The Åland Islands are strategically located between the Finnish mainland and Sweden. The Islands have a special status in constitutional and international law.  After 2000 the Constitution of Finland has gained an increasing impact within the autonomy system, especially in connection with constitutional review ex ante of Ålandic Acts enacted by the Åland Parliament. This change has given rise to defensive reactions in the Åland Islands. In the post I shortly describe the background to this constitutional change and its repercussions for the Ålandic autonomy system.

Constitutional change in an autonomy setting

The autonomy of Åland recently reached the respectable age of 100 years. The Finnish Parliament enacted the first Autonomy Act during Spring 1920. After enactment the Autonomy Act was rejected by the Ålandic population and the elections to the Åland Parliament were not held before 1922. A clear majority of the Ålandic population strived for becoming a part of Sweden which supported these aspirations. The Åland Island question was resolved in 1921 by the League of Nations. It was decided that Finland shall retain the sovereignty over the islands but certain guarantees for the preservation of the Ålanders language, of their culture, and of their local Swedish traditions were put into place. An international convention on the demilitarization and neutralization of the islands was concluded, but the demilitarization of the islands dates to the 19^th century.

The international solution of the Åland Island question in 1921 is well known and remains one of the few lasting achievements of the League of Nations. The Åland Agreement concluded between Finland and Sweden in 1921 under the auspices of the League of Nations is still important for understanding the present and third Autonomy Act (entered into force 1.1.1993). Some of the provisions can still be traced back to the Åland Agreement. In addition, the Autonomy Act has a special constitutional status in Finland. Amendments to the Autonomy Act require the application of the procedure for amending the Constitution of Finland as well as consent of the Åland Parliament (Ålands lagting). The Autonomy Act is not classified as a constitution in the formal sense of the word, as only the Constitution of Finland enjoys this status. However, because of its amendment procedure the Autonomy Act is part of the constitutional law of Finland and contains certain derogations to the Constitution.

The Autonomy Act sets up a political and administrative system which in principle functions in parallel with the Finnish system set up by the Constitution of Finland. The system is dualist in the sense that the Åland Parliament and the Finnish Parliament can only legislate within their own exclusive field of competence. The Autonomy Act sets up a double enumeration of legislative competences and separate lists of legislative competences for Åland (landskapet) and the State (riket). The Ålandic system is based on parliamentarism as the Government of Åland (Ålands landskapsregering) is accountable to the Åland Parliament. There are many public authorities subordinate to the Government of Åland, for example the Ålandic health and medical care authority. The executive power in the Åland Islands is also of a dualist character.  The starting point is that the Åland and State authorities and their civil servants execute and implement legislation within their own separate fields of competence.

The membership to the European Union in 1995 has certainly led to an increasing complexity of the Ålandic legislative and administrative system. The Ålandic, Finnish and European Union legal orders are all present and applicable in the Åland Islands. The legal order of the European Union is a departure from the dualist system described above. The public authorities in the Ålands Islands also execute European administrative tasks and the Åland Parliament implements directives within the Ålandic legislative competence field.  This has led to an increasing intertwinement between the legal orders but also a markedly greater need for legislative and administrative coordination. There is an increasing need for cooperation between Åland and the State regarding legislative competences of the State that border to the competence fields of Åland. This is especially the case regarding the application and execution of the Emergency Powers Act (1552/2011) in the Åland Islands.

I moved to the Åland Islands from mainland Finland a couple of months before the Constitution of Finland entered into force on 1^st March 2000. The provisions in the Autonomy Act that define the status of Finnish constitutional acts in the autonomy system have not changed in a significant way since 1920. The competence provisions in the Autonomy Act stipulate that “the State shall have legislative power in matters relating to the enactment, amendment or repeal of the Constitution and an exception to the Constitution” (Section 27, Subparagraph 1). This solution has allowed the transfer of the limiting effects which follow from constitutional reforms in Finland to the Ålandic autonomy system. After 2000 the Constitution of Finland gained an increasing impact within the autonomy system. In the public discussion on Åland it is common that this development is presented as a problem or even as a hollowing out of the Ålandic legislative competence.

In my doctoral thesis from 2025 I analyzed how and why this constitutional change is happening in the autonomy system. Studying and comparing constitutional change can explain the formal and informal processes of change in the legal order.

