Focusing on national public administrations in EU member states, this chapter explores the growing trend of public administrations in democratic states moving beyond their traditional administrative roles to engage in law-making, a shift influenced by the globalization of law. It introduces the concept of “administrative legislative policy” as a model for regulating various aspects of modern democracies, particularly those affected by globalization’s regulatory regimes. The chapter addresses two key perspectives: first, it outlines the reasons behind and methods of utilizing public administration as a primary tool for national law-making; second, it examines the implications of this model for democratic principles, especially participatory democracy. Analyzing the advantages, such as law-making efficiency, and the risks, such as threats to foundational democratic principles, posed by administrative legislative policy, this chapter proposes constitutional measures to mitigate these risks while preserving the efficiency gains of this law-making model.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) presents profound regulatory challenges, as emerging technologies often outpace traditional legislative frameworks. This article critically examines the European Union’s AI Act as a case study in regulating AI, highlighting the inherent tension between the law’s stability and the need for flexibility in governing innovation. The AI Act employs a risk-based approach, categorising AI systems according to their potential societal risks and introducing a multifaceted regulatory governance structure incorporating statutory, administrative, and outsourced legislative policy models. The study identifies key challenges arising from this fragmented regulatory approach, including legal uncertainty, inconsistencies, and concerns over political accountability. Through a comparative analysis of four legislative policy models—statutory, administrative, judicial, and outsourced—the article argues for an administrative model centred on a dedicated EU AI Agency. This proposed model aims to balance regulatory adaptability with legal certainty by consolidating expertise, ensuring procedural clarity, and strengthening accountability. By outlining a refined governance structure, this research offers a preliminary blueprint for a more coherent regulatory framework for emerging technologies, particularly AI.

The constitution holds unparalleled importance in a well-established democracy, serving as the foremost legal, political, and social document that molds the life of the entire national community. Beyond structuring the fundamental components of a state, constitutions also articulate the core values guiding both public and private actors. However, upon closer examination of realities, the idealized concept of constitutions reveals a divergence in many contemporary democracies, including Sweden. Despite aspiring to the ideal-typical model, Sweden showcases a divergence in its constitutional landscape. Certain constitutional documents in the Scandinavian country are deemed 'fully constitutional,' providing a solid and stable legal foundation acknowledged by both legal and political actors to shape and limit their work. On the contrary, substantial portions of Sweden's constitutional charters appear less stable, lacking essential support within the legal discourse of the nation. This work aims to present the varying perception and utilization of constitutional charters in Sweden, exploring the factors contributing to their "political"role rather than a purely legal one in the national discourse. Additionally, it highlights recent shifts in these factors, suggesting emerging tendencies that may guide major legal actors in Sweden toward a more inherently 'legal' vision of the constitution as a fundamental framework for all legal and political discourse.

Looking at two of the key paradigms of the post-Cold War era–national sovereignty, and human rights – this book examines the possibilities for their reconciliation from a global perspective. The real or imagined fear of a flood of immigrants has caused and fuelled the surge of an amalgam of populist political forces, anti-immigrant movements, and exclusionist nationalism in many developed countries. In the last decade, we have witnessed the emergence of two phenomena in the political and legal spheres. On the one hand, there are liberal globalists asking for respect and the protection of the basic human rights of migrants and asylum seekers and arguing for their civic and social integration into host societies. On the other hand, there are growing calls for a tougher stance on immigration, and powerful populist politicians and governments have emerged in many developed countries. How can the idea of universal human rights survive exclusionist nationalism that uses a populist, unscrupulous approach to its advantage? The contributors to this book explore the meaning of, and possible solutions to, this dilemma using a wide range of approaches and seek appropriate ways of dealing with these normative predicaments shared by many developed societies. Scholars and students of human rights, migration, nationalism and multiculturalism will find this a very valuable resource.

his book aims to confront, discuss, and clarify the structural antinomy extant in the legal discourse between the state and the state’s obligation to protect human rights. During the ‘golden age’ of the nation state, state sovereignty was considered as the final and decisive goal according to which and for which laws that superseded the movements of human beings across national borders were created. Today, since the outset of a post-national world, the state apparatus and its interests can still be regarded as key figures and criteria for migration regulation, albeit we believe that these interests should always be understood as means to reach the higher goal of the realisation of human rights. By investigating these state-rights problematic relations from a multidisciplinary perspective, the authors suggest three major areas where the law and its actors may ‘re-think’ the complex relation between state sovereignty and individuals’ rights to move from one country to another. First, revising and re-adapting the terminology of the legal and political discourses surrounding the phenomenon of migration, in particular when it comes to its basic components, is warranted. Second, another group of authors aspire to give traction to structural changes in the approach used to tackle legal issues raised by migration in relation to the sovereignty of the state. Third and finally, the book generally boosts the setting up of individuals and their rights at the centre of the legal discourse about migrants and state sovereignty.

