Follow-up to the Inter-regional Expert Meeting on International Norms and Standards Relating to Disabilities: Issues relating to a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Mexico City,11-14 June 2002

Considerations for the proposed International convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities

by John R. Mathiason*

Introduction

While the desirability of an international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities has been advocated by organizations of persons with disabilities for some time, the current effort is the direct result of an initiative taken by President Fox of Mexico in his address to the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly. In that statement, he called upon the international community to combat poverty and social exclusion and reaffirmed the interest of Mexico to take a lead in promoting an agenda for development, which included hosting the International Conference on Financing for Development (Monterrey, N.L., 16 to 22 March 2002),[1] so that the international community could identify a renewed impetus and more effective means to fulfill the commitments of the “Millennium Declaration”.[2] President Fox observed that as societies address the complex tasks of the creation and equitable distribution of opportunities of global development, it is important that these efforts involve all citizens are stakeholders. He added that it would be impossible to make the world more just if certain groups were excluded from these processes. For that reason Mexico presented the establishment of a “Special Committee” to study the elaboration of an international convention on promoting and protecting the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.[3] President Fox expressed the hope that this important task will obtain the support of the member States of the Organization.

In response to the address, the General Assembly by its resolution 56/168, decided to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to consider proposals for a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The first meeting of that committee will take place at United Nations Headquarters from 29 July-9 August 2002.

As part of the preparations for the Committee’s meeting, the Government of Mexico, with the support of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the subregional office in Mexico of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) organized an expert group meeting on international norms and standards relating to disability that brought together 35 experts in law, policies and programmes concerning persons with disabilities, as well as a large number of observers. In advance of the meeting, WorldEnable organized an innovative on-line consultation that focused on one of the key papers prepared by the Government of Mexico for the Expert Meeting, entitled “Text of Elements for a United Nations Comprehensive and Integral International Convention to Promote and Protect the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities”. To facilitate input through the on-line pre-meeting consultation, an earlier version of the present paper was prepared and made available. Although the time available for the on-line consultation was extremely short, a number of individuals and organizations provided input that was made available to the expert meeting in a paper prepared by María Cristina Sará-Serrano entitled “Comments from an Internet consultation on the Text of Elements for a United Nations Comprehensive and Integral International Convention to Promote and Protect the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.”

As part of the follow-up to the meeting, and with a specific concern to ensure an opportunity for individuals and organizations of persons with disabilities from developing countries to make their input into the process, a second round on-line consultation is being organized. It is based on providing specific comments on the revised Text of Elements that will be made available shortly.

To help provide a context for comments from the on-line consultation, we have produced this revised paper on considerations. It takes account of the discussions at the Expert Meeting and seeks to outline the practical matters with which an international convention must deal. It represents the views of the author and does not purport to reflect any agreement from the Experts or of the sponsors of the Expert Meeting.

What an international convention is … and what it is not

International conventions are multi-lateral treaties between States. They have the same force of law as any other treaty, but are adopted by groups of countries. When a State becomes party to a treaty, it accepts a legal obligation to implement all of the provisions in the text, unless it submits reservations. International conventions are the basis of international law.

While international conventions influence national laws, they are not the same as national laws. For one thing, in the international system States are sovereign, which means that they and they alone can determine what they do. Only they can enforce agreements and enforcement at the international level ultimately depends on the states.

There are multilateral treaties in many areas, like trade, law of the sea, intellectual property and arms control. They constitute agreements about norms of behavior that States have made because without them, States would suffer. An important group of treaties has to do with human rights. The disability convention will be part of this group.

All international treaties define what their States party accept as correct behavior. They are normative documents, spelling out what the international community has agreed are universal values. They are also policy documents, because they usually indicate the kinds of public policies states should follow.

International treaties are also linked. In order to ensure that one convention does not contradict another convention, careful attention is paid to ensuring that agreed language is not changed or contradictory concepts introduced.

Because of the great variety of situations between states, where some are large, some small, some wealthy, some poor, and where history and cultural traditions are different, international conventions have to walk a fine line between being too specific and being too general.

States have to implement the obligations that they accept by ratifying a convention by adjusting laws and practices. These laws have to be done in the context of their political and normative tradition. Thus, a convention that is too specific may not fit well into a given State’s context.[4] On the other hand, a convention that is too general would not provide sufficient guidance about what a universal norm implies.

The proposed international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities unlike earlier human rights conventions has been closely linked to international development issues, particularly the priorities identified in the “Millennium Development Objectives”.[5] A major issue of concern in the elaboration of the proposed comprehensive and integral convention on the rights of persons with disabilities thus should include identification of means to bring a disability perspective to mainstream international development instruments and to promote thereby the advancement of present and future generations of persons with disabilities, and equality.