Constitutional review of legislation – transformations since 1990

The constitutional law of Finland has undergone significant transformations during the last decades. The milestones include the accession to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1990, the fundamental rights reform in 1995, the accession to the European Union in 1995 and the constitutional reform in 2000. The transformation taking place has been given many nametags, for example rights-based constitutionalism and constitutionalisation. This change is in no way restricted to Finland; we can see similar developments in other Nordic countries.  However, the current fundamental rights catalogue in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Finland is broad and comprehensive. It sets out a range of economic, social and cultural rights, in addition to traditional civil and political rights. During the last century the Constitution Act of Finland of 17 July 1919 and other constitutional acts were seldom applied directly by the courts and administrative authorities. The constitutional system rested on the assumption that constitutional rights and norms were mainly to be implemented through ordinary legislation. The prevailing interpretation in Finland during the 20^th century was that courts lacked the competence to review the constitutionality of ordinary legislation.

Section 106 of the Constitution of Finland introduced an ex post constitutional review conducted by courts but limited to concrete cases and “evident conflicts”. The Finnish system still clearly gravitates towards pre-enactment constitutional review by the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament.  The Committee issues statements on the constitutionality of proposed legislation, before a Bill is approved by the Parliament of Finland. This pre-enactment constitutional review performed by the Committee is peculiar as it is conducted by an organ consisting of elected Members of Parliament rather than career judges. This suggests apparent tensions between politics and law within parliamentary constitutional review. The constitutional interpretations of the Constitutional Law Committee are considered as authoritative in Finland. The Committee has repeatedly stated that it is competent to issue statements on the conformity of bills with the Autonomy Act. In addition, the Constitutional Law Committee has a central role when proposals for amendment of the Autonomy Act come before Parliament. The Committee prepares the matter and issues a report for the plenary session of Parliament.

The constitutional transformations of the last decades have also affected the Autonomy of Åland and how the Ålandic authorities can exercise public power. I have been particularly interested in the consequences for the Ålandic legislative process and constitutional review of the Acts (landskapslagar) adopted by the Åland Parliament. After enactment by the Åland Parliament, the Acts are sent to the Åland Delegation, a joint organ of Åland and the State. The Åland Delegation gives an opinion to the Ministry of Justice before the Act is presented to the President of the Republic. The Ministry of Justice can also refer Ålandic Acts to the Supreme Court, this is especially the case if the Åland Delegation finds grounds for annulment. After having obtained an opinion from the Supreme Court the President may order the Act annulled in full or in part, if he/she considers that the Åland Parliament has exceeded its legislative powers or that the Act relates to the internal or external security of the State. When performing this constitutional review ex ante the President relies heavily on the opinions of the Supreme Court and the Åland Delegation. In contrast to the role of the President in a Finnish setting the President does not sign the Ålandic Act. The Government of Åland publishes Ålandic Acts in the Åland Statute Series.

From 1980 to 2023 the Åland Delegation submitted 1624 opinions in relation to 2246 Ålandic Acts. The Supreme Court submitted 313 opinions concerning 553 Ålandic Acts. My research shows that it was very rare indeed prior to 2000 with references to the constitutional acts of Finland in the opinions of the Åland Delegation and the Supreme Court. The opinions were generally quite short and almost exclusively concerned with controlling that Ålandic Acts fell within the legislative competence fields of Åland defined in the Autonomy Act. After the Constitution of Finland entered into force in 2000 a gradual change has taken place concerning how constitutional review of Ålandic Acts is conducted. The review of the conformity with the division of legislative competence between Åland and the State has been complemented with a material review of constitutionality. This type of review evaluates the substance of an Ålandic Act to ensure it complies with fundamental rights and other limits set out in the Constitution. Nowadays the constitutional review ex ante of Ålandic Acts also comprises a review that aims to detect evident conflicts between Ålandic Acts and European Union law.

The constitutional review of Ålandic Acts is of a pluralist nature, combining a review of conformity with the Autonomy Act, the Constitution of Finland and European Union law. This might sound like a radical change of constitutional legislative review, if conducted in a comprehensive manner. It should be borne in mind that the resources and time available for considering every aspect of constitutional and European law during the legislative process and the following constitutional review are limited. It is quite rare that the President orders an Act annulled in full. It is more common that specific provisions of an Act are annulled. The annulled provisions are not that many on a yearly basis, but nowadays it is more probable that a provision is annulled because of conflict with the Constitution of Finland than the Autonomy Act. Accusations of excessive reduction of the scope for legislative decision-making are in my opinion premature. The annulments have in most cases been ordered because of quite technical issues, especially concerning the limits of delegating legislative powers.

The possibility of a composite constitutional identity?

