States' positive obligation to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate: a principle in search of a practical effect?

Abstract

ABSTRACT In its seminal decision in Dink v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights recognised that States have a positive obligation, under Article 10, to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all persons, enabling them to express their opinions without fear. In the more than decade since, the Court has yet to clarify what the obligation is, what it requires, and when and how it applies. This article traces the recognition and development of the Dink principle, critiques the Court's approach to date, and explores the real-world impacts of an unfavourable information environment. It concludes with a concrete recommendation which would ensure greater cohesion within the Council of Europe and give practical effect to the Dink principle, while addressing polarisation, disinformation and threats against journalists: media and information literacy initiatives.