Today, the State’s positive obligations are essential to international, especially European human rights law, and comprise a part of the well-established apparatus ofcategories of the Western jurisprudence, at the same time remaining scantily explored by the Ukrainian science. However, this structure is gradually but surely finding its way into the national legislation and judicial practice of Ukraine, including constitutional jurisprudence. This calls for a comprehensive understanding of positive obligations as a conceptual framework for legal assessment of the efficiency of the State policies in the human rights domain.

The purpose of the article is to define the basic elements of the doctrine of the State’s positive obligations, and also to highlight the understanding and special nature of such obligations, to outline the content, scope and boundaries, to mark out the types of positive obligations which consolidate the existing diversity, as well as the structures thereof in comparison with negative obligations and in combination with other doctrinal approaches which have been established through “the law of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (hereinafter – the Convention).

It is established that evolution of positive obligations under the Convention fits organically into the broader evolution context in the human rights domain, thus reflecting the general trends of transition from exclusively negative obligations to “multidimensional rights” comprising both negative and positive requirements. The author offers a substantiation for the understanding of the State’s positive obligations in the human rights domain as those constituting legally binding requirements to the State, which is represented via its legislative, executive and judicial bodies, to introduce and apply efficient measures of substantial and procedural, as well as legal and factual nature, with a view to preventing violations of the entire range of human rights by representatives of public authorities or individuals, also with the aim of protecting them and facilitating the implementation thereof.

With due regard for the standards of positive obligations developed by the European Court of Human Rights, the author proves that the principles of efficiency and dynamic interpretation lay the basis for the development of positive obligations. For their part, principles of historical interpretation and systematic construing of the canons of the Convention and the wording of its specific provisions, and also the idea of “the common European standard” underlain by the consensus of the Member States reasonably limit judicial activism. Such obligations may not be interpreted in the manner which would lay an impossible or disproportionate burden on public authorities. Having a disjunctive (alternative) structure, positive obligations provide for a particularly broad discretion of the State in choosing the means. At the same time, the measures taken should be reasonable (have proper substantiation), appropriate and sufficient, and should be assessed by the Court with the use of the principle of proportionality and fair balance of interests.

The principle of subsidiarity and the freedom of the State’s discretion are the key for making national authorities primarily responsible for the development of positive obligations, and such authorities, taking into account the priorities and resources of the State, should ensure that the appropriate legislation (“the national legal framework”) be adopted and the efficient means of national protection be introduced as needed to ensure the real freedom and the autonomy of an individual.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Akandji-Kombe J-F, Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. A guide to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe: Human rights handbooks 2007) (in English).

2. Droge С, Positive Verpflichtungen der Staaten in der Europaischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Springer 2003) (in German).

3. Letsas G, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2007) (in English).

4. Maringele S, European Human Rights Law. The work of European Court of “Human Rights illustrated by an assortment of selected cases (Anchor Academic Publishing 2014) (in English).

5. Merrills J G, The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights (Manchester University Press 1993) (in English).

6. Mowbray A, The development of positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (Human rights law in perspective) (Hart Publishing 2004) (in English).

7. Shue H, Bacis Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and US Foreign Policy (Princeton University Press 1996), https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2016.33 (in English).

8. Starmer K, European human rights law (Legal Action Group 1999) (in English).

9. Xenos D, The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights (Routledge Research in Human Rights Law 2011) (in English).

10. De Sal’via M, Precedenty Evropejskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka. Rukovodjashhie principy sudebnoj praktiki, otnosjashhejsja k Evropejskoj konvencii o zashhite prav cheloveka i osnovnyh svobod. Sudebnaja praktika s 1960 po 2002 g. [Test Cases of the European Court of Human Rights. Guidelines for Court Practice Relating to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Case Law Since 1960 to 2002] (Juridicheskij centr Press 2004) (in Russian).

Edited books

11. Alkema E, ‘The third-party applicability or “Drittwirkung” of the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Matscher F and Petzold H (eds), Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension, Studies in honour of Gerard J. Wiarda (1988) (in English).

12. Hajiyev K, ‘The evolution of positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: by the European Court of Human Rights’ in Spielmann Dean and Tsirli Marialena and Voyatzis Panayotis (eds), The European Convention on Human Rights, a living instrument: essays in honour of Christos L Rozakis (Bruylant 2011) (in English).

13. Lavrysen L, ‘Protection by the Law: The Positive Obligation to Develop a Legal Framework to Adequately Protect ECHR Rights’ in Haeck Y and Brems E (eds), Human rights and civil liberties in the 21st century. Ius gentium: comparative perspectives on law and justice (Springer 2013) (in English).

14. Sicilianos L-A, ‘Out of harm`s way: positive obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Early Lawrence and Austin Anna (eds), The rights to life under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. Twenty years of legal development since McCann v. the United Kingdom. In honour of Michael O’Boyle (Legal Publishers (WLP) 2016) (in English).

