Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:50:02.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lawmaking Through Advisory Opinions?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Karin Oellers-Frahm

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

International courts and tribunals are firstly and particularly conceived to settle legal disputes between States and/or other organs or individuals admitted as parties according to the statute of the respective court by means of a binding decision. An advisory function is not inherent in the function of a judicial body, but has to be transferred expressly upon a court or tribunal in the constituent instrument. For non-standing judicial bodies, i.e., arbitral tribunals, an advisory function is rather unusual, but not altogether ruled out: The parties to a compromis may empower the tribunal to give an advisory opinion.

Type
I. Framing the Issue
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 12 , Issue 5: Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers , 01 May 2011 , pp. 1033 - 1056
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

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