Human rights in a positive state : rethinking the relationship between positive and negative obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights / Laurens Lavrysen.
2016
KJC5132 .L38 2016 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
Format | |
---|---|
BibTeX | |
MARCXML | |
TextMARC | |
MARC | |
DublinCore | |
EndNote | |
NLM | |
RefWorks | |
RIS |
Items
Details
Author
Title
Human rights in a positive state : rethinking the relationship between positive and negative obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights / Laurens Lavrysen.
Published
Cambridge [England] ; Antwerp ; Portland : Intersentia, [2016]
Copyright
©2016
Call Number
KJC5132 .L38 2016
ISBN
9781780684253 (paperback)
1780684258 (paperback)
1780684258 (paperback)
Description
x, 428 pages ; 24 cm
System Control No.
(OCoLC)959801152
Summary
The European Court of Human Rights has long abandoned the view that human rights merely impose obligations of restraint on State authorities (so-called negative obligations). In addition, States are under positive obligations to take steps to actively protect and ensure the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. While the concept of positive obligations has become increasingly important in the jurisprudence of the European Court, it remains relatively underexplored in the literature. This book goes beyond the existing scholarship by analytically, critically and normatively engaging with the Courts positive obligations case law in a comprehensive and in-depth manner. The book begins by providing an overview of the Courts jurisprudence in this area. Building upon this overview, it brings to the fore the legal methodological consequences attached by the Court to the labels of positive and negative obligations. It moreover critically examines how the Court constructs the distinction between positive and negative obligations, building upon the underlying distinctions between public authorities and private entities, on the one hand, and State action and inaction, on the other. The central argument made in this volume is that in a positive State, in which the authorities have affirmatively intervened in so many areas, it has become increasingly difficult to draw a baseline to properly distinguish between action and inaction. Finally, the author makes suggestions for legal methodological change. This book will prove to be highly valuable for any practitioner or academic interested in the law of the European Convention on Human Rights.-- Source other than Library of Congress
Note
Adaptation of the author's Ph.D. thesis--Ghent University, 2016.
The European Court of Human Rights has long abandoned the view that human rights merely impose obligations of restraint on State authorities (so-called negative obligations). In addition, States are under positive obligations to take steps to actively protect and ensure the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. While the concept of positive obligations has become increasingly important in the jurisprudence of the European Court, it remains relatively underexplored in the literature. This book goes beyond the existing scholarship by analytically, critically and normatively engaging with the Courts positive obligations case law in a comprehensive and in-depth manner. The book begins by providing an overview of the Courts jurisprudence in this area. Building upon this overview, it brings to the fore the legal methodological consequences attached by the Court to the labels of positive and negative obligations. It moreover critically examines how the Court constructs the distinction between positive and negative obligations, building upon the underlying distinctions between public authorities and private entities, on the one hand, and State action and inaction, on the other. The central argument made in this volume is that in a positive State, in which the authorities have affirmatively intervened in so many areas, it has become increasingly difficult to draw a baseline to properly distinguish between action and inaction. Finally, the author makes suggestions for legal methodological change. This book will prove to be highly valuable for any practitioner or academic interested in the law of the European Convention on Human Rights.-- Source other than Library of Congress
The European Court of Human Rights has long abandoned the view that human rights merely impose obligations of restraint on State authorities (so-called negative obligations). In addition, States are under positive obligations to take steps to actively protect and ensure the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. While the concept of positive obligations has become increasingly important in the jurisprudence of the European Court, it remains relatively underexplored in the literature. This book goes beyond the existing scholarship by analytically, critically and normatively engaging with the Courts positive obligations case law in a comprehensive and in-depth manner. The book begins by providing an overview of the Courts jurisprudence in this area. Building upon this overview, it brings to the fore the legal methodological consequences attached by the Court to the labels of positive and negative obligations. It moreover critically examines how the Court constructs the distinction between positive and negative obligations, building upon the underlying distinctions between public authorities and private entities, on the one hand, and State action and inaction, on the other. The central argument made in this volume is that in a positive State, in which the authorities have affirmatively intervened in so many areas, it has become increasingly difficult to draw a baseline to properly distinguish between action and inaction. Finally, the author makes suggestions for legal methodological change. This book will prove to be highly valuable for any practitioner or academic interested in the law of the European Convention on Human Rights.-- Source other than Library of Congress
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 351-366).
Record Appears in
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
v
ch. 1
Introduction
1
1.1.
Aims of the Study
2
1.2.
Setting the Stage
2
1.3.
Working Definition and Related Concepts
9
1.4.
State of the Art and Scope of this Study
15
1.5.
Thesis and Research Questions
23
1.6.
Methodology
27
1.6.1.
Analytical and Normative Approach
27
1.6.2.
Critical Approach and Deconstruction
31
1.6.3.
Empirical Scope of the Study
34
1.7.
Structure of the Study
41
ch. 2
Typologies of Positive Obligations
45
2.1.
Substantive and Procedural Positive Obligations
47
2.1.1.
Basic Distinction between Substance and Procedure
50
2.1.2.
Difficulties in Distinguishing between Substance and Procedure
53
2.1.3.
Procedural Positive Obligations -- General
57
2.1.4.
Investigative Obligations
61
2.1.5.
Access to Effective Remedies
66
2.1.6.
Careful Decision-Making
75
2.2.
Horizontal and Vertical Positive Obligations
78
2.2.1.
Horizontal (Substantive) Positive Obligations
82
2.2.1.1.
Obligations to Protect Life and Physical or Personal Integrity
83
2.2.1.2.
Protection within Private Law Relations
87
2.2.1.3.
Activities of Public Importance: Monitoring and the State's System Responsibility
90
2.2.1.4.
State's Role as Guarantor of Pluralism
94
2.2.1.5.
Selected Other (Horizontal Substantive) Positive Obligations
98
2.2.2.
Vertical (Substantive) Positive Obligations
100
2.2.2.1.
"Duty of Schizophrenia"
100
2.2.2.2.
Creation of Legal Status
103
2.2.2.3.
Special Duty of Care towards Persons under the State's Control
105
2.2.2.4.
Protection in the Absence of Interference
107
2.2.2.5.
Obligation to Take into Account Certain Particularities
109
2.2.2.6.
Substantive Equality
110
2.3.
Obligations Requiring a Legal and Administrative Framework and Ad Hoc Obligations
112
2.3.1.
Rationale for Requiring an Adequate Legal and Administrative Framework
118
2.3.2.
Criminal Law Provisions
123
2.3.3.
Non-Criminal Contexts
126
2.4.
Conclusion: the Diversity of the Court's Case Law
130
ch. 3
Relevant Principles and Tests
131
3.1.
Knowledge Condition
131
3.2.
Proximity
137
3.3.
Effectiveness
146
3.4.
Delineating State Responsibility
155
3.5.
Qualifying Terms
158
3.6.
Proportionality Analysis
166
3.6.1.
Application of the Principle of Proportionality in General
167
3.6.2.
Proportionality and Positive Obligations
171
3.6.2.1.
Relevant Factors in the Proportionality Analysis
174
3.6.2.2.
Move Towards Proceduralisation
179
Substance-flavoured procedural review
181
3.7.
Margin of Appreciation
185
3.7.1.
Meaning of the Margin of Appreciation
186
3.7.2.
Factors Determining the Width of the Margin of Appreciation
189
3.7.3.
Consequences of the Margin of Appreciation
191
3.7.4.
Margin of Appreciation and Positive Obligations
193
3.7.4.1.
"Quantitative" Reading of the Case Law
195
3.7.4.2.
"Qualitative" Reading of the Case Law
201
Women on Waves and Others
201
Notion of "respect" under Article 8
202
Choice of means
206
3.7.4.3.
Conclusion on the Margin of Appreciation
210
3.8.
Conclusion
210
ch. 4
Comparison Positive vs. Negative Obligations
213
4.1.
Exceptional Character of Positive Obligations
214
4.2.
Different Structure of the Court's Examination under Articles 8--11
221
4.3.
Margin of Appreciation
225
4.4.
Polycentricity
226
4.5.
Proportionality
228
4.6.
Conclusion
237
ch. 5
Deconstructing the Dichotomy
241
5.1.
"The State" in the Court's Case Law
243
5.1.1.
Early Case Law Concerning "Hybrid" Entities
247
5.1.2.
Kotov Case
249
5.1.3.
Deconstructing the Notion of "Public Authority"
254
5.2.
Actions vs. Inactions/Omissions in the Court's Case Law
261
5.2.1.
Theoretical Difficulties in Distinguishing between Actions and Omissions
262
5.2.2.
Practical Difficulties in Disentangling Action and Omission in the Court's Case Law
270
5.2.3.
Baselines in the Court's Case Law
276
5.2.3.1.
"Status Quo" Baseline
276
"Negativist" rights
276
Modifying an "existing" legal status
277
"Existing" vs. "new" rights
284
Denial of health care
288
Refusal decisions
290
5.2.3.2.
Curtailing vs. Implementing a Right
291
5.2.3.3.
Domestic Law Making Interference "Lawful"
298
5.3.
Conclusion: Holding the Positive State Accountable
304
ch. 6
Transforming the Court's Legal Methodology
309
6.1.
Wildhaber's Proposal
311
6.2.
Structure of the Analysis
314
6.2.1.
Scope Stage
314
6.2.2.
Discarding the Categorisation Question
315
6.2.3.
Legality Test
317
6.2.3.1.
Unlawful Inactions
318
6.2.3.2.
Condoning Illegalities
322
6.2.3.3.
Adequacy of the Legal and Administrative Framework
324
6.2.3.4.
Quality of the Law
326
6.2.3.5.
Conclusion on the Legality Test
328
6.2.4.
Legitimacy Test
328
6.2.5.
Proportionality Test
330
6.2.5.1.
Margin of Appreciation
330
6.2.5.2.
Proportionality Analysis
332
6.3.
Some Final Examples
335
6.3.1.
Examples from the Court's Case Law
335
6.3.2.
Re-examining Hristozov
337
6.4.
Conclusion
341
ch. 7
General Conclusion
343
7.1.
Summary of the Findings
343
7.2.
Refuting the Worst Fears of the Critics
346
7.3.
Suggestions for Further Research
347
Bibliography
351
Corpus of Cases
367