WASHINGTON — When I traveled abroad as an American Marshall Memorial Fellow in October 2008, I discovered something most people wouldn’t notice. The notion of an attorney with his partner, a dog guide, draws attention on both sides of the Atlantic.   I recall one individual claiming that disability law, policy, or concerns have no part of the transatlantic relationship.   This is an inaccurate claim, especially in light of both the European Community and President Obama signing on to the international United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol.

I have engaged in many discussions with organizations and individuals on transatlantic disability law and policy — both during the fellowship and since — and brought up the Convention, which scholars have called the first human rights treaty of the 21st century.

In December, an annual celebration of the Convention is held at the United Nations during the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.   With this celebration approaching once again, providing a description of the Convention and elucidating its importance for organizations working in the transatlantic space to be leaders in this segment of the transatlantic relationship is a valuable use of the pen.

Article 4 of the Convention elucidates the general obligations of state parties, or those nations that have ratified the Convention.   State parties agree that they will ensure the equality of “rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind.”   As such, the Convention not only provides lofty, hortatory language, but also states, in Article 4, that the principles of the Convention are to be implemented by state parties through: (a.) legislation and regulatory enactment and promulgation; (b.) policy formulation; and (c.) research and development.   Additionally, state parties, in furtherance of the Convention, are to furnish proactively reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities.   Similar to the body of legal issues in the United States known as “affirmative action,” Article 5 of the Convention provides that state parties are to undertake measures to accelerate “de facto equality of persons with disabilities.”   In addition to these obligations for state parties, there are many other substantive Articles of the Convention that impose affirmative obligations on governments.

Article 25 in particular may be noteworthy in light of the pending reform of the American healthcare system.   This Article mandates that state parties ensure equal, accessible, and affordable healthcare services, reimbursement systems, and insurance to persons with disabilities.   Notably, the Convention provides that people with disabilities are to enjoy enhanced access to rehabilitation services, equal rights to reproductive health services, and increased access to affordable technologies that aide in daily functioning.   Furthermore, the Optional Protocol to the Convention provides “teeth” to the underlying covenant in so far as it establishes a review body — the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — at the United Nations to receive communications and complaints relating to implementation by state parties.

Since the Convention was brought into force in spring 2008, there have been 71 ratifications of the Convention and 45 ratifications of the Optional Protocol.   For instance, European Union aspirants Serbia and Turkey as well as established EU states like Germany and Belgium have ratified the Convention.   Consequently, scholars in disability law and policy, including Michael Ashley Stein and Janet E. Lord, have heralded the Convention as a new paradigm for disability rights and as a positive force for social integration and inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Despite the positive nature of this Convention as a discussion vehicle, if nothing else, the United States did not warmly receive the Convention, at least not until recent months.

The administration of President Bush was regularly castigated by disability advocates for not undertaking a leadership role on the Convention.   This lack of leadership was regrettable, as the Convention is imbued by concepts and principles encompassed in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.   However, in summer 2009, arguably reclaiming our leadership on global disability policy, President Obama had the new ambassador to the United Nations ensure that the federal government is a signatory to the Convention.

In sum, the disabled and able-bodied can mutually benefit from opportunities to enhance their perspective on foreign law and public policy.   The important influence of organizations like the German Marshall Fund of the United States and others in fostering transatlantic cooperation, here at home, and abroad, is irrefutable.   I suggest to these organizations that the next item on the transatlantic agenda should be international disability policy, which has been overlooked too long.

No related posts.