No. i]
NOTES
The Situation of the Finland-Swedish Population in the
Light of International, Constitutional and
Administrative Law
1. Historical survey
In 1809 those parts of Sweden which were bounded in the west
by the Aaland Sea, the Gulf of Bothnia and the Tome River and
were called Finland had been definitively incorporated with Russia.
Even earlier, since the beginning of the 18th century, Russia had
occupied parts of these areas at various periods. As a result of
the Peace Treaties of Nystad, 1721, and Aabo, 1743, Russia, had
also formally annexed parts of Finland.
When Tsar Alexander I vested his new Grand Duchy of Finland
with autonomous rights and permitted the use of the old Swedish
legislation for the time being until a new system of legislation
could be created, the result was that Finland retained her Swedish
character for a long time to come. In addition to the fact the
Swedish Gustavian Constitution remained unchanged and the Swed-
ish Law Code of 1734 was still in force in Finland, Swedish re-
mained as the official language of Finland. The Russian element
was almost negligible.
If one were to draw a parallel to the divided states of our own
times, Germany, Korea and Viet Nam, it would be found that the
disparities between the Communist and non-Communist parts of
these states would in many respects seem to be greater than those
between Sweden and Finland during the greater part of the 19th
century.
When Finnish nationalistic sentiments were beginning to assert
themselves in Finland, the greatest ambitions were at first to put
Finnish language on an equal footing with the Swedish language
in matters of legislation, administration and jurisdiction and to
ensure for the Finnish-speaking inhabitants of the Grand Duchy
the right to use their mother tongue in public affairs and to re-
ceive instruction in that language.
These ambitions, behind which the Finnish-speaking part of the
population stood united but which were supported also by the
greater part of Swedish-speaking people, were eventually success-
ful, in spite of the fact that they were at first opposed by the
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
Russians on account of being taken -as an indication of dangerous,
much too democratic tendencies.
A certain -amount of equality between the two languages was
reached at the end of the 19th century. The attainment of a per-
feot state of balance was, however, complicated at first, owing to
the primitive character of Finnish as a language of culture and
to the shortage of Finnish-speaking teachers and officials. At the
beginning of the 20th century, when conditions were changing ra-
pidly, Finnish was well on its way to overshadow the Swedish
language because of the great numerical preponderance of the Fin-
nish population.
Until the Parliamentary reform of 1906, which introduced the
principle of universal and equal suffrage and which gave the two
nationalities an influence proportionate to their numbers, the pro-
Swedish elements controlled two of the four Estates of the Diet.
At that time the idea of Swedish being a minority language and
the Swedish-speaking population a linguistic or even a national mi-
nority in Finland had not yet gained ground in the public opinion.
The period when the Swedish element was absolutely dominating
in the public and cultural life of the country was still of such recent
date that there had been no time for adopting a minority attitude.
The strong -press upon the positions of the Finland-Swedes from
the beginning of the 20th century onwards resulted, however, very
soon in energetic organizational activities based on language and
nationality. It became necessary for the Swedish-speaking people to
unite in order to further their mutual interests. Today one can point
to a great number of Finland-Swedish organizations which have a
clear minority bias, that is to say their chief function is to assert
the rights of the Finland-Swedes in a Finland dominated by the
Finns.
The most important of these organizations is Svenska Finlands
Folkting (the Popular Assembly of Swedish Finland), which emerged
in 1919, immediately after Finland had gained her independence,
with the purpose of examining the opportunities for Finland-Swed-
ish autonomy, and was reanimated during the Second World War
to become a permanent institution. The members of the Folkting
are appointed by means of general elections among the Finland-
Swedes and represent their various political attitudes. Its chief duty
is to give expression to the FinlandSwedish opinions on various
public matters. However, the Folkting has not been formally ac-
knowledged as a Finland-Swedish representative body by the State,
because its status has never been defined in terms of the law. But
the activities of the Folkting are nowadays supported by an annual
No. 1]
NOTES
State grant. On various occasions, for instance in matters of legis-
lative work, the State -often consuilts the Folkting, which is also
acting as a pressure group. Owing to the semi-private character
of the Folkting, one cannot maintain that the Finland-Swedes form
a corporation with formally acknowledged rights to speak authori-
tatively for the Finland-Swedes in official matters by means of its
elected organs.
Activities on a purely Finland-Swedish basis are rendered diffi-
cult by the steadilly growing Finnish element in Finland. There has
in recent years arisen a tendency towards disintegration of the
Finland-Swedish minority attitudes, which were strongest in the
1930’s, when energetic Finnish forces were making demands for only
one national language in Finland under the banners of the language
fight. It should, however, still be appropriate to call the Finland-
Swedes a nationality because of their gathering round their lan-
guage and their special cultural traditions.’
