For many years since World War II, the Norwegian Constitution was largely studied in a national and historical context, and in relative isolation from comparative research. At the same time, the influence from “modern” empirical thinking in the field of social sciences and so-called “legal realism” of the Scandinavian kind was important.

In opposition to the descriptive (empirical) approach to the study of the Constitution that has had a tendency to predominate, there has been a regain of interest in the study of Human Rights. Among political scientists, a “new-institutionalist” approach has grown strong, and developments such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the process of democratisation in Eastern Europe and the debate on European integration have considerably enhanced the interest in constitutional studies as such.

Along these lines, the very basis for this research project lies in the idea that the Constitution should be studied (first) as (legal) norm. A normative approach opens up for studying the impact of these legal norms as well in the legal system as in society otherwise, but also of their own extra-legal normative basis and relationship to other sets of norms (philosophical, etc.).

Among questions approached by the group, the following should be mentioned: the relationship between a majority based and a “constitutional” concept of democracy; the Constitution not only as “instrument of government” but even as a “law” to be upheld by Courts; “parliamentary studies” not only of political behaviour, but even of norms supposed to govern that behaviour; the internal structure of the system of (legal) constitutional norms; the importance of legal/constitutional elements in political arguing; the importance of legal form, for instance as to the relationship between constitutional change by formal amendment, by interpretation or by “unwritten” legal norms; and the relationship between norm and behaviour.

For the study of fundamental questions like these, it was important that the project included peoples from several scientific fields including lawyers, political scientists, historians and philosophers.

Moreover, a comparative perspective was crucial, allowing the situation in Norway, for example, to be compared and contrasted with that in other countries.

The group contributed substantially in building up the cross-disciplinary network in Norway in constitutional studies and between important members of this network and foreign colleagues. Intensive discussions within the group and with guests and participants in conferences, etc. will have long-standing effects on the knowledge and ways of reasoning of the persons involved. The importance of looking upon the constitution as a norm, not only as an “undemocratic” relict of the past, and of not seeing the legal character of this norm as the final word within the realm of the giving of reasons was confirmed. Parts at least of the cooperation are likely to continue under other forms in the years to come.