In this chapter, Massimo Lando focuses on the advisory jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals. This chapter explains that, traditionally, advisory opinions are not seen as a means of inter-State dispute settlement. However, it argues that recent developments justify re-assessing this traditional view. This chapter claims that the most significant development in this context is the judgment on preliminary objections delivered by the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the maritime dispute between Mauritius and Maldives, which gave binding effect to the determinations made by the International Court of Justice in its 2019 advisory opinion concerning the decolonisation of Chagos. This chapter evaluates the Special Chamber’s decision by considering its impact on the Eastern Carelia doctrine and the Monetary Gold principle, as well as its implications for the legal effects of advisory opinions and for the legitimacy of exercising the advisory function.

This chapter discusses how international courts operate, and how their jurisdiction is dependent on consent of states. It goes systematically through notions of jurisdiction, admissibility, interim measures, and compensation, ending with a discussion of advisory opinions and the possibilities for judicial review

This chapter offers an introduction into the composition of and the procedure before the European Court of Human Rights.The development and the various reforms of the current supervision system are briefly explained, just like the composition of the Court and the various formations in which it sits (Single Judges, Committees, Chambers and Grand Chamber). As the Court can only look into the merits of a case when an application is admissible, the various admissibility requirements are explained in some detail. In particular, attention is paid to the different jurisdictional requirements (ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci), such as the victim requirement and State responsibility. In addition, several material and formal admissiblity requirements are addressed. The chapter also explains the main elements of the procedure before the Court. It pays special attention the binding nature, contents and consequences of the Court’s decisions, judgments and advisory opinions. Finally, the system of the Committee of Ministers’ supervision on the execution of judgments is addressed.

The chapter deals with the role of the ICJ in the development of international law from both a doctrinal and a practical perspective. It considers concrete examples of the way in which the Court’s judgments and opinions have had an influence on the development of international law, and it concludes that the Court has in practice had a significant impact on the development of international law, even though that goes beyond its core mandate.

The chapter considers the process of nomination and election of judges, as well as their qualifications and the outcomes of the election process. It then examines the way in which the Court engages as a judicial body with the parties, with specific reference to the Court’s exercise of its advisory jurisdiction. Finally, it discusses the process of decision making, before drawing conclusions on the outcomes of that process, i.e. the judgments and opinions of the Court.

The chapter traces the origins of the ICJ in its predecessor, the PCIJ, and then considers the Court’s core functions: deciding the disputes submitted to it and exercising its advisory functions. It also critically examines the Court’s functions in finding and developing the law, and in maintaining international peace and security.

The chapter introduces and defends the environmental minimum as a framework for the protections (and correlative duties) that environmental human rights require. It develops the guiding principles of the framework, modelled on the characteristics of human rights identified by James Nickel and as specified through the lens of environmental protection following Joseph Raz's interest theory of rights. The core prinicples of the environmental minimum that allow courts to make sense of environmental harm in the context of human rights protection regimes are: the specific risk principle, which acts as the trigger for the environmental minimum, requiring a specific risk to a recognised right arising from environmental harm; the minimum standards, which specify the baseline standard of review that courts ought to employ and are based on domestic and international legal norms, as well as established and emerging evidence that is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community; and finally the high priority characteristic, which guides the balancing of environmental protection with competing interests based on human rights.

This chapter discusses how international courts operate, and how their jurisdiction is dependent on consent of states. It goes systematically through notions of jurisdiction, admissibility, interim measures, and compensation, ending with a discussion of advisory opinions and the possibilities for judicial review