This article analyses the phenomenon commonly referred to as ‘judicial dialogue’ with the aim of describing its relevant aspects and its importance in the definition and protection of fundamental freedoms, in particular when minority rights are at stake. This contribution offers an overview of those factors influencing judges’ attitude toward the use of foreign case law in the elaboration of their decision. A reference to the European system of protection of human rights is made in order to demonstrate how judicial dialogue is framed in terms of plurality of approaches rather than be characterized by hierarchy. The analysis also examines the issue of legitimacy elaborating on constitutionalism and the role of supreme, supranational and international Courts in democratic States. The final part considers the issue of appropriateness, i.e., it emphasizes the need for a comprehensive ‘theory of rules of relevance’ in relation to judicial dialogue.