The consequences for the Ålandic autonomy were not given that much attention during the drafting and preparation of the fundamental rights reform in 1995 and the Constitution of Finland. This could have given the misleading impression that nothing much would happen in relation to the autonomy system. The subsequent changes of how constitutional review of Ålandic Acts is conducted have spurred defensive Ålandic reactions. A new and fourth Autonomy Act has been under preparation for 15 years. One of the most difficult issues in the bilateral negotiations has been the relationship between the Autonomy Act and the Constitution of Finland. The Ålandic proposals put forward during the preparation of a new Autonomy Act have aimed to rein in the above transformations. An implied Ålandic assumption seems to be that these changes concerning constitutional review of Ålandic Acts should in effect be seen as amendments of the Autonomy Act. Amendments of the Autonomy Act require the consent of the Åland Parliament.

One early Ålandic proposal was that amendments of constitutional acts touching upon the Ålandic legislative competence should require Ålandic consent. This proposal has not found acceptance in Helsinki and similar proposals were rejected already in the 1990s by the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament, especially with reference to the protection of fundamental rights. It remains to be seen if a working solution can be found in the relationship between the Autonomy Act and the Constitution. The latest proposal regarding the constitutional review of Ålandic Acts from a joint working group does not aim at significant changes to the status of the Constitution in the autonomy system. The proposal merely seems to underline the margin of discretion when implementing and applying the Constitution within the framework of the Ålandic autonomy. However, the proposal regarding the role of European Union law in the constitutional review ex ante of Ålandic Acts clearly strives for a higher threshold when annulling Ålandic Acts considered to conflict with European Union law.

The proposals regarding the status and function of the Constitution and European Union law in the autonomy system were not universally endorsed. According to the Supreme Court some proposals were deemed unclear or unnecessary. Although the Supreme Court was not outright dismissive of a higher threshold when reviewing conformity of Ålandic Acts with European Union law a certain lack of enthusiasm for the proposal can be traced. The Chancellor of Justice was quite critical of the working group’s draft for a new Autonomy Act as he concluded that it could not be sent at all to Parliament in its present form. In October 2026 it became clear that a proposal for a fourth Autonomy Act would not proceed for parliamentary consideration. There is a sense of déjà vu because the sequence of events was quite similar in 2022. There is widespread frustration, at least in the Åland Islands, at the state of things.

The initial Ålandic proposals aimed for a significant reform of the autonomy system. For example, the Faroese autonomy was used as a template for a proposal regarding how legislative and administrative competence could be transferred from the State to Åland. There are not many traces left of the initial Ålandic aspirations and proposals. The latest draft for the new Autonomy Act by the joint working group is essentially seen on Åland as a technical update of the present Autonomy Act. One possibility is to proceed with partial amendments to the Autonomy Act. Chapter 7 on the economy of Åland was totally revised in 2021 and is a significant partial reform of the autonomy system. However, there are long-standing difficulties reaching an agreement on a limited amendment concerning certain State competences and tasks relevant for the Ålandic health and social welfare sector. The last decades show that there is a recurrent need to amend the Autonomy Act. The State and Åland need to find a working model for cooperation and amendments to the Autonomy Act.

My conclusion is that the Ålandic autonomy system has entered a new phase since the 1990s. During the last century the autonomy system functioned in most respects as self-contained and isolated, unencumbered by legal norms external to the system. Today’s constitutional and legal landscape is a whole lot more complicated and messier. The intensified application of the Constitution of Finland and European Union law within the framework of the autonomy system has laid bare a situation of constitutional pluralism. A person living in the Åland Islands has a composite identity consisting of an Ålandic, a national and a European identity. In a similar vein, the exercise of public authority in the Åland Islands presupposes a composite or shared constitutional identity. The preparation of a fourth Autonomy Act reveals that there are some unresolved tensions in the constitutional whole.

The rise of rights-based constitutionalism assumes that individuals have constitutional and human rights that transgress all fields of law and competences. There is an inherent tension between an expanding scope for the protection of national constitutional rights and the exclusive nature of Åland’s legislative and administrative competence. An expanding catalogue of constitutional rights in the Constitution of Finland limits the Ålandic field of competence. It is true that constitutional rights can have centralizing effects. However, the fundamental rights system of the Constitution of Finland is in many respects integrated with European standards for the protection of fundamental and human rights. The scope for alternative models for the protection of rights in the Åland Islands is reduced, especially if the result is a lowering of the protection of fundamental and human rights. The constitutional and legislative context is not always similar in an Ålandic and State setting. This should always be considered when applying constitutional rights.

Posted by Sören Silverström, Doctor of Laws (LL.D., Åbo Akademi), Master of Laws (LL.M., Helsinki University).

---

Sören Silverström moved to the Åland Islands in 2000 and worked for many years as a civil servant at the Government of Åland. Since 2025 he has functioned as Secretary of the Åland Delegation. The post is based on his thesis and written in the capacity of researcher.