¹ Cf. Thirlway, Hugh, Advisory Opinions, in: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL), margin number 4 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2006); cf. infra section C.III.Google Scholar

² There had been other bodies with advisory functions, such as the International Bureau of the U.P.U., Art. 15 of the 1874 Convention; the International South American Postal Bureau, Art. 2 of the 1911 Montevideo Convention; the International Commission for Air Navigation, Art. 34 of the 1919 Aerial Navigation Convention. These and other bodies were bodies concerned with rather technical questions and will not be treated in the present context. But cf. Jochen A. Frowein & Karin Oellers-Frahm, Art. 65, in: The Statute of the International Court of Justice – A Commentary, 1403, margin number 1 (Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat & Karin Oellers-Frahm eds, 2006), which is limited to international courts or tribunals.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Informal Inter-Allied Committee on the Future of the PCIJ, 39 AJIL 1-42, para. 65 (1945) (Supplement); see also the critics of Judge John Bassett Moore, in: Publications of the PCIJ, Series D, No. 2, Annex 58A, 383, who stated that “to impose upon a court of justice the duty of giving advice, which those requesting it were wholly at liberty to reject, would reduce the court to a position inferior to that of a tribunal of conciliation”.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. infra section B; an exception is constituted by the IACtHR, infra section B.III.Google Scholar

⁵ Mosler, Hermann & Oellers-Frahm, Karin, Art. 96, in: The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 1181, margin number 3 (Bruno Simma ed., 2002); Hudson, Manley O., Les Avis Consultatifs de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale, 8 Recueil des Cours 207 (1925/II).Google Scholar

⁶ Applicability of Article IV, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1989, 177, 189, referring to earlier dicta.Google Scholar

⁷ The only request dismissed was the one of the WHO concerning the legality of the use by a state of nuclear weapons; the dismissal was based on the lack of jurisdiction, ICJ Reports 1996-I, 66, 73 (para.14).Google Scholar

⁸ Pomerance, Michla, The Advisory Role of the International Court of Justice and its ‘Judicial’ Character: Past and Future, in: The International Court of Justice – Its Future Role After Fifty Years, 271, 291 (Alexander Sam Muller, David Raic & Johanna M. Thuranszky eds, 1997).Google Scholar

⁹ Schmid, Julie Calidonio, Advisory Opinions on Human Rights: Moving Beyond a Pyrrhic Victory, 16 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 415, 421 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Human Rights Law Journal 326 (2004); see also, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, EMRK-Kommentar 612 (Jochen A. Frowein & Wolfgang Peukert eds, 2009).Google Scholar

¹¹ Advisory Opinion on certain legal questions concerning the list of candidates submitted with a view to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, 12 February 2008 and Advisory Opinion on certain legal questions concerning the lists of candidates submitted with a view to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, 22 January 2010.Google Scholar

¹² Neuman, Gerald L., Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in: MPEPIL, passim (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2007); see also Scott Davidson, The Inter-American Human Rights System 99-122 (1997); Kokott, Juliane, Das Interamerikanische System zum Schutze der Menschenrechte, in: 92 Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 166 (Armin von Bogdandy & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds, 1986); Oellers-Frahm, Karin, Der Interamerikanische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, in: Menschenrechte, Bilanz und Perspektiven, 385-430 (Jana Hasse, Erwin Müller & Patricia Schneider eds, 2002).Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. homepage of the Court: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/casos.cfm.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Art. 4 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 9 June 1988; Anne Pieter van der Mei, The Advisory Jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 5 African Human Rights Law Journal 27 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Advisory Opinion of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, available at: http://www.achpr.org/english/Special%20Mechanisms/Indegenous/Advisory%20opinion_eng.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Tomuschat, Christian, Art. 300, in: Kommentar zum Vertrag über die Europäische Union und zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 1602, margin number 89 et seq. (Hans von der Groeben & Jürgen Schwarze eds, 2004). Google Scholar

