@article{oai:bunkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp:00006826,
 author = {齊藤, 功高},
 issue = {2},
 journal = {文教大学国際学部紀要, Journal of the Faculty of International Studies Bunkyo University},
 month = {2018-01-31},
 note = {International courts such as the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the African Court of Human Rights have
contentious and advisory jurisdiction. With these jurisdictions, courts are given a legal basis to
interpret the Conventions, to order and recommend actions in accordance with international law.
However, the states have a strong tendency not to accept contentious jurisdiction of international
courts. Due to this trend, international courts are unable to adjudicate many cases of litigation.
Meanwhile, the advisory jurisdiction is a system in which the court can issue legal opinions without
direct disputes between the parties. The judgment of the court has binding power, but the advisory
opinion is not binding. Therefore, the states tend to seek advisory opinion rather than the appeal to
contentious jurisdiction. Advisory opinions have become an important means of international courts.
A court having advisory jurisdiction can hear many cases rather than a court having only contentious
jurisdiction can. Even parties who can not submit a case under the contentious jurisdiction can submit
it under advisory jurisdiction.
The existence of advisory jurisdiction in a court specializing in human rights such as the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights is aimed at clarifying applicable laws before a human rights
violation dispute occurs between the state and individuals or groups in the human rights court
it can. Therefore, it is possible to prevent disputes and to fulfill important law creative functions
The advisory opinion provided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also has the significance
of developing international human rights law as described above, but some problems are pointed
out on the other hand. The problems pointed out are, firstly, whether the advisory jurisdiction is a
disguised contentious jurisdiction, especially, whether advisory opinions are substantial adjudication
for countries that do not accept the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, and secondly, whether the court can choose the option not to issue an advisory opinion in
response to a request for an advisory opinion.
Chapter 1 describes the differences in the advisory jurisdiction in international courts and
Chapter 2 discusses the issues raised by ICJ’s advisory opinion in the “Legal Consequences of the
Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Chapter 3 deals with cases in which the
advisory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights became an issue as a disguised
contentious jurisdiction and its problems. At last, we will evaluate the advisory opinion of the court.},
 pages = {21--37},
 title = {米州人権裁判所の勧告的意見に見る課題},
 volume = {28},
 year = {}
}