It is against the background of this short historical sketch that
I shall now discuss the situation of the Finland-Swedes in the light
of international, constitutional and administrative law.
The Protection of the Finland-Swedes
under International Law
After the Second World War, a system for the protection of
minorities under international law was created in many parts of
Europe. This system was aimed at providing the national minorities
in the new and enlarged states with a limited amount of protection
for certain rights in regard to language, culture -and religion. In
such countries as Poland, Yugoslavia and Roumania, with their
numerous nationalities, the minorities were granted the right to
maintain schools of their own, which were even subsidized by the
State in districts with a considerable minority population, and the
right to use their own language in the courts of law.
The League of Nations, which saw to it that the minority treaties
were duly observed, also decided on December 15, 1920, that the
Baltic States, -among which Finland too was counted, were to be
accepted as members only on the provision that they pledged them-
selves to observe a minority protection of at least the same scope
as the one laid down in the Polish minority treaty of June 28, 1919,
1 See: Swen Lindman, The concept of “Nationality in Swedish-Finnish political
thought, (,1.064:8), Annales Academiae Regiae Scientiarium Upsaliensis, at pp.
8-20.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
which was to set the norm for all international minority laws at
the time.
This decision was also formally applied in the case of Lithuania,
which had to submit a detailed declaration on the protection of its
minorities. Estonia and Latvia also had to submit such declarations
although not as formal ones as in the case of Lithuania. Finland
was admitted into the League on December 16, 1920, without having
been requested to deliver any garantees in advance concerning mi-
nority protection. The only reservation that was made on the
admission of Finland into the League consisted in the fact that
the political status of the Aaland Islands was left undefined for
the time being.
Only somewhat later Finland was notified of its obligation to
submit a memorandum on the conditions of her minorities and
religious communities to the League of Nations. After such an
investigation had been made by the Finnish Ministry of the Exte-
rior and brought to the notice of the Council of the League, the
Council decided on October 2, 1921, not to demand any guarantees
from Finland for the protection of minorities under international
law. The national legislation of Finland was considered to be so
satisfactory from the point of view of minority interests –
of
course this held good especially of the position of the Finland-
Swedes –
that no demands were made for an international guar-
antee of the observance of certain minimum rights.2
A contributory reason for this remarkable attitude towards
Finland, which was thus placed in a more favoured position than
the other newly-founded states, was undoubtedly the fact that nei-
ther the Finland-Swedish population nor the Swedes were making
any demands for protection under international law for the Swed-
ish minority in Finland. At the session of the Folkting in 1919,
the Finland-Swedes themselves rejected the idea of asking for in-
ternational protection in their capacity of a national or linguistic
minority. On the contrary, they emphasized the equal status of the
Swedish language in Finland and rejected the formal classification
of the Finland-Swedes as a minority, since it was feared that such
a procedure would involve limited possibilities to make their voice
heard alongside of the other nationality in matters concerning the
whole country. Sweden’s ambition to take possession of the Aaland
Islands was, it is true, motivated by a desire to preserve the na-
2La situation juridique ‘et les droits des Minoritis en Finlande. Documents
publi6s par le MinistZre des affaires 6trang~res, Helsingfors, 191.
No. 1]
NOTES
tional character of the Islands, but in practice it was above all
dictated by considerations of military strategy.
The Aaland Islands dispute, which was referred to the League
of Nations, was finally settled in June 1921. Finland was awarded
the sovereignty over the Islands, albeit with some restrictions. One
of these restrictions was the prohibition of the fortification of the
Islands. The neutralization of the Aaland Islands was subsequently
laid down in a multilateral treaty under international law. By way
of another restriction Finland was obliged to grant the autonomous
Province of Aaland far-reaching guarantees for the preservation
of the Swedish language, the culture and the local traditions of the
Islands.
Detailed provisions on the guarantees for the preservation of
the national character of the I-lands were drafted by the repre-
sentatives of Finland and Sweden with the help of a chairman
appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. On June 27,
1921, the treaty was communicated to the Council, which approved
it and decided to add it to its earlier decision to the effect that
the Aaland Islands were awarded to Finland. Of particular impor-
tance in the treaty was the provision that entitled the Council of
the League to supervise the observance of the guarantees. The
representative body of the Province of Aaland, the Landsting, was
vested with rights to make complaints through the Finnish Govern-
ment about incorrect application of the guarantees to the Council
of the League, which was also obliged to ask for the advisory opinion
of the Permanent Court of International Justice on the interpreta-
tion of these decrees.
One part of the Finland-Swedish population, the inhabitants
of A-aland, was thus assured protection under international law
for its language and culture. This protection was given a very wide
compass: the Swedish language was established as the only official
language in the Islands and as the sole language of education. The
possibilities of non-Aalanders to acquire landed property and their
right to engage in business ‘and industry were made dependent upon
decisions passed by the Aaland authorities of autonomy.
In no other minority treaty under international
law has a
minority been given such far-reaching rights and so extensive
guarantees for the continuance of the rights. Thus, these rights
are protected very effectively also on the national plane by means
of a provision to the effect that changes in the guarantees and in
the legislation concerning the autonomy of the Aaland Islands can
be carried through only with the consent of the Landsting of Aaland
and, moreover, the procedure prescribed for the enactment of con-
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
stitutional laws must be observed in the legislative work in Parlia-
ment.
As regards the Finland-Swedish population as a whole, it is
still true that it lacks protection under international law for its
national rights. In this respect, however, it is no longer in a worse
position than the other national minorities of Europe, with some
very few exceptions. In fact, the minority treaties contracted under
international law after the First World War have become invalid
because of the great changes in international relations. On founding
the United Nations, the member states rejected the idea of reviving
a system of minority protection under international law and were
content to try to make the states respect human rights in general.
However, the right to a language and culture of one’s own was
not classed among these rights, because the protection of national
minorities was highly disfavoured in many parts of the world.
Under the Treaty of Peace with Finland of 1947, Finland is thus
obliged only to treat her citizens equally, without distinction of
language. But this obligation should be interpreted merely as a
prohibition of the discrimination of citizens on account of their
language, not as an assurance of their right to cultivate their own
language, for instance by means of maintaining minority schools
and other educational institutions.
On the initiative of the United Nations and its specialized agen-
cies, various international covenants and conventions have been
contracted and submitted to the member states for approval and
ratification. So far, however, there is no single convention aimed
at creating a minority protection under international law even of
the comparatively modest scope of the minority treaties signed after
the First World War. The most far-reaching international agree-
ment in this respect is UNESCO’s convention against discrimination
in education. This convention -lays it down that national minorities
shall be granted the right to maintain schools of their own, either
such schools as enable the pupils to be educated in their mother
tongue or else schools that only provide teaching of the mother
tongue, while the general language of eduction is that of the ma-
jority.3
The Finland-Swedish population as a whole, then, lacks the
protection of international law. To some extent it is also uncertain
whether even the inhabitants of the Aaland Islands still enjoy such
protection for their national rights. Differing opinions have been
3 Tore Modeen, The international protection of national minorities in Europe,
(Abo: 1969), at pp. 1(12 et seq.
No. 13
NOTEIS
pronounced on the continuous validity of the Aaland Islands Treaty
of 1921. It is unanimously agreed that Finland is no longer com-
mitted by the Treaty to any international organization, since the
League of Nations has been dissolved and the United Nations has
not taken over the duty of functioning as guarantor of the Treaty.
On the other hand, it is perhaps possible to assert that Finland
might still be pledged by the Treaty with regard to Sweden –
an
interpretation which was asserted by Sweden when the present
Autonomy of Aaland Act of 1951 was being drafted and which
was not disputed, either, by Finland. Moreover, this opinion was
expressed in an authoritative investigation published by the United
Nations in 1950.4
The special constitutional and administrative position of Aaland
is passed over in this account. This position is the result of the
guarantees for the protection of the Aaland people’s language and
cultural rights contained in the Autonomy of Aaland Act. A/aland
is classified as a monolingual Swedish administrative district; all
education in Aaland is given in Swedish and only persons having
the right of domicile in Aaland may own real estate or pursue
trade there.
Protection afforded in the constitution
When Finland, having achieved independence, drew up its consti-
tution in the Constitution Act of July 17, 1919, the only ruling on
questions of nationality and language had up to then been contained
in administrative ordinances. Now, however, both the Finnish-speak-
ing and Swedish-speaking populations demanded that these questions
should be decided in the constitution; this should then be comple-
mented by a special Language Act and other ordinances concerning
nationality.
The most important statute is Article 14 of the Constitution
Act, which runs:
Finnish and Swedish are the national languages of the Republic.
The rights of Finnish citizens to use their mother tongue, whether
Finnish or Swedish, as parties before courts of law and administrative
authorities, and to obtain from them documents in such language, shall
be guaranteed by law, so as to provide for the rights of the Finnish-speaking
and Swedish-speaking populations in accordance with equal principles.
The cultural and economic needs of the Finnish-speaking and the
Swedish-speaking populations shall be met by the State in accordance with
equal principles.
4Study of
E/CN. 4/367.
the legal validity of
tke undertakings concerning minorities,
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
This statute is contained in the second section of the Constitution
Act under the heading of “The Common Rights and Legal Protection
of Finnish Citizens”.
Article 116 of the Swiss Federal Constitution of 1874: “Die
drei Hauptsprachen der Schweiz, die deutsche, die franzdsische und
die italienische, sind die Nationalsprachen des Bundes” served as
a model for the first part of Article 14 containing the statute that
both languages are to be considered national languages. The statute
means that both languages are considered to have the same domi-
ciliary rights in Finland and that both must be used on important
official occasions. Directly connected with this, therefore, is Article
22 of the Constitution Act which provides that ‘laws and ordi-
nances, as well as propositions put to Parliament by the Govern-
ment together with Parliament’s reply, representations and com-
munications to the Government are to be drawn up in both the
Finnish and the Swedish languages”. Furthermore, the following,
together with others, are published in both languages but in sepa-
rate editions in Finland: Parliamentary committee reports, accounts
of Government procedures, the reports of the Councillor of Justice
and the Ombudsman, the report of the Parliamentary auditors, the
reports of the Parliamentary Commission of the Bank of Finland
and the Parliamentary Commission of the National Pensions In-
stitute, the accounts of permission authorised by the state, the
annual reports of the Bank of Finland and publications of the
Board for Drafting Legislation. In addition there are other official
publications such as the Official Gazette of Finland, official statis-
tics, the state balance sheet and others in which both languages are
used side by side. However, some state publications appear only
in Finnish. Governmental committee reports, for example, are only
rarely published in Swedish.
That Article 14 appears in the section dealing with Finnish
citizens’ common rights is most important for this means that the
right to use one’s own language in official dealings and to have
one’s cultural and economic needs satisfied in accordance with equal
principles has been put on an equal footing with citizens’ other
constitutional rights such as freedom of worship, freedom of asso-
ciation and freedom to choose where one lives. The regulations
concerning the rights of both populations may also be interpreted
as an expression of the legislator’s desire to afford both groups
collective protection.
State legal authorities have rightly considered Article 14 of the
Constitution to be directly connected with the introductory statute
contained in Article 5 in the second section of the Constitution Act
o. 11
which states that Finnish citizens are equal in law. Article 14 of
Constitution Act is an expression of the principle of equality that
should exist between citizens of different population groups which
the state has recognised as being of equal standing.5
The Constitution Act makes special mention of the right to use
one’s own language and to be addressed in that language in a court
of law or when dealing with an administrative authority. In this
connection reference is made to a special law. Such a law was
passed soon after the Constitution Act; it was the Language Act
and the Knowledge of Languages Required of Civil Servants Act.
Both laws are dated June 1, 1922 with subsequent amendments.
The right of both populations to have their cultural and economic
needs satisfied in accordance with equal principles is based only
on the second paragraph of Article 14 of the Constitution Act.
Interpretation of the concept “equal principles” has led in practice
to conflicts between the two populations. Certain advocates from
the majority have claimed that, for example, state subsidies to
the same propor-
Swedish educational institutions should be
tion as that of the minority to the majority. The minority, on the
other hand, has claimed that such a principle is wrong since it
does not take into account the fact that the costs of setting up and
administering such institutions are not in direct proportion to the
numbers of people attending the institution. Neither does it take
account of Swedish institutions which are already in existence. 6
in
The correct interpretation should be that, in those cases where
the community supports cultural and economic (as well as social)
aspirations within one population group, then the other should also
receive support. The size of this support should be such that a
similar degree of activity is possible for both in accordance with
similar principles. For example, the level of education in Swedish
institutions should be the same as that in Finnish institutions. On
the other hand, account should of course be taken of the size of
both population groups so that the minority cannot demand as many
institutions as the majority. In certain areas where the minority
is too small to warrant its own institution it should be possible to
incorporate the minority into a predominantly Finnish institution.
5 S. R. Bj6rksten, Nagot on 14 regeringsformen (On Article 14 of the
Constitution), (Nya Argus: 1M52), No. 15. See also R. Erich, Suomen waltio-
oikeus 1, (Constitutional Law in Finland), (Helsinki: 1924) at p. 241.
6 See, among others, Ernst Estlander Aktuell tolkning av 14 r’egeringsformen,
(A New Interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution), (Nya Argus: 1938),
No. 3.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
However, in this ease there should be certain guarantees of the
minority’s right in matters of language.
Connected with Article 14 of the Constitution Act is the third
paragraph of Article 50 of the Act. This lays down that adjustments
in the boundaries of administrative areas (provinces, communes)
shall be such that the areas are as far as possible monolingual or
that minorities speaking the other language are at least as small
as possible. It is also laid down –
in the second paragraph of
Article 51 which deals with provincial autonomy –
that the same
principle shall be followed.
According to Article 75 a conscript, unless he himself wishes
otherwise, shall be, as far as possible, assigned to a unit whose
members have the same mother tongue as himself. He shall, fur-
thermore, receive his training in that language.