¹⁷ Protocol on the Community Court of Justice of 6 July 1991, text in: Karin Oellers-Frahm & Andreas Zimmermann, 1 Dispute Settlement in Public International Law, Texts and Materials 1020 et seq. (2001).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Text in: Oellers-Frahm & Zimmermann (note 17), 1042 et seq. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Text in: Karin Oellers-Frahm & Andreas Zimmermann, 2 Dispute Settlement in Public International Law, Texts and Materials 1469 et seq. (2001).Google Scholar

²⁰ Text in: Oellers-Frahm & Zimmermann (note 19), 1779 et seq. Google Scholar

²¹ There are more than 150 judicial bodies (cf. Oellers-Frahm & Zimmermann, supra note 17) and only those presented above have advisory jurisdiction. It should, however, be added that some judicial organs concerning very special technical matters have not been listed above.Google Scholar

²² Lauterpacht, Hersch, The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958); Frowein & Oellers-Frahm (note 2), margin number 45; Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Advisory Opinions and the Furtherance of the Common Interest of Mankind, in: International Organization and International Dispute Settlement: Trends and Prospects, 105 (Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Cesare P. R. Romano & Ruth Mackenzie eds, 2002); Shany, Yuval, No Longer a Weak Department of Power? Reflections on the Enforcement of a New International Judiciary, 20 EJIL 73, 77 (2009).Google Scholar

²³ Lauterpacht, Hersch, The development of International Law by the Permanent Court of International Justice 45 (1934).Google Scholar

²⁴ Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), 13 July 2009, para. 64 and Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 20 April 2010, para. 203 et seq. Google Scholar

²⁵ For information on the advisory activity of the PCIJ, see Michla Pomerance, The Advisory Function of the International Court in the League and U.N. Eras (1973); Pratap, Dharma, The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court 235 et seq. (1972); see also Lauterpacht (note 22), particularly Chapter III on the advisory practice of the PCIJ, 155 et seq. Google Scholar

²⁶ Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ICJ Reports 1951, 15; cf. Eckart Klein, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN (Advisory Opinion), in: 4 Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 174 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 2000).Google Scholar

²⁷ For more details, see Lauterpacht (note 22), 186 et seq. Google Scholar

²⁸ Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, ICJ Reports 1949, 174; Klein (note 26), 174.Google Scholar

²⁹ ICJ Reports 1962, 151; Michael Bothe, Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion), in: 1 Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 557 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1981).Google Scholar

³⁰ ICJ Reports 1971, 16; Eckart Klein, Namibia, in: 3 Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 485, 488 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1997).Google Scholar

³¹ ICJ Reports 2004, 3; Frowein & Oellers-Frahm (note 2), margin number 49 et seq. Google Scholar

³² Cf. Israeli Supreme Court, decision of 15 September 2005 in the case Mara'abe v.The Prime Minister of Israel, HCJ 7957104, available at: http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/verdict/framesetSrch.html.Google Scholar

³³ ICJ Reports 1996, 226; Bharat H. Desai, Non Liquet and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Uses of Nuclear Weapons; Some Reflections, 37 Indian Journal of International Law 201 (1997).Google Scholar

³⁴ Infra section D.I., text to note 71.Google Scholar

³⁵ For a summary overview over the advisory opinions, see Gerald L. Neumann, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in: MPEPIL, margin number 31-35 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2007); Buergenthal, Thomas, The Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Human Rights Court, in: La Corte Interamericana de derechos humanos: estudios y documentos, 15 (Daniel Zovatto ed., 1999); Pasqualucci, Jo M., Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Contributing to the Evolution of International Human Rights Law, 38 Stanford Journal of International Law 241 (2001).Google Scholar

³⁶ “Other Treaties” Subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court, Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of 24 September 1982, Series A, No. 1. Google Scholar

³⁷ Id., para. 52 of the Opinion.Google Scholar

³⁸ The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of 1 October 1999, Series A, No. 16.Google Scholar

