Başaran, Halil Rahman2014-12-302014-12-3020112044-7671http://hdl.handle.net/10679/809https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPLAP.2011.043855Due to copyright restrictions, the access to the full text of this article is only available via subscription.This paper's focus is on a certain aspect of the Advisory Opinion: The Consistency of the Court with Regard to Judicial Propriety. Apart from the Eastern Carelia and the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict cases, the Court has always issued its opinion on request. The Court has, whatever the objections, opted for the issuance of opinions. It has consistently followed its own precedent of never finding an obstacle concerning judicial propriety. In that regard, some indications about the term judicial propriety have been given by some advisory opinions. Still, it is not exactly defined. In that connection, the paper engages in that definition and the argument is advanced that judicial propriety is a broad umbrella-concept.engrestrictedAccessarticle1326428310.1504/IJPLAP.2011.043855Advisory opinionsJudicial proprietyPrecedentInternational court of justiceInternational public interestLegal frameworksKosovoEastern CareliaInternational relationsPalestineInternational law2-s2.0-84885161686