Like previous human rights conventions, the proposed convention responds to strongly felt needs. The Expert meeting on international norms and standards relating to disability, (Mexico City, 11-14 June 2002)[6]] represented an essential first step towards finding a text that will be agreeable to all interested parties, governments, non-governmental organizations and persons with disabilities. In the drafting process, however, care must be taken.

Where the Disability Convention fits in the human rights regime and how it is different from other instruments

A good starting point is to consider why an international convention on rights of persons with disabilities is necessary at all.

Each new human rights convention has addressed something that was not adequately covered in the central human rights covenants.[7] [For instance] every person's human rights are set out in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights[8] and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[9] that have translated the normative imperatives of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights[10] into legally binding treaties. These central instruments set out the basis on which civilized society sees the rights of individuals and, in fact, acceptance of these human rights has been a condition for States to be admitted to the United Nations.

Each of the other four human rights conventions addresses something that was either missing or was not clear in the Universal Declaration. The Convention on Torture[11] clarified what was mean by cruel and unusual punishment by States. The Convention on Racial Discrimination[12] made precise what was implied by racial discrimination. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women[13] was necessary because the policies that were necessary to ensure equal exercise of rights was not sufficiently clear in the Covenants. The Convention on the Rights of the Child[14] was necessary because, as minors, children did not have the same exercise of human rights as adults and it was necessary to spell out in detail what their rights were in this context. Finally, the [International] Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families[15] was necessary because these workers are not citizens of the countries in which they reside and might not, therefore, receive equal protection from the laws.

There is no doubt that persons with disabilities are covered under these Covenants and the existing human rights conventions dealing with children, racial discrimination or with women. It is also clear that none of the other conventions provides for obligations that would guarantee the exercise of these rights.

One essential difference is that the other conventions deal with specific groups of people on the basis of attributes, immutable characteristics of people. Whether one is a child, a woman or a member of a racial group is fixed and defined. The focus is on protecting persons with these attributes against discrimination. For instance, the status of a migrant worker is fixed in law, and the focus is on protecting persons with that attribute. Disability, in contrast, is a condition, that can be affected by actions, public and private. The focus here is less on protection than on providing a framework of policy options that can affect the condition of disability and its consequences.

At the Expert Meeting, one of the key papers was entitled “What Rights Should the Treaty Contain?” All of the rights included in the paper are already guaranteed in a general sense by the Covenants, but the paper indicated that, in applying them to persons with disabilities, policies would have to be specified. For example, the Expert Meeting frequently heard references to the principle of independent living, a principle considered very important by many organizations of persons with disabilities. However, rather than being a right per se, independent living is a policy approach to ensure that persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights.

Providing equal opportunities for persons with disabilities means developing policies and programmes that compensate for the conditions that define disability. It inevitably implies some form of "reasonable accommodation" and positive discrimination. In this sense, the proposed International convention would be unique and break new ground.

Disability and the Ethic of Development

Central to the issue of the exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights is the notion of fairness or equity. Many of the policies that are required to compensate for the condition of disabilities involves an additional expenditure of resources. This may mean that persons with disabilities are given what, to a person who does not have a disability, might appear to be advantages. For example, designation of public parking spaces as exclusively for the use of persons with disabilities is a form of positive discrimination, as would be the provision of personal care assistants.

While the normative good of providing opportunities has been recognized for some time, most explicitly in the Standard Rules for the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, the relationship of this to the broader issue of development has only been drawn recently. As stated in President Fox’s speech to the General Assembly, equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities is central to the ethic of development. This point was emphasized during the Expert Meeting by a number of experts.

It is also related to the ethic of development because the numerical bulk of persons with disabilities are found in the developing countries. This not only reflect the fact that most people live in developing countries, but also that many of the factors that cause disabilities, like malnutrition, poor maternal and child health care, unsafe occupations and war and violence (including landmines) are part of life in developing countries.

The question of whether a particular society can afford to make the expenditures necessary to provide equalization of opportunities is analogous to the wider debate about what should be done to finance development of developing countries that took place at Monterrey this past March. The question is whether the total benefit of development for the world from incorporating either persons with disabilities or developing countries outweighs the cost of providing those opportunities. The evidence suggests that the answer in both cases is a resounding "yes".

Definition of Disability

Unlike other human rights conventions, the matter of defining who are the beneficiaries in the proposed International convention on disability rights is a critical issue. For most other conventions, the intended beneficiaries are relatively clear: women, children, persons of one race or another, and persons in a migrant worker status. For the proposed disability convention, the definition of who is a personwith disabilities is neither easy nor unimportant. A too-restrictive definition would exclude deserving persons from the provisions of the convention; an excessively open definition would include persons who did not need the protection afforded.[16] These issues have been contested in the courts of a number of countries whose definitions in law have not been sufficiently precise.

