Home Law The Operational Obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Challenges for Coherence – Views from the English Supreme Court and Strasbourg
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The Operational Obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Challenges for Coherence – Views from the English Supreme Court and Strasbourg

  • Jane Wright EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 13, 2016
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights and the English Supreme Court have expanded the scope of the positive obligation to protect the right to life under art 2 of the Convention. A question of particular concern for public authorities is the extent to which negligent conduct may fall within art 2. Strasbourg principles relating to standing for victims, as well heads of damage (just satisfaction), are more generous than the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 in the UK. The art 2 obligation also mandates consideration of matters which would not be regarded as justiciable under the English common law. This article provides a critique of recent developments in the case law under art 2, both at Strasbourg and in the English Supreme Court, and draws out the consequent challenges for coherence in English law.

Published Online: 2016-4-13
Published in Print: 2016-4-1

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 15.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jetl-2016-0001/pdf?lang=en
Scroll to top button