Jump to content
The Advisory Function of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights / Chapter 3: Advisory jurisdiction
The Advisory Function of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights / Chapter 3: Advisory jurisdiction
Contents
Chapter
Expand
|
Collapse
Page
1–22
Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis
1–22
Details
23–32
Introduction
23–32
Details
33–42
Chapter 1: The IACtHR as part of the inter-American human rights system
33–42
Details
43–84
Chapter 2: Origins of the advisory function of the IACtHR
43–84
Details
A. Advisory opinions in general
B. Historical development of advisory opinions
I. England
II. United States of America
III. Canada and India
IV. Latin American states
V. Permanent Court of International Justice
VI. International Court of Justice
VII. Intermediate conclusion
C. Genesis of Article 64 ACHR
I. The idea to create a binding American Human Rights Convention
II. Draft of the Inter-American Council of Jurists
III. Chilean draft convention
IV. Draft of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
V. 1969 Specialized Inter-American Conference
VI. Rejection of an optional advisory jurisdiction in the draft Statute
VII. Concluding summary
85–158
Chapter 3: Advisory jurisdiction
85–158
Details
A. Jurisdiction ratione personae (standing)
I. OAS member states
II. OAS organs including the IACHR
III. Entitlement of other additional entities to request advisory opinions?
1. National courts
2. National parliaments
3. Non-governmental organizations
4. Other regional organizations independent of the OAS
IV. Authority to render advisory opinions proprio motu?
B. Jurisdiction ratione materiae
I. Article 64 (1): “The interpretation of…”
II. “… this Convention”
III. “…other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states”
1. OC-1/82
2. Interpretation of soft law instruments and references to customary international law
3. Concluding summary
IV. Article 64 (2): Compatibility of domestic laws
C. Power to determine and to broaden the scope of requests
I. Clarification and reduction
II. Summarizing and expanding
1. OC-23/17
2. OC-24/17
3. Extension of the subject matter upon request of amici
D. Advisory jurisdiction of the Court in an international comparison
I. Advisory jurisdiction of the IACtHR compared to the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction
II. Advisory jurisdiction of the IACtHR compared to the ECtHR’s advisory jurisdiction
III. Advisory jurisdiction of the IACtHR compared to the AfrCtHPR’s advisory jurisdiction
IV. Overview over the advisory and related jurisdiction of several international courts and the trend towards preliminary ruling procedures
159–304
Chapter 4: Admissibility and advisory procedure
159–304
Details
A. Written admissibility requirements
B. Submission and notification of a request
C. Discretion of the Court not to answer a request
I. Requests for advisory opinions rejected by the Court
1. First rejection
2. Second rejection
3. Third rejection
4. Fourth rejection
5. Fifth rejection
6. Sixth rejection
II. Inconsistent application of the Court’s criteria in other advisory procedures
1. Disguised contentious cases, determination of facts
a) Requests by the Commission related to a dispute with states
aa) OC-3/83
bb) OC-14/94
cc) Intermediate conclusion
b) Requests by states relating to a dispute with the Commission
aa) OC-13/93
bb) OC-15/97
cc) OC-19/05
dd) Combined analysis in light of OC-5/85
c) Requests related to petitions pending before the Commission
aa) OC-16/99
bb) OC-23/17
cc) OC-24/17
dd) OC-28/21
ee) Intermediate conclusion
d) Requests related to concrete conflicts between states
aa) Related proceedings before the ICJ
(1) OC-16/99
(2) OC-23/17
bb) Conflict with a state not party to the OAS
cc) Smoldering conflict in the region
(1) OC-18/03
(2) OC-21/14
(3) OC-26/20
(4) OC-28/21
dd) Intermediate conclusion
2. Political debates, controversies and proceedings at the national level
3. Issues on which the Court has already ruled in its jurisprudence
4. Abstract speculations without a foreseeable application to specific situations
III. Suitability of the Court’s criteria and the proposal of an interests- and values-based approach
1. Disguised contentious cases, determination of facts
a) Requests by the Commission relating to a dispute with states
b) Requests by states relating to a dispute with the Commission
c) Requests by the Commission relating to petitions pending before it
d) Requests by states relating to petitions pending before the Commission
e) Requests related to conflicts between states
2. Political debates, controversies and proceedings at the national level
3. Issues on which the Court has already ruled in its jurisprudence