The United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities include a somewhat imprecise definition of disability. The Rules state:

“17. The term "disability" summarizes a great number of different functional limitations occurring in any population in any country of the world. People may be disabled by physical, intellectual or sensory impairment, medical conditions or mental illness. Such impairments, conditions or illnesses may be permanent or transitory in nature.

“18. The term "handicap" means the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the life of the community on an equal level with others. It describes the encounter between the person with a disability and the environment. The purpose of this term is to emphasize the focus on the shortcomings in the environment and in many organized activities in society, for example, information, communication and education, which prevent persons with disabilities from participating on equal terms.”[17]

The Americans with Disability Act of the United State][18] provides a more precise, but still not complete definition of disability:

“(2)      Disability. The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual:

(A)       a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;

(B)       a record of such an impairment; or

(C)       being regarded as having such an impairment.”

When it came time to record how many persons with disabilities existed in the United States, the Bureau of the Census[19] elaborated the concept of "major life activities" in three categories:

“Functional activities: seeing, hearing, speaking, lifting and carrying, using stairs, and walking;
“Activities for daily living (ADL): getting around inside the home, getting in or out of a bed or chair, bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting;
“Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL): going outside the home, keeping track of money or bills, preparing meals, doing light housework, and using the telephone.”

In a major review of the “International Classification of Impairment, Disability and Handicap” (ICIDH)[20] that took place with the full participation of organizations of persons with disabilities, the World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a revised classification, now entitled the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.[21]

The complexity of the issue was shown in the Expert Meeting where several experts noted that existing definitions do not deal adequately with what was termed “psychiatric or psycho-social” disability, in contrast with intellectual impairment.

These developments can help fashion a definition of person with disability that can help make the convention stronger and more realistic.

The Issue of Legal Capacity

The proposed convention will have to deal with another issue that other conventions do not. This is the issue of legal capacity. The Convention on the Rights of the Child starts from the presumption that children, as minors, have rights but not full legal capacity to act in their own behalf. The other conventions implicitly assume legal capacity for adults to act in their own behalf. Because several types of disability, especially intellectual impairment and mental illness, are often grounds for denying individuals legal capacity, this issue must be addressed in the convention.

Several experts at the Expert Meeting, noting that some States had laws that unfairly denied persons with these disabilities legal capacity and that this could affect their enjoyment of rights, raised the issue.

The drafting of the convention must be clear on the circumstances under which persons with disabilities, especially as adults, are deprived of a legal capacity to represent their own interests and the procedures that must be put in place to ensure that their rights are respected.

The Issue of Prevention

The Standard Rules do not include a rule on the prevention of disabilities. The term, however, is defined in the Rules as:

22. The term “prevention” means action aimed at preventing the occurrence of physical, intellectual, psychiatric or sensory impairments (primary prevention) or at preventing impairments from causing a permanent functional limitation or disability (secondary prevention). Prevention may include many different types of action, such as primary health care, prenatal and postnatal care, education in nutrition, immunization campaigns against communicable diseases, measures to control endemic diseases, safety regulations, programmes for the prevention of accidents in different environments, including adaptation of workplaces to prevent occupational disabilities and diseases, and prevention of disability resulting from pollution of the environment or armed conflict.

The language was derived from the World Programme of Action. One reason that the Standard Rules did not contain a rule on prevention was that this would create linkages to some of the most intractable political, economic and social issues on the international agenda. These links would distract attention from the policies needed to equalize the opportunities for persons already having disabilities. It could also open a divisive debate over certain issues on which there is no international consensus.

During the Expert Group meeting many experts reiterated this concern. Some noted that a focus on prevention often led to the consideration of eugenics (practices to eliminate disability by ensuring that when a fetus was detected with a disability, it could be aborted, or, in more recent terms, use of DNA testing to screen for genetic predispositions to disability). It also led to practices, like forced sterilization of persons with certain disabilities.

Others noted that many of the issues of prevention were related to the wider issue of development and should be referenced but not incorporated into the text of a convention.

How to handle the issue of prevention remains something that will have to be considered during the drafting process, but it would seem that a consensus is emerging that prevention should not be included in the Convention.

What does the term “equal” mean?

The terms “equal”, “equality” and “equalization” appear throughout the proposed texts of a convention, as they appeared throughout the Standard Rules and the World Programme of Action. The terms, however, can have different meanings and this in itself will have implications for a convention. What the term equal means has to be clear if a Convention is to be effective.

