Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Status of Non-Implemented EEA Law in Iceland: Lessons from the Judicial Reactions of the Supreme Court to International Law

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Nordic Journal of International Law

In October 2007, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court confirmed that the doctrines of direct effect and primacy could not be generated by the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement alone. Rather, the effects of non-implemented EEA provisions were to remain in the hands of the EFTA States. Hence, the relevant question is what weight should be accorded to such norms in domestic law? The Icelandic Supreme Court has yet to take a stance on the direct effect question relation to incorrectly or insufficiently transposed EEA law. The issue has, however, been addressed several times in connection with the European Convention on Human Rights, before its incorporation. In order to address the unclear legal status of EEA norms in Icelandic law, this contribution takes a closer look at the judicial attitude of the Supreme Court taken towards international law in general and the Convention in particular. The perceived differences between EEA law and the Convention have made it easy for observers to dismiss such comparison on the grounds that the two kinds of legal regime are not readily comparable. The article questions these apparent differences by pointing out that EEA law in fact shares all of the features of the Convention that led judges to enforce it in the Icelandic legal order.

Affiliations: 1: Doctoral Candidate, European University Institute, Florence, Italy


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation