Swedish measures to fight the spread of COVID-19 differ from the strategies used in other comparable countries. In contrast to the lockdown approach that has been applied in many European countries, the Swedish strategy has been based to a substantial extent on individuals taking responsibility under non-binding recommendations. This contribution explores the Swedish strategy from a constitutional and administrative law perspective, highlighting the tension between the formalist system for delegating norms under the Swedish Constitution and the pragmatic use of non-binding rules such as the “General Recommendations” adopted by the Public Health Agency. The article concludes that the official use of soft law instruments is confusing from a legal perspective, because non-binding rules do not offer the traditional formal mechanisms for legal protection, the publication of norms or accountability. The legal-realist approach of the Supreme Administrative Court’s case law, however, has the potential of balancing some of the unfortunate effects arising from the Swedish combination of formalism and pragmatism.

中文翻译：

---

瑞典：抗疫不具约束力的规则——形式主义、实用主义和一些法律现实主义

瑞典抗击 COVID-19 传播的措施与其他可比国家使用的策略不同。与许多欧洲国家采用的封锁方法相比，瑞典的战略在很大程度上基于个人根据不具约束力的建议承担责任。这篇文章从宪法和行政法的角度探讨了瑞典的战略，强调了瑞典宪法下授权规范的形式主义制度与公共卫生机构通过的“一般建议”等非约束性规则的实用性之间的紧张关系. 文章的结论是，从法律角度来看，软法律文书的官方使用令人困惑，因为不具约束力的规则不提供传统的法律保护、规范发布或问责制的正式机制。然而，最高行政法院判例法的法律现实主义方法具有平衡瑞典形式主义和实用主义结合所产生的一些不幸影响的潜力。