³⁹ It is, however, interesting to note in this context that the ICJ in the LaGrand Case declined to take position on the character of Art. 36(1)(b) as a human right, ICJ Reports 2001, 494, para. 78.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ In this sense cf. already Opinion “Other Treaties” (note 36), para. 25.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of 30 January 1987, Series A, No. 8.Google Scholar

⁴² Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of 6 October 1987, Series A, No. 9.Google Scholar

⁴³ Advisory Opinion OC-17/2002 of 28 August 2002, Series A, No. 17.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of 18 September 2003, Series A, No. 18.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. for the significance of such finding Beth Lyon, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights Defines Unauthorized Migrant Worker's Rights for the Hemisphere: A Comment on Advisory Opinion 18, 28 New York University Review of Law and Social Change 547, 565 (2004).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Schmid (note 9), 415, 450.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Fitzmaurice, Malgosia, Badinter Commission (for the Former Yugoslavia), in: MPEPIL, margin number 38 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2005).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Opinion No. 1 of 29 November 1991, 31 International Legal Materials (ILM) 1494. (1992) and Opinions No. 4, 5, 6 and 7, all of 11 January 1992, 31 ILM 1501 (1992); cf. for more details to: Matthew C. R. Craven, The European Community Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia, 66 Baltic Yearbook of International Law 323 (1996); Oeter, Stefan, Yugoslavia, Dissolution, in: 4 Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 1563, 1568 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 2000); Fitzmaurice, Malgosia, Badinter Commission (for the Former Yugoslavia), in: MPEPIL (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2005); Zimmermann, Andreas, Staatennachfolge in völkerrechtliche Verträge 303 et seq. (2000).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Opinion No. 8 of 4 July 1992, 31 ILM 1522 (1992).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Opinion No. 2 of 11 January 1992, 31 ILM 1497 (1992).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Opinion No. 10 of 4 July 1992, 31 ILM 1525 (1992).Google Scholar

⁵² Opinion No. 2 (note 50).Google Scholar

⁵³ Cf. in this sense already Edvard Hambro, The Authority of the Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice, 3 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 87 (1954).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Hudson, Manley O., The Effect of Advisory Opinions of the World Court, 42 AJIL 630 (1948).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Bogdandy, Armin von & Venzke, Ingo, Zur Herrschaft internationaler Gerichte: Eine Untersuchung internationaler öffentlicher Gewalt und ihrer demokratischen Rechtfertigung, 70 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 1, 11 (2010).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Pratap (note 25), 230.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Pratap (note 25), 227.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Art. 68 ICJ Statute; Art. 63 Rules of Court of the IACtHR; for details concerning the procedure cf. Hambro (note 53), 8.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Hambro (note 53), 8.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Rosenne, Shabtai, 3 The Law and practice of the International Court 1920-2005 1699 (2006).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Lauterpacht (note 23), ch. III entitled “Judicial Legislation”, 45.Google Scholar

⁶² Lauterpacht (note 22), 155.Google Scholar

⁶³ For an overview over the reception of advisory opinions, see Pratap (note 25), 234 et seq.; Frowein & Oellers-Frahm (note 2), margin number 43 et seq. Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Cf. Frowein & Oellers-Frahm (note 2), margin number 44, with examples of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly concerning advisory opinions given on the request of the General Assembly; Rosenne (note 60), 1755.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Pratap (note 25), 228.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Frowein & Oellers-Frahm (note 2), 1417, margin number 53.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ This conclusion was drawn very early: Lauterpacht (note 23), 45 and confirmed with a view to the practice of the ICJ, in Lauterpacht (note 22), 156.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1950, 71; also Privileges and Immunities Convention, Advisory Opinion 1989, ICJ Reports 1989, 189, para. 31.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ ILOAT (UNESCO), Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1956, 84.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ South West Africa Cases, Preliminary Objections, ICJ Reports 1962, 337.Google Scholar

⁷¹ ICJ Reports 1996, 226.Google Scholar

⁷² See Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, ICJ Reports 1996, 322 and Judge Higgins, Id., 590. Google Scholar