The Constitution Act cannot be interpreted in such a way that
the Swedish-speaking population in Finland is treated as a national
minority since the law puts both populations on an equal footing
in all respects. Nevertheless, the statutes of the Constitution mean
in practice that the Swedish population is afforded protection as
the position of the Finnish population, by reason of its great ma-
jority, is in practice ensured in -all cases by ‘legislation. Article 14
means, therefore, that the ‘Swedish people enjoy in fact constitu-
tional protection of their language and culture. This protection means
that all normal legislation and administrative decrees must follow
the principles laid down in the Constitution in this respect. Excep-
tions can only be legally made in legislative matters if the procedure
prescribed for amendments to the Constitution is followed while
administrative decrees at variance with the Constitution may not
be applied by public authorities.
On the other hand the statutes affording protection to both
populations in the Constitution can be amended provided that a
legal majority in Parliament gives its consent. Since the number
of Swedish members of Parliament is far from being large enough
to prevent or even delay a decision to amend the Constitution, the
continued protection given by the Constitution to the Swedish-speak-
ing people is dependent on the willingness of the Finnish majority
to respect the principle of equality in the question of language and
cultural rights.
There is no certain guarantee, however, that legislation accords
with the Constitution in this respect as in others so long as the
Constitution Committee, which ensures that the statutes of the
Constitution are respected when legislation is being drafted in the
Parliament, is politically appointed. However, the committee usually
No. 1″]
NOTES
consults and, in its recommendations, follows the advice of legal
experts in difficult question of interpretation. What is needed is
a special constitutional court with the authority to determine the
constitutionality of the laws.
No government up to now has put forward any proposal to
amend the above mentioned statutes in the Constitution; this must
be regarded as a favourable sign. Parliamentary motions aimed
at weakening the Swedish people’s position have been raised but
so far they have been rejected by Parliament.7
In practice the existence of the nationality statutes in
the
Constitution has not resulted in it being considered necessary for
ordinary laws containing deviations from these statutes to follow
the procedure prescribed for amending the Constitution. This has
been due, above all, to the somewhat elastic contents of the statutes.
Parliament has, similarly, not always observed the principles
contained in the nationality statutes of the Constitution either in
legislating or in drafting legislation. A Government bill (1945:43)
to change provincial boundaries in order to set up a predominantly
and, for the most part, monolingual Swedish province in Ostro-
bothnia was rejected after much discussion. Likewise a proposal to
in such a way that the Swedish
introduce provincial autonomy
population would have been assigned to two autonomous areas set
up on the basis of language (Committee Report 1963:1) was re-
placed by a later proposal that the division should not follow lin-
guistic boundaries (Preliminatry Report, May 14, 1968). In giving
state support to different institutions land areas in the country the
principle of equality has not always been strictly f6llowed. For
instance, the private Swedish university, Abo Akademi, has been
treated rather harshly in the matter of state subsidies compared
with the private Finnish universities. In several cases the state has
taken financial responsibility for the running of Finnish secondary
schools in bilingual areas with a Swedish majority before similar
steps have been taken for Swedish schools.
Major wrongs have however been avoided since the Swedish
People’s Party has acted as watchdog for the Swedish population’s
interests. This political party, of which nationality is the principal
7 See, among others, Parliamentary notions Nos. 1 and 2, 1033, together
with the recommendations of the Constitution Committee, 1933:5, and 19B5:4,
as well as detailed advice given by experts; Riksdagen 1933, Handlingar V och
RFiksdagen 1025, Handlingar V, (Parliament 1933, Official Documents V and
Parliament 1935, Official Documents V).
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
raison d’6tre, has been represented in almost all governments since
the war.8
Protection Afforded in Administrative Law
The Swedish-speaking population’s interests
in administrative
law are provided for by several different laws and ordinances. The
most important of these is the Language Act of June 1, 1922. It
should be pointed out, however, that this law makes no distinction
in any way between the rights given to Finns and Swedes but treats
them equally in all respects. This means that Finnish minorities
in a predominantly Swedish administrative district have, in accord-
ance with this law, the same rights as Swedish minorities in pre-
dominantly Finnish districts. Bearing in mind that the regulations
contained in this law also apply to central governmental authorities
and that it is nearly always the Swedish population which is in the
minority, this law is of particular importance for Swedes. The
statutes contained in the Language Act concerning a minority’s
rights in the matter of language apply, then, to Swedes in their
dealings not only with the central government authorities but also
with government authorities at the provincial level and with those
authorities holding office in administrative districts of comparable
size of which the boundaries have not been drawn up so that the
Swedes form a majority. As has been pointed out earlier, provincial
boundaries have been drawn up so that the Swedish-speaking popu-
lation is in a minority within the provinces. This is also true of
many other administrative districts. An exception to this, however,
are the land settlement areas: according to the Council of State
decision of August 24, 1965, two predominantly Swedish districts
were set up. The Language Acts lays down, above all, the language
to be used by authorities together with the language to be used in
dealings between authorities and citizens.
