Brazil and Advisory Opinions before International Courts and Tribunals

International courts and tribunals, through their advisory jurisdiction, have been increasingly addressing community interests. On the one hand, States can participate in these proceedings by submitting written statements and engaging in public hearings. On the other hand, while advisory opinions are non-binding, their impact at the national level remains a significant question. This vertical relationship between domestic and international courts manifests as a form of 'judicial dialogue', in which domestic courts may assess international opinions in their own case law, revealing a rich area of exploration regarding this form of engagement. This study employs quantitative and qualitative methods to address two key questions: the first relates to Brazil's participation in advisory proceedings before the ICJ, ITLOS, and IACtHR, while the second concerns the domestic application of ICTs’ advisory opinions by the STF. Despite this application being restricted only to the IACtHR pronouncements thus far, the use of these arguments and definitions has expanded the scope of human rights protection, leading to a transformative response in Brazil's jurisprudence. This indicates that a growing and promising form of judicial dialogue is evident. Similarly, Brazil's relatively limited involvement in advisory proceedings urges consideration of its potential for engagement in further explorations.