Beyond the Legal Myth? The Framing Effects of European High Court Judgments and Public Reactions

How do people perceive different supreme court decision-making processes? A widely held view is that citizens expect courts to act as neutral arbiters. Although the importance of the 'legal myth'—the belief in law’s autonomy and neutrality—is increasingly questioned, we know surprisingly little about the relationship between how we interpret judges’ motivations and the public’s attitudes—especially in civil law countries. This study, based on a pair of experiments conducted in Norway and Portugal, isolates the influence of institutional framing from respondents’ affective reactions to judicial outcomes. We find that partisan framing negatively affects perceptions of fairness and acceptance of rulings, whereas judicial decisions emphasizing policy goals—not legal formalism—do not adversely affect citizens’ reactions. The results suggest that, even within civil law systems, upholding the legal myth may not be a necessary condition for securing public support for judicial decisions. Article Summary I. Introduction Supreme courts—the apex of national legal systems—are increasingly ‘guiding public policy’ (Tate, 1995) and gradually assuming the role of a ‘third chamber’ in policymaking (Brouard & Hönnige, 2017; Sweet, 2000). Yet this political power harbors an inherent vulnerability: ‘The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse’ (Hamilton, 1788). Supreme courts must therefore ensure the public legitimacy of their decisions—for instance, by maintaining public support (Gibson et al., 1998). Without such popular backing, elected branches of government face fewer constraints when defying court rulings or undermining institutional integrity (Arato, 2016). In an era where courts are targets of both liberal and populist challenges (Kovács & Scheppele, 2018; Mudde, 2013), examining public support for courts—and the conditions shaping it—has become ever more critical. A substantial body of political psychology research shows that citizen compliance with authority—particularly court rulings—depends not only on individuals’ preferences regarding outcomes, but also on whether they perceive the decision-making process itself as fair. This implies the existence of framing effects: individuals’ emphasis on particular subsets of potentially relevant factors can shift their focus toward those elements when forming judgments (Druckman, 2001). Drawing on cases from Norway and Portugal, this study investigates how different institutional framings shape public perceptions of judicial fairness and acceptance of rulings. The two countries’ court systems differ markedly. Norway’s judicial system most closely resembles the Anglo-Saxon model. Its Supreme Court serves as the highest appellate court across civil, criminal, administrative, and constitutional matters (Grendstad et al., 2015). Judges are nominated by the Judicial Appointments Board and formally appointed by the King upon recommendation by the Minister of Justice. Although the government plays a role, judicial appointments remain largely insulated from overt political influence. In contrast, Portugal’s system reflects the German-Austrian model of constitutional review—namely, a specialized, Kelsenian-style court tasked exclusively with reviewing the constitutionality of statutory norms.

Environmental NGOs Sue Norwegian Government! Deep-Sea Mineral Development Sparks Legal Disputes

Despite longstanding opposition, the Norwegian government announced in January 2024 a striking decision: approving a commercial deep-sea mineral exploration program covering 280,000 square kilometers of the Arctic continental shelf. This would make Norway the first country to launch commercial deep-sea exploration. The first exploration licenses are expected to be issued in 2025, while actual mining operations—subject to approval by the Norwegian legislature—are projected to begin no earlier than 2030. Yet this decision has drawn sharp criticism from environmental organizations. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) contends that the Norwegian Ministry of Energy’s assessment fails to meet the minimum requirements stipulated under the Subsea Minerals Act. Although at least two companies have already applied for licenses, the Norwegian government maintains that developing Arctic deep-sea minerals is crucial for boosting Europe’s supply of rare-earth elements and battery metals. In February 2024, the European Parliament likewise pressured Norway, expressing concern over its decision to open the Arctic to deep-sea mining. A May 2024 report by The Guardian further revealed that the Norwegian Environment Agency—serving as a government advisor—stated that the Ministry of Energy’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) report is insufficient as either a scientific or legal basis for deep-sea mining. Opposition Has Long Existed—Environmental Assessment Is Key In fact, environmental groups have been monitoring the issue for years. In 2017, Greenpeace Nordic and Friends of the Earth Norway filed an application with the Supreme Court, arguing that Norway’s authorization of new oil drilling amid the climate crisis violates fundamental human rights. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court in late 2021. After a series of unsuccessful appeals, these organizations brought the matter before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In November 2023, environmental groups filed a lawsuit in local courts seeking to halt development plans for the Breidablikk, Tyrving, and Yggdrasil oil and gas fields. In January 2024, Oslo District Court ruled in favor of the environmental groups, blocking the advancement of these projects. What Lies Ahead? Time Will Tell At the heart of this dispute lies the tension between economic development and environmental protection. The Norwegian government hopes that exploiting deep-sea mineral resources will increase supplies of critical materials—including rare-earth elements and battery metals—and thereby drive economic growth. Environmental organizations, however, warn that mining activities could inflict irreversible damage on marine ecosystems, threatening global environmental health and human interests.

Norway's Supreme Court Rules Against Government in Oilfields Case, But Output Unaffected

22 hours ago

Norway's Supreme Court invalidated three offshore oilfield permits due to insufficient environmental consideration, though production remains unaffected. The ruling mandates stricter permitting processes for future developments by Equinor and Aker BP.

reuters

2026-05-06

Norwegian Government Criticized Over Decision to Reopen North Sea Gasfields

2026-07-01

Norway offshore workers, employers enter mediation to avert strike

2026-07-02

Norway's unions agree wage deal to avert strike at offshore installations

2026-08-23

Norway asks supreme court to overturn environmental verdict against oilfields

2026-09-16

Equinor plans LNG expansion in early 2030s to meet European and Asian demand