Finland is divided in such a way that all communes –
the basic
administrative and judicial unit –
are classified either as mono-
lingual Finnish or Swedish or as bilingual. This classification is
based on a census, carried out every tenth year, in which the in-
habitants have to give their “first” language. A commune is con-
sidered to be bilingual if at least ten per cent of the inhabitants
belong to the other linguistic group. If the size of the minority is
on the decrease, the commune can be declared monolingual only
8 See, the Act Concerning the Provision of Land for Refugees from Karelia,
the Swedish-speaking areas of
War Veterans, Wte., and
Finland, Riksdagen 19,46, Handlingar V, (Parliament 1946, Official Documents V).
its application
in
No. 1]
NOTES
when the minority has fallen below eight per cent. However, if the
minority is greater than 5,000 the commune remains bilingual re-
gardless of whether the percentage is less than eight.
The language classification of larger administrative districts
such as provinces or court circuits is decided on the basis of the
classification of the communes contained within them. The district,
then, in its dealings with communes contained within it, is regarded as
having the same language as the commune in question. If all the
communes within the district axe monolingual, then it follows that
the district is also monolingual.9
According to the Language Act citizens shall in their dealings
with public authorities use the language of the district in mono-
lingual districts and, in bilingual districts, they may use either
language. This means that, for example, a Swede in Tampere/Tam-
merfors, which is a monolingual Finnish commune, must use Fin-
nish in his relations with communal and, except for the case men-
tioned below, authorities while a Swede living in Turku/Abo, which
is a bilingual commune, has the right to use his own language in
his relations with the city, the administration of the Province of
Turku and Pori/Abo and Bj6rneborg and the authorities of other
administrative or judicial districts of which Turku/Abo forms a part.
This regulation, however, gives a person the right to use his
own language when dealing with state authorities (but not with
communal or other public authorities). But if this language is not
the official language of the district, the authorities must, in the
case of a written document, have a certified translation made. The
citizen must then bear the translation costs.
A citizen, then, always has the right, when dealing with state
authorities, to use his own language, Swedish or Finnish, in a case
of his own or a case in which he is being heard. Likewise, corpo-
rate bodies have the right to use their official language and teach-
ing institutions their language of instruction.
In matters where the state’s attorney, public prosecutor or other
official in the course of his duty conducts a suit, he must use the
respondent’s language if, in accordance with the regulations govern-
ing the languages required of civil servants, he is obliged to know
the language. ‘When necessary, an interpreter must be used in verbal
dealings in law courts or with police authorities.
Official notices, announcements and communications in a bilin-
gual district must be posted in both languages. In a monolingual
0 See, Council of State’s decision of December 28, 1962, concerning the language
classification of administrative districts and autonomous areas from 1963-72.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
administrative district the authorities must draw up documents in
the language of the district. In the case of bilingual districts docu-
ments have to be drawn up in the language of the party concerned
or, if there are several parties speaking different languages and
they are unable to agree on the language to be used, the majority
language of the district. These rules, however, do not apply to a
commune where the minority is less than one third. In such a dis-
trict thie authorities may use the majority language of the district
unless the party particularly requests that his own language be
used.
In the armed forces and the state railways the regulations differ
somewhat to the disadvantage of the minority. According to the
Knowledge of Languages Required of Civil Servants Act, of June
1, 1922, the holder of an office for which a university degree is
required must be fully competent in the language of a monolingual
district and also be able to understand the other language of the
country. If he is a judge he must, furthermore, be able to speak
the other language passably. If the administrative district is bilin-
gual, he must be fully competent in the majority language and be
able to use the other language in both the spoken and written
form.
The central state authorities axe governed by the same regula-
tions as those for a bilingual district in which Finnish is the ma-
jority language. This means that civil servants in ministries and
other central state departments must be fully competent in Fin-
nish and have satisfactory knowledge, both oral and written, of
Swedish.
To determine a civil servant’s knowledge of language there are
special examination boards and examiners (Ordinance of December,
29, 1922). Also contained in the Language Act are regulations con-
cerning the internal official language to be used by public authori-
ties. In monolingual districts this is the language of the district
and in bilingual districts the language of the majority. However,
in dealing with a matter for which the documents are to be delivered
to an outside party, the authority is required to use the language
of the documents also internally.
The member of ‘an official depaxtment in a bilingual district e.g.
a central state department, has the right to use Swedish or Finnish,
whichever he finds more suitable, in dealings within the department
and also in his written comments intended to be entered in official
records.
The Language Act and the Knowledge of Languages Required
of Civil Servants Act were amended in 1935 in a way detrimental
No. 1]
NOTES
for the minority. The requirement demanding that authorities be
bilingual was curtailed. 10
A Finnish citizen’s rights in matters of language, them, are to a
certain degree dependent on where he is resident. In principle, how-
ever, he always has the right, in written correspondence with a state
authority, to use his own language if he is prepared to bear the
costs of translation.
