights still apply. Similar structure
can be found for administrative matters. Private entities of dispute resolution
exist, but they often derive their mandate from sector-specific legislation, as is the
case with the Consumer Disputes Board.
53 No dispute resolution market as such
exists in Finland at the time of writing, and ADR has been established and
advocated by different projects of public actors.
54 This partly explains why the
image of dispute resolution is focused on courts and the public mandate given by
the constitution.
The New York Convention
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards, best
known as the New York Convention, was concluded on 10 June 1958. With 159
Parties, the Convention is a well-functioning and often applied multilateral
instrument for facilitating the movement of arbitral awards across borders. Its
significance is widely acknowledged and taken into consideration when creating
other cross-border instruments.
55 The Convention forms its own global framework for arbitration, but its application is closely entwined with national courts.
Sovereignty and state agenda 123
of government. Section 3 gives the mandate to judicial powers to courts that
are established by law. In addition, the highest instances are named, one for the
general courts and one for the administrative courts. The power to resolve
conflicts is granted to the judiciary by the power of the constitution. The
constitution itself derives legitimacy from the democratic legislative order, which
has enacted its reform based on the mandate given by the previous constitutional
instrument.
52 Hence, it is the democratic legislative procedure that grants the
jurisdiction to the courts and creates the instance order between lower and higher
courts. The function of the judiciary, the power to resolve disputes, is derived
from the link between the legal system and the political system, from the
constitution that can be understood by the languages of both systems.
In addition to the mandate of section 3, the constitution guarantees a certain
quality of dispute resolution. According to section 21, everyone has the right to
access to court. This access can be provided by some ‘other authority’ than the
courts, and a review can be conducted by an ‘independent organ for administration of justice’. The right to appeal is a part of a fair trial. The dispute should be
resolved ‘appropriately and without undue delay’. Other aspects of access to
justice, such as the publicity of proceedings, the right to be heard, the right to
appeal and the principles of fair trial are further elaborated elsewhere in legislation. In Finland, these detailed provisions are incorporated in the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Read together, these two sections of the constitution give a clear image what
dispute resolution should be on the territory of Finland. It is a societal function,
part of the government alongside the executive and legislative branches. It is
administered by courts of law that are established by national law and follow
national law while they execute their duties. Such duties can be delegated to
other authorities but the constitutional basic rights still apply. Similar structure
can be found for administrative matters. Private entities of dispute resolution
exist, but they often derive their mandate from sector-specific legislation, as is the
case with the Consumer Disputes Board.
53 No dispute resolution market as such
exists in Finland at the time of writing, and ADR has been established and
advocated by different projects of public actors.
54 This partly explains why the
image of dispute resolution is focused on courts and the public mandate given by
the constitution.
The New York Convention
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards, best
known as the New York Convention, was concluded on 10 June 1958. With 159
Parties, the Convention is a well-functioning and often applied multilateral
instrument for facilitating the movement of arbitral awards across borders. Its
significance is widely acknowledged and taken into consideration when creating
other cross-border instruments.
55 The Convention forms its own global framework for arbitration, but its application is closely entwined with national courts.
Sovereignty and state agenda 123