English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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

journal of european tort 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