LEADER 05497oam 2200709I 450 001 9910779024603321 005 20230802004954.0 010 $a1-136-66443-2 010 $a1-280-66062-7 010 $a9786613637550 010 $a0-203-80781-2 010 $a1-136-66444-0 024 7 $a10.4324/9780203807811 035 $a(CKB)2550000000100296 035 $a(EBL)743928 035 $a(OCoLC)797918924 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000678765 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11394145 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000678765 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10737933 035 $a(PQKB)10305319 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC743928 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL743928 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10558533 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL363755 035 $a(OCoLC)794003449 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000000100296 100 $a20180706d2012 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 14$aThe positive obligations of the state under the European Convention of Human Rights /$fDimitris Xenos 210 1$aAbingdon, Oxon :$cRoutledge,$d2012. 215 $a1 online resource (266 p.) 225 1 $aRoutledge research in human rights law 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a0-415-87024-0 311 $a0-415-66812-3 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aFront Cover; The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights; Copyright Page; Contents; Table of Cases; Table of Legal instruments; Foreword; Preface; List of abbreviations; 1. The working base; 1.1 What's right and what's wrong with positive obligations; 1.2 Overview of chapters; 1.3 Basic issues of context and subject matter; 1.3.1 The distinctiveness of human rights; 1.3.2 International responsibility and the general scope of human rights protection; 1.3.2.1 Article 1; 1.3.2.2 Title 327 $a1.3.3 The nature and structure of the Convention rights: the centrality of private life/personality as a core value1.3.4 The object and purpose of the Convention; 1.4 The doctrinal justification of positive obligations; 1.4.1 Early studies; 1.4.2 The first positive obligations cases; 1.4.2.1 X and Y; 1.4.2.2 Marchx; 1.4.2.3 Airey; 1.4.3 Subsequent studies; 1.4.3.1 The horizontality issue: forced or dangerous?; 1.4.4 The substantive debate: the co(i)nstitutional guarantees; 1.4.4.1 The national constitutional debate; 1.4.4.2 The drittwirkung proposal 327 $a1.4.4.3 The international debate: international responses to international phemomena1.5 The on-going debate: re-evaluating the subsidiary function of the court; 2. The application and development of positive obligations; 2.1 Establishing the distinctive nature and potential of positive obligations in the current reasoned phase of the jurisprudence; 2.1.1 The merging of positive and negative obligations: the fair balance test; 2.1.2 The proposal to determine positive obligations under the paragraph 2 provisions; 2.1.3 The stages before the balance test 327 $a2.1.4 A firm distinction between positive and negative obligations2.1.5 The perspective of human rights protection: the rule or the exception - the contextual or the ad hoc response?; 2.2 The wider and common justification of the state's obligations: the critical element of knowledge of the need of human rights; 2.2.1 The element of knowledge in negative obligations cases; 2.2.1.1 Express knowledge from direct interference with known results; 2.2.1.2 Implied knowledge from incidental interference withknown or predictable results 327 $a2.2.1.3 Express or implied knowledge by context and comparative examples2.2.1.4 Express knowledge from express complaints; 2.2.1.5 Express knowledge from previous decisions of non-justifiability of the interference; 2.2.2 The element of knowledge in positive obligations cases; 2.2.2.1 Implied knowledge from a known context of private parties' interactions; 2.2.2.2 Implied knowledge from previous incidents or comparative examples; 2.2.2.3 Express knowledge of an identifiable threat; 2.2.2.4 Express knowledge from express complaints; 2.2.3 The autonomy of the element of knowledge 327 $a2.3 The content of positive obligations under paragraph 1 of the Convention rights 330 $aThe system of the European Convention of Human Rights imposes positive obligations on the state to guarantee human rights in circumstances where state agents dot not directly interfere. In addition to the traditional/liberal negative obligation of non-interference, the state must actively protect the human rights of individuals residing within its jurisdiction. The liability of the state in terms of positive obligations induces a freestanding imperative of human rights that changes fundamentally the perception of the role of the state and the participatory ability of the individual, who can 410 0$aRoutledge research in human rights law. 606 $aHuman rights$zEurope 606 $aInternational and municipal law$zEurope 615 0$aHuman rights 615 0$aInternational and municipal law 676 $a341.4/8094 700 $aXenos$b Dimitris.$0712808 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910779024603321 996 $aPositive obligations of the state under the European Convention of Human Rights$91326832 997 $aUNINA