Rule of Law as a legal concept has been highly debated in the past decade, not least due to the current backslide in democratic ideals being witnessed in Europe and globally. While the Rule of Law is the backbone on which the modern state and its apparatus is built, what the concept actually entails remains rather unclear. Even non-democratic legal cultures often proclaim their adherence to the Rule of Law. In addition, it is an unsolved dilemma whether Rule of Law is the same or overlaps with the idea of Rechtsstaat. In this sixty-ninth volume in the series, Scandinavian Studies in Law, scholars from the Nordic countries reflect on whether and how the recent societal developments have affected the concept of Rule of Law within their respective fields. A recurring theme in the contributions is that the current Rule of Law debate has affected the Nordic legal orders not merely within individual legal fields, but in a more structural manner.

The theme of this anthology is the new role of public agencies within what we have termed a “global administrative space,” a space created through increased collaborations and interconnectedness between global, regional and national public and private actors. Within this space policies are adopted, principles developed, and even law is at times enacted. The role and functions of public agencies have hereby undergone fundamental changes. Public agencies at global, regional and national levels act as stand-in legislators in areas within fundamental rights re- gimes, regulatory frameworks for sector specific areas (financial systems, pharma- ceutical regulations, data protection) as well as fishing and agricultural industries, to name only a few. Also private entities partake, as well as other public actors, such as judicial actors of different kinds. The decision-making capacity, procedures and out-comes vary, as well as the degree of ‘globalisation’. The global administrative space can thereby be identified as either connected to or separated from the national constitutional arenas. The question on the role of the public agencies within the global administrative space is taken on with an exploratory approach, in order to operationalize the concept. The question will be addressed from an international, regional and national level, providing different interpreta- tions in different contexts. Some are projecting future applications, whilst others are taking stakes of current operations.

Sweden as a state emerged during the Middle Ages out of the chaos of tumultuous battles between rival clans. Around 1000 AD the different clans seem to have united under the reign of one king and gradually common institutions and central offices developed as well as a class structure consisting of the commoners, the priesthood, the aristocracy and the King. A parliament, the Riksdag, consisting of representatives of the different classes was formed. The Riksdag elected the kings and made decisions regarding war and taxation.

Sweden was an elective monarchy until the Riksdag of 1544, when Sweden was declared a hereditary monarchy. Kings were normally elected by the aristocracy and were usually of royal or aristocratic descent. Swedish kings were normally not as powerful as their European counterparts, being dependent on negotiations with the aristocracy in particular but also with the commoners. There were some rare exceptions involving periods of absolutism during the 17th Century  

The dialectical relationship between taxation and the political balance of power in Sweden has therefore mostly been formed by negotiations and the power relations of different classes. Here the commoners and the aristocracy played an important part.    

The development of taxation and democracy in Sweden can be attributed to many factors. Sweden did not become a more full-blown democracy until 1921. The road towards democracy in Sweden was not marked by war or revolution but occurred gradually over long periods of time. Although Sweden was a highly militarized state from the 16th Century to the 20th Century, Sweden has not endured any civil wars or revolutions.

Taxation and democracy have been closely tied, since the right to political influence and later the right to vote was linked to the individual’s status as taxpayer. In order to fully grasp this evolution, there are certain periods that stand out in Swedish history rather than particular iconic events. These will be described briefly below. Principles and traditions of taxation in medieval Sweden paved the way for the Swedish Empire between 1611-1721, which in turn left its marks on the constitutions of the Age of Liberty between 1719-1772 and in the Constitution of 1809, which was in force until 1975.  

In this chapter the tax history of Sweden is analyzed from the point of view of the dialectical relationship between taxation and the policical balance of power.

In addition to the traditional attacks from competing legal theories (from natural law to postmodern approach), modern legal positivism seems to be placed at a point of no return when looking at the effects of globalization upon the legal phenomenon. The reality offers to legal positivists countless examples of soft-law, i. e. law which is not law but is perceived and applied by the vast majority of the legal actors as law.

Faced with this radically changed reality, most contemporary legal positivists appear to be caught in a dilemma. The modern legal positivism, on one hand, is in front of a reality of legal globalization and increasing legal pluralism in many areas of law, that is a reality (e. g. soft-law) challenging some of the fundamental paradigms endorsed by this legal movement (e. g. the pedigree thesis). On the other hand, modern legal positivists have taken a quite passive attitude toward this challenge, either by abandoning the legal positivism as a whole to its destiny or by simply continuing to focus upon traditional (i. e. pre-globalization) issues as the fundamental ones to be tackled.

The goal of this work is to suggest a shift of attention among legal positivists towards questions which have always been present in their program (though often in secondary terms), as also their solutions (often already present in the legal positivist works). This shift would possibly help the legal positivism movement to circumvent the black hole represented by legal globalization (and its legal pluralism), a black hole where the distinction between law and non-law (i. e. the major tenant of legal positivism) seems to vanish, putting the very existence and legitimacy of the legal phenomenon under question.