⁷³ Jennings, Robert Y., Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice, in: 1 Boutros Boutros-Ghali Amicorum Discipulorumque Liber, 531, 534 (1998); Rosenne (note 60), 1753.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ ICJ Reports 1996, 293, para. 14.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Restriction to the Death Penalty/Arts 4.2 and 4.4 American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of 8 September 1983, Series A, No. 3, para. 22.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ “Other Treaties” Subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 of the Convention), Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of 24 September 1982, Series A, No. 1, para. 33.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ This discretion is expressed in terms that the Court “may” give an advisory opinion, Art. 65 ICJ Statute and Art. 64 (2) American Convention on Human Rights.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See in particular, the Kosovo Opinion of 2010, the Wall Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, 3, 144 et seq. and the Nuclear Weapons Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, 66, requested by the WHO which was dismissed for other reasons than those of propriety. The IACtHR only once refused to give an advisory opinion, however for the reason that the question presented “could produce, under the guise of an advisory opinion, a determination of contentious matters not yet referred to the Court, without providing the victims with the opportunity to participate in the proceedings”, Compatibility of Draft Legislation with Art. 8.2. of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-12/91 of 6 December 1991, Series A, No. 12; see also Frowein & Oellers-Frahm (note 2), margin number 37 et seq.; Pasqualucci (note 35), 274; Franklin Berman, The Uses and Abuses of Advisory Opinions, in: 2 Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda (Nisuke Ando, Edward McWhinney & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds, 2002).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Frowein & Oellers-Frahm (note 2), margin number 39.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Lauterpacht (note 22), 39.Google Scholar

⁸¹ In the ICJ Wall Opinion more than 40 statements by states and organizations were furnished; in the still pending opinion concerning the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo the situation was similar; for more details, cf. the information on the homepage of the ICJ; see also Andreas Paulus, Art. 66, in: The Statute of the International Court of Justice – A Commentary (Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat & Karin Oellers-Frahm eds, 2006).Google Scholar

⁸² Hambro (note 53), 20; Lauterpacht (note 22), 40, 41.Google Scholar

⁸³ Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory Opinion, Separate Opinion of Judge Azevedo, ICJ Reports 1950, 80.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koretsky, ICJ Reports 1962, 254.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Fitzmaurice, Gerald, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 29 Baltic Yearbook of International Law 55 (1952).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Goodrich, Leland M., The Nature of the Advisory Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice, 32 AJIL 156 (1938).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Lauterpacht (note 22), 250.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ In this sense reference can be made to the ICJ which explicitly stated in the case Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), ICJ Reports 2004, 12, that its findings in the present case on the obligations of the United States under Art. 36 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations would also apply to other foreign nationals in similar situations, 151, paras 69-70.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Art. 63 ICJ Statute.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Art. 66 ICJ Statute, Art. 62 Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Rosenne (note 60), 1699.Google Scholar

⁹² Id. Google Scholar

⁹³ Frowein & Oellers-Frahm (note 2), margin number 53.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Lauterpacht (note 22), 22; see also Art. 38(1)(d) ICJ Statute on decisions as a source of law where no distinction is made between judgments and advisory opinions.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ For the “lawmaking” effect of precedents, see Marc Jacob, Precedents: Lawmaking Through International Adjudication, in this issue; see also Lauterpacht (note 22), 18 et seq.; Shyam K. Kapoor, Enforcement of Judgments and Compliance with Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice, in: International Court in Transition 301, 312 (Raama P. Dhokalia & B.C. Nirmal eds, 1995).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 55), 12.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Lauterpacht (note 22), 41.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Lauterpacht (note 22), 189.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Id., 400.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Bothe, Michael, Legal and Non-Legal Norms – A Meaningful Distinction in International Relations?, 11 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 65, 94 (1980).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Lauterpacht (note 22), 155.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Bothe (note 100), 65.Google Scholar