Advisory jurisdiction is a ubiquitous feature of international human rights adjudication. Yet the attention of legal scholars is almost entirely devoted to contentious jurisdiction. This Article aims to fill that gap in the literature. By introducing two models of advisory jurisdiction, and analyzing the example of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—the world's most active international advice-giver—the Article shows how international human rights courts may utilize advisory proceedings to influence state conduct, in a mechanism the Article calls “ruling through advice.” The Article also shows how human rights courts may attempt to guide states and national courts by means of an “anticipatory adjudication” mechanism. Using the Inter-American Court's groundbreaking advisory opinion on same-sex marriage as a case study, the Article argues that, despite the domestic implementation of its opinion, the Court misused its advisory powers, putting the regional human rights system at risk. The insights that both the conceptual model and the case study offer contribute to a broader conversation about international courts’ advisory role.

咨询管辖权是国际人权裁决的一个普遍特征。然而，法律学者的注意力几乎完全集中在诉讼管辖权上。本文旨在填补文献中的这一空白。通过介绍两种咨询管辖权模型，并分析美洲人权法院——世界上最活跃的国际咨询机构——的例子，文章展示了国际人权法院如何利用咨询程序来影响国家行为，在一个该条称为“通过建议进行裁决”的机制。该条款还说明了人权法院如何通过“预期裁决”机制来尝试指导国家和国家法院。使用美洲法院关于同性婚姻的开创性咨询意见作为案例研究，文章认为，尽管其意见在国内得到落实，但法院滥用其咨询权，使区域人权体系处于危险之中。概念模型和案例研究提供的见解有助于更广泛地讨论国际法院的咨询作用。