The ICJ, Advisory Opinions, and the Judicial Function: Between Adjudication and Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Legal commentators have not always considered advisory opinions as a legitimate judicial function. Under both national and international law, it is often considered that only ripe controversies can be legitimately decided by a court of law. Under international law, advisory opinions are also criticized for undermining sovereignty when consent is not obtained from all states affected by the matter. By examining the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinions in light of comparative law, the author argues that this criticism underestimates the evolution of the judicial function, as much in international as in national law. The advisory opinion is a mode of social ordering that stands somewhere between consultation and adjudication. The advisory opinion not only adopts most of adjudication’s characteristics but abo has the added flexibility of consultation because it can consider a wider spectrum of opinions than can adversary procedures. The ICJ’s advisory opinions can almost be assimilated to adjudication. Considering that they have also greatly contributed to the development of international law, the ICJ’s advisory opinions remain an integral and legitimate part of the court’s judicial function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".