In practice it is very seldom that the inhabitant of a monolingual
district addresses himself to an authority in a language other than
that of the district, in which case translation would be necessary.
The internal language used by state authorities also tends to be
Finnish exclusively. On account of civil servants’ imperfect knowl-
edge of Swedish in spite of language examinations together with
the fact that numerous Swedes in Finland speak Finnish well there
is an increasing tendency for the Swedish-speaking population to
use the language of the majority not only in its oral but also to
some extent in its written dealings with the authorities. This is
true even when the Language Act gives them the right to use their
own language. This is especially true of corporate bodies, e.g. limited
companies in which Swedish shareholders are in the majority.
Another important piece of language legislation concerns educa-
tion. Right up to the middle of the nineteenth century the only real
secondary schools in Finland were monolingual Swedish ones and it
took even longer before education in Finnish at university level
began. As a result Swedish education in Finland has old traditions.
By tradition the state maintains a large number of Swedish secondary
schools; in addition to these there are many private secondary
schools organized on the same lines as the state ones and subsidized
by the state in accordance with the rules applying to Finnish private
secondary schools. Primary education
is organised at commune
level but is state subsidized;
therefore follows the language
situation existing in the commune. At present a school must, as
a rule, be set up as soon as the number of children speaking the
language of the minority reaches eighteen; this also applies in
principle to monolingual communes.
it
A complete reform of education in Finland is at present under
preparation; the first stage of this means that the commune will
be responsible for the first eight years of education. This reform
10See, Government Bill, (1934:S8); the recommendation of the Constitution
Committee concerning the proposition deviated from the Government’s suggestion
in a way, detrimental for the minority and had a decisive effect on the contents
of the Act.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[VCol. 16
posed at first a serious threat to the position of the Swedish lan-
guage in Finland. It was proposed (government Bill 1967:44) that
English should be the only language (in addition to the mother
tongue) taught in Finnish-speaking schools for the first eight years.
The law in its final form, however, passed on July 26, 1968 and
coming into force on August 1, 1970, provides that Swedish should
be retained in the curriculum in Finnish schools together with
English, albeit with fewer teaching hours. In Swedish schools both
English and Finnish will be taught in the same way.
The state university in Helsinki/Helsingfors
is bilingual. All
subjects are taught in Finnish, but there are a number of Swedish
teaching posts and some supplementary courses are given also in
Swedish. Students naturally have the right to use their own lan-
guage in examinations, essays and other tests. The Finnish Institute
of Technology just outside Helsinki/Helsingfors is organised on much
the same lines.
University language legislation was finally arrived at as a com-
promise solution after considerable dispute since strong forces in
the 1930’s demanded the complete Fennicisation of the University
of Helsinki/Helsingfors.”1 Even at the new Finnish-speaking state
universities of Oulu/Ulediborg and Jyviiskylii, Swedish-speaking stu-
dents have the right to do examinations and tests in their own
language. Mention should also be made of Abo Akademi –
the
monolingual Swedish private university in Finland with five facul-
ties but not a school of law or a medical school –
to the schools
of economics, two of which are Swedish, to the Swedish School of
Social Sciences which prepares minor administrative officials prin-
cipally for the needs of the communes but gives courses for li-
brarians and journalists and to many other teaching institutions
using Swedish as their language of instruction.
There is also a large number of Swedish trade schools, usually
maintained by the communes, special Swedish schools for the phys-
ically and mentally handicapped and other teaching establishments
in Finland. In addition there is a number of bilingual schools with
parallel classes in Swedish and Finnish or with a limited amount
of teaching given in Swedish.
The central administration of schools is the responsibility of the
National Board of Schools. Since 1920 the Board has had a special
1lSee, Government Bill, (1907:S6), and the recommendation of the Consti-
tution Committee, (1987:3). The recommendation deviated from the Govern-
ment’s proposition in a vay which was detrimental for the minority. The
proposals contained in the recommendation were passed as law.
No. 1]
NOTES
Swedish department which supervises the Swedish secondary schools,
primary schools and other types of schools. The present ordinance
concerning this department is given on May 6, 1969. There are also
school supervising officials on the provincial level of which a cer-
tain number functions as special supervisors of the Swedish schools.
The division of the church into dioceses is similarly based on
an ordinance. In this division are contained provisions for a separate
Swedish diocese (Borga stift), established in 1923, of the Finnish
Evangelical Lutheran Church. This -diocese includes all the Swedish
and predominantly Swedish parishes in Finland.
The bishop and the other diocese officials are paid by the state.
