THE THREE PILLARS OF THE LAW

The rule of law is the principle basic in all democracies and “Reechtstaat” in Western Europe. It is a safeguard against arbitrary governance. Citizens must have the legal certainty what the law is and that they are all equal before the law. Government is no less bound by the rule of law. 

Iceland has the right to give citizenship according to the rules set by the Icelandic Nationality Act. The Althing may grant citizenship by statute. What is then wrong with the last scandal affecting the Minister of Environment?

From a legal point of view 

Although the proper procedure seems to have been respected, all the other circumstances that surround the citizenship given to the eventual daughter-in-law of the Minister suggest, from a legal theory point of view, that the spirit of the law might have been distorted and its purpose deviated.

The decision of the Althing should be examined according to the  fundamentals of the legal theory (See. classic authors such as Hans Kelsen, Norberto Bobbio, or Enrico Pattaro). In order to become proper laws, all legislative decisions must respect three fundamental pillars:  

1.      They have to be valid, be adopted with due respect of the legal procedures

2.      They have to be just, fair, ethical or even moral by virtue

3.      They have to be legitimate, trustworthy, aim for a result that a majority of the population agrees on.

 

This is called the three pillars of the law in classic legal philosophy. I worry that the decision in this case might respect only the first one. When questioned, the people involved insist that the procedures have been respected so that the decision adopted by statute 1) is valid. What is never mentioned is that 2) it is certainly not fair and 3) it is doubtfully legitimate.

 

The truth is that validity, technical respect of the adoption rules, is only one pillar of the law and cannot justify alone a legislative decision. Validity as a sole argument of any legal democratic order is never enough. Substance is also essential.

 

Unfortunately, European history during XX century has shown that when fairness and legitimacy are missing, the legislative order can be perverted. After the Nuremberg trials, legal theory agreed that natural rights and legitimate purpose were also needed to justify a legal regime. A further safeguard was introduced in Europe.

 

 From a political point of view 

 

This decision has created social conmotion and constitutes a precedent that can be put forward by other people asking for the nationality rights. What if 5000, 10000 applicants ask for the Icelandic nationality on the basis of this case? Why not? Nothing forbids them. What is the Althing then going to do? On what grounds will they grant or deny the nationality to the new applicants? Iceland is bound by the principle of non-discrimination.

 

Since 28 June 1995, the Icelandic Constitution contains a provision which establishes the general principle of equality before the Law, and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, opinion, national origin, race, colour, kinship and other bases. This principle is also established in Article 11 of Act 37/1993 on administrative procedure. The European Convention on Human Rights has also been incorporated into Icelandic law, by Act No. 62/1994 and thus its provisions can be directly invoked in court as domestic legislation.

 

What then?

 

 Conclusion 

 

Romans used to say that “the one who uses the letter of the law to go against its spirit is corrupting the law”. In my opinion, to give the Icelandic nationality to a person for whom “it is inconvenient not to have a European passport” and be bound by the EU rules on immigration and visas when going to study abroad is immoral and surely illegitimate. There were no humanitarian reasons, no children involved, no urgency at all, just a private interest. Nobody has so far given any proper justification on the substance of the case. We ignore what is this person going to do for Iceland, what will be her contribution to our society.

 

Laws must be not only valid, but also ethical and legitimate. Otherwise they can become arbitrary decisions of power. Has the spirit of the Icelandic Nationality Law been distorted and its purpose deviated in this case? Yes or no? If the answer is no, has then the Althing created a new right for all foreigners to ask the nationality after 15 months of residence?

 

These are the questions we have to ask.

Athugasemdir

[Toshiki Toma (IP-tala skráð) 4.5.2007 kl. 11:03]

Dear Dr. Pinedo.
Thank you for so much your explanation in easy expression for us.
I think what you are pointing out is the thing most of us are longing to hear fro those who are in athoritative positions in the society. Unfortunately only you are poining it out so far.
Isn´t it possible that you publish your pount of view in Icelandic and in some news papers? I wish really that you will do so.

Thank you very much.
Toshiki from Japan

[Össur (IP-tala skráð) 4.5.2007 kl. 14:24]

Again, 

Regarding the precedence of the matter, it is crystal clear that it does not make a precedence for the reason stated before, that is: Althingi is not the government and each congressman is only true to his own conscience and 65th article of the constitution is not to be regarded to secure same treatment of applications before congress, that is a gross misunderstanding of the article.

