Positive and Negative Obligations for Human Rights Protection: Classification Issues

The concepts of «positive obligations» and «negative obligations» have come into usage in interstate bodies for the protection of human rights. An analysis of international documents shows that a number of obligations contain features of both positive and negative obligations. The classification, which is based on the distinction between state non-intervention and its taking measures, has a number of shortcomings, which are pointed out by researchers who propose their own, more complex types of classification of obligations based on other criteria. The study revealed a number of contradictions between the classifications and interpretation of the content of obligations by treaty bodies, which explains the inappropriateness of using these classifications as a tool to provide guidance to states in choosing the most effective ways to fulfill their obligations under international human rights treaties. Based on a systematic and comparative legal analysis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as related acts of treaty bodies, the author concludes that obligations to protect human rights may have mixed ( or complex) nature.

1. Abashidze A. Kh. Yuridicheskiy kharakter obyazatelstv gosudarstv — uchastnikov mezhdunarodnykh paktov o pravakh cheloveka // Vestnik RUDN. Seriya «Yuridicheskie nauki». — 2009. — № 5. — S. 209–222.

2. Solntsev A. M., Koneva A. E. Yuridicheskiy status aktov dogovornykh organov po pravam cheloveka v natsionalnykh pravovykh sistemakh // Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. — 2013. — № 4 (8). — S. 82–93.

3. Droge C. Positive Verpflichtungen der Staaten in der Europaischen Menschenrechtskonvention. — Heidelberg: Springer, 2003. — 434 p.

4. Fredman S. Human Rights Transformed: Positive Duties and Positive Rights. — New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. — 412 p.

5. Hunt P. Interpreting the International Right to Health in a Human Rights-Based Approach to Health // Health and human rights Journal. — 2016. — Vol. 18. — № 2. — P. 109–130.

6. Koch I. E. Dichotomies, trichotomies or waves of duties? // Human Rights Law Review. — 2005. — № 5. — P. 81–103.

7. Shue H. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U. S. Foreign Policy. — Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. — 227 p.