View article

A hard distinction is often made in human rights literature between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ duties of states under international treaty law. A resource line is drawn between the two, with duties of state ‘restraint’ on one side (demanding no resources) and duties of state ‘action’, particularly vis-à-vis non-state actors, on the other (demanding resources). The negative duties are then highlighted as non-negotiable, ‘immediate’ priorities, cordoned off from their positive counterparts. While this approach may be conceptually appealing, particularly where direct state action is involved, it has one formidable drawback: it does not reflect the reality of human rights abuse, prevention of which requires extensive positive action on the part of the state, even to ensure against breach of negative duties. As the constant jurisprudence of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights makes clear, states’ negative and positive duties in the field of human rights are inseparable in practice.