4. Abstract speculations without a foreseeable application to specific situations
IV. Concluding summary
D. Composition of the Court in advisory proceedings
E. Written proceedings
F. Role of amici
G. Public hearing
H. Delivery and publication of the final advisory opinion
I. Average length of the advisory proceedings
J. Proposals to reform the procedure
I. Exclusion of national judges
II. Separate decision on jurisdiction and admissibility / preliminary objections
III. Accelerated procedure
IV. Creation of a preliminary ruling procedure
K. Conclusion
305–428
Chapter 5: Legal nature and effects of advisory opinions
305–428
Details
A. Legal nature and effects of advisory opinions under general public international law
I. Permanent Court of International Justice
II. International Court of Justice
III. Intermediate conclusion
B. Legal nature and effects of the advisory opinions of the IACtHR
I. Legal nature and effects of the advisory opinions as conceived by the constituent instruments
II. Introduction to the Court’s doctrine of conventionality control
1. Origins and foundation of the doctrine
2. Legal basis of the doctrine
3. Jurisprudential development of the doctrine
a) Case of Aguado-Alfaro: Ex officio exercise within the spheres of competence
b) Case of Boyce et al.: Conventionality control includes constitutional norms
c) Case of Radilla Pacheco: Duty of consistent interpretation
d) Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores: Extension on all state authorities
e) Extension of the control on all human rights treaties
f) Gelman case: Conventionality control and the binding effects of the Court’s decisions
g) OC-21/14: Inclusion of advisory opinions in the material controlante
4. Summary and conclusion
III. Evolving position of the Court regarding the legal nature and effects of its advisory opinions
1. Early years
2. Acknowledgment of “undeniable legal effects”
3. Inclusion of advisory opinions in the doctrine of conventionality control
4. Evaluation and intermediate conclusion
IV. Positions on the legal nature and effects of the Court’s advisory opinions
1. Authoritative interpretation
a) Views held before the advisory opinions’ inclusion in the doctrine of conventionality control
b) Contemporary voices
c) Evaluation and intermediate conclusion
2. Attribution of legal bindingness
a) Academics holding the advisory opinions to be binding
aa) Faúndez Ledesma
bb) Salvioli
cc) Roa
dd) Zelada
b) Domestic courts holding the advisory opinions to be binding (at least within their country)
aa) Costa Rica
bb) Ecuador
cc) Peru
c. Evaluation and intermediate conclusion
3. Res interpretata and erga omnes partes effects
a) Res interpretata versus res judicata
b) Legal basis and the applicability of res interpretata to advisory opinions
c) Formation of res interpretata
d) Type of obligations resulting from res interpretata
aa) Arguments against the strict understanding of res interpretata
bb) Problems of a too lax understanding of res interpretata
cc) Suggested understanding of res interpretata
e) Res interpretata and the asymmetries in the inter-American human rights system
f) Evaluation and intermediate conclusion
C. Final summary and conclusion
429–436
Chapter 6: Present and future of the Court’s advisory function
429–436
Details
A. Present
B. Future
437–450
Table of cases and advisory opinions
437–450
Details
A. IACtHR
Advisory opinions
Contentious cases
Orders/Resolutions of the Court
Requests for advisory opinions
B. IACHR
C. ICJ
Advisory opinions
Contentious cases
D. PCIJ
Advisory opinions
Contentious cases
E. ECtHR
Advisory opinions
Contentious cases
F. AfrCtHPR
G. CJEU
H. ICTY
I. Special Court for Sierra Leone
J. ITLOS
K. Arbitral awards
L. Domestic courts
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Germany
Mexico
Peru
United States of America
451–466
Bibliography
451–466
Details
Table of documents
Details
A. IACtHR
General publications of the Court
Procedural documents from advisory proceedings before the Court
B. IACHR
C. OAS documents
D. Documents from Europe
E. League of Nations and PCIJ
F. United Nations and ICJ
G. Newspaper articles and websites
H. Miscellaneous
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY
Access
The Advisory Function of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights , page 85 - 158
Chapter 3: Advisory jurisdiction
Autoren
Eleanor Benz
DOI
doi.org/10.5771/9783748919803-85
ISBN print: 978-3-7560-1443-9
ISBN online: 978-3-7489-1980-3
Chapter Preview
Share
Download PDF
Download citation
RIS
BibTeX
Copy DOI link
doi.org/10.5771/9783748919803-85
Share by email
Video schließen
Share by email Nomos eLibrary
Recipient*
Sender*
Message*
Your name
Send message
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.
