Perustuslain tulkinnasta ja tulkinnan muuttamisesta

Authors

• Antero Jyränki

Abstract

In Finland the general doctorum opinio accepts the idea that at least »light» alterations, those which make step-by-step changes in constitutional interpretation, are to be allowed. The author discusses two questions: 1) Are rigorous changes in interpretation to be allowed? 2) Is it possible for long-time practice to transform a certain interpretation into a customary constitutional law? The answer to the first question is that in a situation of abstract-norms control an interpretative decision never affects an individual so closely that predictability would be a key value. Therefore, legally, a political organ is free to alter a previous constitutional interpretation even radically if circumstances require it. Of course, every interpretation of the constitution should be constructed in such a way that it would serve as a basis for »permanent practice». As for the second question, very special conditions must be fulfilled before a customary constitutional norm can be considered to have arisen. The idea of interpretative practice becoming customary constitutional law must especially be regarded with care and even suspicion. In many situations if would not be reasonable to prevent the political organ from easily altering established practice, which may have become antiquated and no longer meet, the requirements of a new era.