Negative obligation

(redirected from Negative Obligations)

Negative obligation

A New York Stock Exchange rule that governs the behavior of specialists. Negative obligation is the mandate of the specialists not trade for the specialist's firm's own account when enough public investor orders exist to match up naturally -- without intervention. An example of violating negative obligation is Trading Ahead. Also see positive obligation.

Negative Obligation

New York Stock Exchange requirements on its specialists. The negative obligation forbids specialists from trading on their own accounts when enough matching orders exist to ensure a two-sided market. That is, when investors do not need a specialist to provide liquidity to the market, the negative obligation prohibits the specialist from trading on its own account. See also: Positive obligation.
References in periodicals archive ?
Depending on their object, there are positive and negative obligations, but they are also classified in obligations of giving, doing or not doing, all of which will be analyzed below.
Regarding the negative obligations of not doing, they generate no discussion whatsoever, meaning that any performance of this type is liable of execution against the will of the creditor since he cannot fight in any way against its execution.
Human Rights in a Positive State: Rethinking the Relationship Between Positive and Negative Obligations Under the European Convention on Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights has accepted that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) not only gives rise to so-called negative obligations requiring states to refrain from directly committing human rights violations, but also so-called positive obligations to take steps to secure individuals the effective enjoyment of their human rights.
The club will also have a number of negative obligations which will usually be subject to the consent of the player.
The remark of the refuge State's negative obligations is evident also in the Iosub Caras v.
Article 8 remarks not only the positive and negative obligations for the State of refuge, but also the positive obligations for the State of habitual residence of the child victim of an wrongful abduction.
In particular, it may be that negative obligations apply whenever a state acts extraterritorially (at least with respect to intentional human rights violations, as opposed to indirect consequences), but that the degree of positive obligations will be dependent upon the type and degree of control (or power or authority) exercised by the state.
Under this interpretation, only negative obligations would be applicable to Israel's conduct.
This would seem to indicate that as Israel cedes control, the scope of its obligation is decreased from one encompassing positive and negative obligations to one entailing only negative obligations.
So we have negative obligations that are enforceable.
rules imposing positive and negative obligations in the public interest;