However, this "scandal" as you call it is put forward in political gains, and fans the flames of hatred against people and party in a democratic society. This is a democracy and there are always ways and people to distort that. You as a person of "the spirit of law" should reflect on the real FUNDAMENTALS of the discipline, that is: people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, in court and society ! Nothing has been put forward to sustain any judgement you have made in the matter. Shame on you, you have sold your ethics to politics !

[Ár & síð, 4.5.2007 kl. 16:15]

Össur (eða hvað hann heitir, sá ágæti maður) á hér undarlegt innlegg og skammar m.a. bloggritara fyrir að hafa selt sálu sína pólitík. Mér finnst bloggritari þó einmitt hafa náð að hefja sig yfir þá pólitísku undir- og yfirtóna sem málið hefur en líta á það frá hærri sjónarhóli á meðan Össur situr á bólakafi í pólitískri forarvilpu.
Líklega er þetta innlegg Össurs þó bara útgáfa af gamla frasanum: Útlendingar skilja ekki íslenskt samfélag." - Haltu áfram skrifum þínum, Elvira, þú ert fersk rödd í íslensku tuðsinfóníunni.  

[Össur (IP-tala skráð) 5.5.2007 kl. 13:31]

hahaha... þetta var rosalega málefnalegt komment hjá þér "Ár og síð". Í því felst ekkert ásakanir sem eru út í hött. Ég er ekki í pólitík annað en bloggritari.

Mér þykir hins vegar vænt um lýðræðið og almenna kurteisi. Stjórnmálamenn eru líka fólk :) Ég veit heldur ekki hvað þú meinar með að ég sé að segja að útlendingar skilji ekki íslenskt samfélag, þar dettur þú í þinn eigin pytt. Gjörsamlega út úr kortinu hvernig þú færð það út. Ég gagnrýndi skoðun bloggritara um fordæmisgildi ríkisborgaraveitingar Alþingis, og þar sem hún titlar sig doktor í lögum þá beindist sú gagnríni eingöngu á því að hún ryðst fram á pólitískan ritvöll með lagabókstafinn að vopni sem er ekki í samræmi við hvernig íslensk lög eru túlkuð. Það hefur ekkert með neitt annað að gera. Ég held að þú ættir að róa þig í að draga ályktanir sem eru ekki jafn illa grundaðar og meiðyrðandi, eins og kannski fleiri í samfélaginu ættu að gera.

[Ár & síð, 6.5.2007 kl. 09:55]

Góðan dag.
Ég sé að Össur er ekki hrifinn af innleggi mínu og segir:

a)      «Í því felst ekkert ásakanir sem eru út í hött. Ég er ekki í pólitík annað en bloggritari.»

Össur hafði þó sjálfur skrifað: «However, this "scandal" … fans the flames of hatred against people and party in a democratic society.» - Ég held að engir líti svo á að í þessu máli sé verið að blása í glæður haturs gagnvart fólki og Flokki nema kannski þeir sem líta á allt frá pólitísku sjónarhorni. Elvira greinir málið á allt öðrum forsendum sem Össur er ósáttur við.

b)      «Ég veit heldur ekki hvað þú meinar með að ég sé að segja að útlendingar skilji ekki íslenskt samfélag. »

Össur hafði þó sjálfur skrifað: « If you would like to take a lesson in (I)celandic constitutional law than I would be happy to oblige.» Þetta finnst a.m.k. mér vera yfirlætisleg og hrokafull yfirlýsing og gefa til kynna að útlendingurinn geti ekkert kennt Íslendingnum.

 Össur ræðir um sekt og sakleysi en þetta mál snýst ekki um það heldur að fólk setur fram gagnrýni á gjörðir Allsherjarnefndar Alþingis og vill fá svör um rökstuðning, samræmi og jafnræði. Fulltrúar allra flokka á Alþingi skulda þar svör.
Matthías

[Maria Elvira Méndez Pinedo, 9.5.2007 kl. 21:11]

Mensaje para el agente secreto especial: Össur

en su dirección: [e-mail]

Por si no lo sabías los ordenadores dejan huella. Estás rodeado. !Rindéte! Procede a tu identificación.