15. Starmer K, ‘Positive Obligations under the Convention’ in Jowell J and Cooper J (eds), Understanding Human Rights Principles (Hart Publishing 2001) (in English).

16. Van Dijk P, ‘“Positive obligations” implied in the European Convention on Human Rights: are the States still the “masters” of the Convention?’ in Castermans-Holleman Monique and Hoof Fried Van and Smith Jacqueline (eds), The role of the nation-state in the 21st century: human rights, international organisations and foreign policy: essays in honour of Peter Baehr (Kluwer Law International 1998) (in English).

17. MakBraid Dzh, ‘Pryntsypy, shcho vyznachaiut tlumachennia ta zastosuvannia Yevropeiskoi konventsii z prav liudyny’ [‘Principles Governing the Interpretation and Application of the European Convention on Human Rights’] v Zhukovska O (red), Yevropeiska konventsiia z prav liudyny: osnovni polozhennia, praktyka zastosuvannia, ukrainskyi kontekst [The European Convention on Human Rights: Basic Provisions, Application Practice, Ukrainian Context] (VIPOL 2004) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

18. Florczak-Wątor M, ‘The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Promoting Horizontal Positive Obligations of the State’ [2017] 17(2) International and Comparative Law Review 39-53, https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2018-0014 (in English).

19. Gerstenberg O, ‘Negative / Positive Constitutionalism, “Fair Balance,” and the Problem of Justiciability’ [2012] 10(4) International Journal of Constitutional Law 904-25, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mor085 (in English).

20. Klatt M, ‘Positive obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights’ [2011] 71(4) Heidelberg journal of international law 691-718 (in English).

21. Lavrysen L, ‘Positive obligations in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ [2014] 7(1-2) Inter-American and European human rights journal 94 (in English).

22. Londono P, ‘Positive obligations, criminal procedure and rape cases’ (2007) 2 European human rights law review 161 (in English).

23. Mac-Gregor E F, ‘La obligación de “respetar” y “garantizar” los derechos humanos a la luz de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana’ (2012) 10 Estudios Constitutionales 158 (in French). 24. Pitkänen M, ‘Fair and balanced positive obligations: do they exist?’ (2012) 5 European human rights law review 539 (in English).

25. Tuğba S G, ‘Positive Obligations’ Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Is it Cogent or Obscure?’ [2017] 6(1) European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 358-64, http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v6i1.p358-364 (in English).

26. Urbaitė L, ‘Judicial activism in the approach of the European Court of Human Rights to positive obligations of the state’ (2011) 11 Baltic yearbook of international law 220, https://doi.org/10.1163/22115897-90000073 (in English).

27. Wildhaber L, ‘A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights’ [2002] 23(5-7) Human Rights Law Journal 162 (in English).

28. Khrystova H, ‘Do pytannia pro formuvannia doktryny pozytyvnykh zobov’iazan derzhavy u sferi prav liudyny’ [‘More on Forming the Doctrine of the State’s Positive Obligations in the Human Rights Domain’] (2013) 2 Filosofiia prava i zahalna teoriia prava 124-34 (in Ukrainian).

29. Khrystova H, ‘Pozytyvni zobov’iazannia derzhavy v sferi prav liudyny yak novyi napriam doslidzhennia u vitchyznianii teoretychnii yurysprudentsii’ [‘Positive Obligations of the State in the Human Rights Domain as a New Research Area in the National Theoretical Jurisprudence’] [2012] 2(69) Visnyk Akademii Pravovykh Nauk Ukrainy 34-6 (in Ukrainian).

30. Khrystova H, ‘Typy ta osoblyvosti zobov’iazan derzhavy u sferi prav liudyny’ [‘Types and Special Features of the State’s Obligations in the Human Rights Domain’] [2018] 4(32) Jurnalul Juridic National: teorie si practica 25 (in Ukrainian).

31. Shevchuk S, ‘Kontseptsiia pozytyvnykh obov´iazkiv derzhavy u praktytsi Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny’ [‘The Concept of the State’s Positive Obligations in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’] (2010) 2 Pravo Ukrainy 55-64 (in Ukrainian).

Conference materials

32. Arnold R, ‘Pryiednannia Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu do Yevropeiskoi konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny ta osnovopolozhnykh svobod i naslidky tsoho kroku dlia sytuatsii v haluzi osnovnykh prav u Yevropi’ [‘Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Implications of This Step for the Situation with the Fundamental Rights in Europe’]v Zakhyst prav liudyny orhanamy konstytutsiinoi yustytsii: mozhlyvosti i problemy indyvidualnoho dostupu: materialy mizhnarodnoi konferentsii [Human Rights Protection by Constitutional Justice Bodies: Opportunities and Challenges of Individual Access: Materials of the International Conference] (Lohos 2011) (in Ukrainian).