Legal experts sharply disagree on crisis management bill

Tuomas Ojanen

Veli-Pekka Viljanen

Teija Tiilikainen

Mikael Hidén

Martti Koskenniemi

Kaarlo Tuori

Ilkka Saraviita

print this

There were sharp disagreements among top legal experts who testified before the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee on whether the deployment of Finnish forces for crisis management operations of the European Union should fall under the authority of the President or the government.
      The committee decided after a vote on Friday that the government should have the authority - not the President, as was put forward in the government’s bill on the matter.
      The bill was rejected by the committee, which feels that it would have violated the Finnish constitution, under which the government is responsible for matters related with the EU.
      The government based its proposal on the role of the President of the Republic as the commander-in-chief of the Finnish Defence Forces.
     
The view of a minority of the experts prevailed in the committee’s vote. The committee proposed a change in the wording under which the government would decide on Finnish participation in EU operations. Another option would have been to turn the bill into a constitutional amendment. Instead, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) decided to withdraw the bill.
      Three of seven legal experts appearing before the Constitutional Law Committee felt that the government, which has authority over EU affairs, should decide on Finnish participation in EU military action.
      These three include Tuomas Ojanen, Professor of European Law, Veli-Pekka Viljanen, Professor of Constitutional Law, and political scientist Teija Tiilikainen.
     
Supporting Presidential authority in the matter were Mikael Hildén, Professor of Constitutional Law, Martti Koskenniemi, Professor at the Academy of Finland, Kaarlo Tuori, Professor of Jurisprudence, and indirectly, Ilkka Saraviita, Professor of Public Law.
      Saraviita did not specifically focus on decision-making in EU operations, but he agreed with the government’s view that the crisis management law can be passed as ordinary legislation, because he did not feel that it went against the present constitution.
     
Kaarlo Tuori was asked for his view twice, and both times he felt that the President should decide on Finnish participation in EU operations. He felt that the issue involves more than the mere implementation of decisions made in the EU; he sees it as an independent decision of foreign and security policy.
      Taking a completely different view was Professor Viljanen, who sees such operations as the Finnish implementation of an EU decision, which the constitution stipulates should be the responsibility of the government.
      Professor Hildén saw the dispute as a reflection of the internal tension built into the constitution, in which foreign policy leadership is given to the President, while EU matters are with the government.
      Hildén feels that it is because of this tension that it is unlikely that an unambiguous answer can be found to the issue of whether the President or the government should decide on Finnish participation in EU operations. His own view is that the President should be the one, noting that the decision-maker should not vary from one situation to another.
      He notes that the same crisis management mission can sometimes involve operations implemented by both the EU and others.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Government pulls contorversial crisis management bill out of Parliament (28.11.2005)
  Dispute on new crisis mangement law escalates in Parliament (25.11.2005)
  New wording for crisis management authorisation (21.11.2005)

Helsingin Sanomat