Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights can be framed with different levels of concreteness. The level chosen is essential for understanding the analytical distinction between the existence of an obligation and its breach. The level of concreteness is an important conceptual framework because it has an impact even on the possibility of making an assessment as to whether the State has breached the obligation, and on how this assessment is performed in the reasoning. Kurt v Austria is used to illustrate how positive obligations can be framed both in more abstract and concrete terms, and how the reasoning mediates between the two. The more it tilts towards a concrete formulation of the obligation, the more the Court appears to assume the role of a rule-maker, which is in tension with the principle that States have discretion as to the concrete measures to fulfill their positive obligations.

中文翻译：

---

根据《欧洲人权法公约》制定积极义务：抽象与具体之间的调解

《欧洲人权公约》下的积极义务可以用不同的具体程度来界定。所选择的级别对于理解义务的存在与违反义务之间的分析区别至关重要。具体程度是一个重要的概念框架，因为它甚至影响评估国家是否违反义务的可能性，以及如何在推理中进行评估。Kurt v Austria 用于说明如何以更抽象和具体的术语来构建积极的义务，以及推理如何在两者之间进行调解。它越倾向于具体制定义务，法院似乎就越扮演规则制定者的角色，