Contents
11.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 246
11.2 Demarcating Advisory Opinions and Judicial Advice..................................................
24811.2.1 Defining Advisory Opinions.................................................................................. 249
11.2.2 The Non-binding Thesis......................................................................................... 250
11.2.3 The Abstract Review Thesis................................................................................... 251
11.2.4 Towards a Functional Approach............................................................................ 252
11.3 Conceptualizing Judicial Advice: Functions, Types and Modes................................... 254
11.3.1 Functions and Types of Judicial Advice....................................................................................... 254
11.3.2 Modes of Advice...................................................................................................... 259
11.4 The Legitimacy of Judicial Advice-giving.......................................................................................... 264
11.4.1 Three Narratives........................................................................................................ 265
11.4.2 Constitutional Concerns................................................................................................................ 267
11.5 Connecting the Dots: Towards a Contextual Approach............................................................ 270
References........................................................................................................................................ 271
Abstract Courts in many jurisdictions, whether national or international, contribute to the process of constitutional law-making, not just by exercising their traditional adjudicative powers, but also as advisers.
Several well-known contributions to European or domestic constitutional law are laid down in advisory opinions. And yet judicial advice-giving remains highly controversial. Much of the debate focuses on ‘advisory opinions’ as a doctrinal concept. We argue that this focus is too narrow. It does not fully capture the rich variety of judicial advice-giving. It moreover leads to a static approach of the concept: ignoring the different contextual and institutional settings in which judicial advice is requested. Instead, we advocate a broad, functional approach which is rooted in an understanding of judicial advice-giving as a communicative act by which courts contribute to the process of law-making on the basis of judicial authority and persuasion. This focus on judicial advice as a socialW. Mingelen • J. Uzman (B)
Faculty of Law, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
e-mail: j.uzman@uu.nl
W. Mingelen
e-mail: w.f.mingelen@students.uu.nl
© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS and the authors 2022
245
J. de Poorter et al. (eds.), European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2021,
European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 3,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94- 6265- 535- 5_11 construct, rather than just a legal concept, allows us to conceptualize judicial advicegiving on the basis of three variables: the functions advice may play in the process of law-making, the types of advice involved, and the different institutional modes of judicial advice. We then briefly discuss the historical development of judicial advice-giving, zooming in on the main concerns that have inhibited some jurisdictions from embracing the practice: separation of powers and judicial independence. By connecting function to content and form, we attempt to show that the normative evaluation of judicial advice-giving requires a nuanced approach, moving beyond the binary question whether or not advisory opinions can be squared with the judicial function in a liberal democracy.
Keywords Advice theory • advisory opinions • constitutional courts • judicial independence • reference procedures • separation of powers
11.1