Government officials believe a recent European Court of Human Rights ruling bolsters plans by the Minister for Justice Michael McDowell to introduce anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos).
The court ruled that a local authority in Spain failed to discharge its obligation to take steps to protect citizens in Valencia from noise and vandalism near a person's home.
Officials say the case represents confirmation that the extent of the State's positive obligations extends beyond environmental pollution to encompass an obligation to take effective steps to address sufficiently serious third-party anti-social behaviour.
A commentary on the case in the New Law Journal states that: "What we have is a pronouncement by the European Court of Human Rights that states should order their internal affairs so that effective steps are taken to tackle sufficiently serious nuisance behaviour."
However, opponents of plans to introduce Asbos said the implications of the ruling were being taken out of context.
Geoffrey Shannon, a solicitor and expert in child law, said: "This was a case involving state neglect for environmental damage as opposed to a case which has any relevance to Asbos."
He added: "There were 127 nightclubs in the area where the complainant lived. It was a case involving years and years of environmental pollution. The city council failed to act to minimise the noise pollution in an acutely saturated zone and had, in fact, violated its own bylaws."
Aisling Reidy of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) said the case cited was one of a series of cases regarding noxious fumes from an industrial plant and other forms of environmental pollution.
The Minister for Justice also cited domestic rulings and statutes which, he says, provide for measures similar to Asbos.
He said various statutes had been passed which expressly confer power on judges to bind people to the peace or be of good behaviour. Failure to abide by these terms may result in imprisonment.
When the constitutionality of the orders were tested in 1994, Mr Justice Rory O'Hanlon ruled that it seemed "reasonable and proper" that a person who has been guilty of some form of "outrageous" behaviour should give a guarantee that such behaviour would not be repeated.
"This has been the course adopted by the courts for so many centuries that the origin of the jurisdiction is buried in the mists of common law," Mr O'Hanlon commented.
