This article critically assesses twenty years of advisory jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR). While numerically limited, the Court’s advisory practice reveals significant normative potential. The study examines both the formal construction of the advisory function under Article 4 of the 1998 Protocol and its substantive development through case law. Particular attention is devoted to the locus standi, where the Court has adopted a restrictive interpretation requiring formal recognition by the African Union, thereby limiting access for non-governmental organizations. The analysis highlights a structural asymmetry between advisory and contentious jurisdiction: although advisory opinions allow for evolutive and systemic interpretation of regional human rights law, access constraints and institutional caution have curtailed their transformative impact. Through an examination of key opinions—ACERWC, Vagrancy Laws, Elections during Public Health Emergencies, and Regional Rotation in the PanAfrican Parliament—the article argues that the Court has contributed to doctrinal clarification and normative development, yet remains institutionally cautious. Pending advisory requests, particularly on climate change, represent a decisive test for the future role of advisory jurisdiction as a laboratory for progressive interpretation within the African human rights system.
Luci e ombre di vent’anni di attività consultiva della Corte africana dei diritti dell’uomo e dei popoli
Elisa Bertolini
2026
Abstract
This article critically assesses twenty years of advisory jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR). While numerically limited, the Court’s advisory practice reveals significant normative potential. The study examines both the formal construction of the advisory function under Article 4 of the 1998 Protocol and its substantive development through case law. Particular attention is devoted to the locus standi, where the Court has adopted a restrictive interpretation requiring formal recognition by the African Union, thereby limiting access for non-governmental organizations. The analysis highlights a structural asymmetry between advisory and contentious jurisdiction: although advisory opinions allow for evolutive and systemic interpretation of regional human rights law, access constraints and institutional caution have curtailed their transformative impact. Through an examination of key opinions—ACERWC, Vagrancy Laws, Elections during Public Health Emergencies, and Regional Rotation in the PanAfrican Parliament—the article argues that the Court has contributed to doctrinal clarification and normative development, yet remains institutionally cautious. Pending advisory requests, particularly on climate change, represent a decisive test for the future role of advisory jurisdiction as a laboratory for progressive interpretation within the African human rights system.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