The parishes are autonomous local administrative units of the church
with the right to levy taxes. They have been constituted to a large
degree on the basis of language so that certain bilingual areas, e.g.
large towns, fall within both Swedish and Finnish parishes.
A Swedish-speaking brigade, in which Swedes do their military
service, has been set up by an administrative decree. However, in
accordance with the Constitution Act, Article 75, the language of
command in the armed forces is always Finnish.12
Hospitals, the care of old people and other kind of social work
are the responsibility of the communes in Finland. Those institutions
providing care for the sick, the old, invalids, etc. are usually not
constituted according to language but follow automatically the lin-
guistic character of the commune.
In accordance with the law concerning university hospitals cer-
tain wards of the Central University Hospital of Helsinki/Helsing-
fors are reserved for Swedish university teaching purposes. These
wards come under the authority of a separate board which, in
addition to teachers from the faculty of medicine of the university
who teach in Swedish, also has representatives from the Swedish
and bilingual communes contributing to the hospital’s running costs.
These wards, which are not concentrated to one hospital but are
scattered, are predominantly Swedish in character.
Private institution, e.g. old people’s homes, set up on a language
basis can usually count on support from public funds.
The rights of the Swedish-speaking population in Finland enjoy
the same protection as other public rights provided for by legisla-
tion. Appeals can be lodged against administrative documents con-
12 Administrative ordinances are issued -and repealed by the President of
the Republic in the Council of State. However, Parliament has, in many cases,
to consider matters which are formally decided by ordinances when approving
the budget.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 16
taining errors of form, e.g. when the regulation of the Language Act
have not been observed in drawing up documents, and can be re-
pealed. The highest court of appeal in such cases is the Supreme
Administrative Court.
Officials breaking the language regulations are guilty of a breach
of duty. This can result in their being punished; they may be dis-
ciplined or, if the breach is a serious one, they may be indicted in
a public court of law and, if found guilty, sentenced in accordance
with the provisions of the law.
It is the duty of the Councillor of Justice and the Ombudsman
of Parliament to see that the laws and administrative ordinances
are observed in this respect just as in others.
A study of the proceedings of the supreme courts together with
the reports of the Councillor of Justice and the Ombudsman shows,
however, that there ‘are very few cases, particularly in recent years,
concerning observation of the language regulations. This may be inter-
preted as indicating either that they have been correctly observed
so that no complaints have been warranted or that the Swedish-
speaking minority in particular is not disposed to assert its lin-
guistic rights at law or by filling a complaint.13
Conclusion
In general it seems that the practical application of language
and other legislation concerning questions of nationality has not
met with any insuperable difficulties. Nor has it, as has sometimes
been claimed by the majority, proved to be a heavy burden for
the community. Not justified is thus the demand, which has some-
times been put forward, that the rights granted to the minority
should be circumscribed for financial reasons. On the contrary it
should be taken for granted that, in a modern welfare state such
as Finland strives to be, public funds are reserved for the security
and well-being of citizens. In this respect linguistic and cultural
rights ought not to be less favoured than, for example, religious
or social rights. The security afforded citizens by the law is closely
allied with a minority’s demands to use their own language when
dealing with public authorities and with the publication of legisla-
tion and other decrees in the language of the minority. An absolute
13 The law of Finland with regard to matters of language and nationality
has -attracted only a small amount of scholastic attention. Nevertheless, valuable
contributions on this matter have been made by R.A. Wrede, R. Hermanson,
Ernst Estlander, R. Erich, Ernst von Born and S.R. Bj6rksten.
No. 1]
NOTES
condition for the continuing existence of the minority, furthermore,
is that education at all levels is available to the minority in its
own language and that it follows the cultural traditions of the mi-
nority.14
Swedes in Finland can, because of their relatively large numbers
and because of their position as contacts between Finland and the
other Nordic countries, where Finnish is not known, vindicate the
retention of their linguistic and cultural rights. A notable cultural
contribution through the medium of the Swedish language has been
and still is being made in Finland; this is of value to the whole
country and, moreover, to Sweden and the whole of the Nordic
cultural heritage.’ 5
Tore MODEEN *
14 Viz. V. Mferikoski, The Realization of the Equality of the National Languages
in Finland. Democracy in Finland, (Helsinki: 1,960), at p. 92.
In addition
15 Bibliography:
to those works already mentioned up-to-date
treatment of the Swedish position in Finland may be found in the following
foreign language publications: Martin Kl5vekorn, Die Sprachliche Struktur
Finnlands, 1880-1950, (Helsinki: 1,960); The Finnish Legal System, J. Uotila
ed., (Helsinki: 1966); Jan-Magnus Jansson, Language Legislation, at pp. 56-58.
* Armfelt Professor of Public and International Law, Dean of the School of
the Swedish University of Abo (Turku),
Political Science, Abo Akademi –
Finland.