As the discussion in the Expert Meeting made clear, there are four meanings to the term “equal”:

Equal rights
Equal treatment
Equal opportunities
Equal results

The concept of equal rights is straightforward. Derived from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights it means that all persons have the same rights in the same degree. Article 2 of the Declaration states:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

By implication, condition like disability would be included under “other status”.

Equal treatment is a far more problematic concept. On the one hand, it can mean that everyone is treated equally by the legal system. This works well with political rights. But it can also mean, in the context of economic, social and cultural rights, equal treatment could mean that persons with disabilities would not receive the kinds of compensatory treatment that is necessary for enjoyment of rights. As was noted, and will be further emphasized later, providing for equal enjoyment of rights often means “unequal” treatment relative to persons who do not have a disability.

There is no doubt that, in policy terms, equal opportunity is the objective being sought. That is why the Standard Rules are about “equalization of opportunities” or, ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities relative to those persons who do not have a disability. The Standard Rules state:

The principle of equal rights implies that the needs of each and every individual are of equal importance, that those needs must be made the basis for the planning of societies and that all resources must be employed in such a way as to ensure that every individual has equal opportunity for participation.

But the question has to be asked, does this inevitably lead to equal results and is “equal results” what is being sought. Here there are two sides to the answer. On the one hand, severe disability can guarantee that results are not equal in many respects. A person who was blind, for example, would not be able to fly an airplane commercially. On the other hand, a person who did not have a severe vision impairment would not hear as well as one with that disability, since persons with vision impairments typically develop their sense of hearing and as a result would have better results in professions where hearing was an essential skill.

More importantly, very often providing equal opportunities to persons with disabilities results in a better result, because the fact of having a disability and finding ways to compensate for it often makes the person achieve more.

The consensus position would probably be that the Convention should clearly note that equal mostly refers to equal rights and equal opportunities and that equality of treatment under the laws is implied by equal civil and political rights.

What is "Reasonable Accommodation"

The central concern of a disability convention must be to specify clearly the policies and programmes that governments undertake to create in order to provide equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. It should define the minimal set of provisions that all States parties should adopt.

Equality of opportunity for persons with disabilities requires actions that will overcome the consequences of disability. In the United States, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, this is reflected in the concept of "reasonable accommodation." This means the kinds of things that should be done through public policy to ensure equality of opportunity.

In the Americans with Disabilities Act, "reasonable accommodation" is defined as follows:

“(9)      Reasonable accommodation. The term "reasonable accommodation" may include:

“(A)     making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and

“(B)      job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.”[22]

The preceding is more an example of what would constitute reasonable accommodation than a definition so it is important to understand how to translate the concept of reasonable accommodation into terms that will be effective in international law.

The concept of “accommodation” is relatively straightforward: It suggests the provision of conditions that respond to a need or want, that permits adaptation or adjustment to particular circumstances or environments. In the context of equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities, accommodation is the provision of adaptations in terms of facilities and services, conditions of work or living, which place persons with disabilities on an equal footing with [non- persons in society who do not have a disability. The accommodation needed will depend on the disability, the economic or social sector and the environment. To the extent that classes of accommodations can be included in the text of an international convention under the respective area (employment, education, participation), the convention would be stronger

The concept of what is “reasonable” is not so straightforward. The first question to ask is "reasonable for whom?" This introduces two different dimensions. The first is that what level of accommodation is fair for all members of society, which is an issue of equity. The second is what is reasonable in terms of the resources available to a society, especially public resources, which is an issue of feasibility. Both issues need to be addressed in the proposed international convention.

Issues of equity

Some of the accommodations that have to be made to further equalization of opportunities are not difficult and involve little in the way of equity. For instance, in a new building a ramp normally costs the same as stairs. However, many accommodations can increase costs. For instance, if an employer has to provide a sign-language interpreter for a person with an auditory impairment, this can increase the cost of employment. Or if a special education class has to be provided, this can increase the cost of the education system. The issue of equity here turns on how much a society is willing to pay for accommodation based on a principle of fairness.

Many national laws use the concept of "grandfathering" to solve the equity issue, in other words existing activities and facilities are exempted from new regulations: new public buildings would be obliged to be accessible to all, irrespective of disabilities, but old buildings need not be adapted. However, other countries may not find this acceptable and would insist that existing facilities and buildings be retrofitted so that they are accessible by means of adding ramps or elevators.

It is important that the proposed convention make a clear statement on the principle of equity that should be applied and on the means that should be used.

Issues of feasibility

In some countries, public and private resources are relatively ample and considerable scope exists for providing accommodations. In most, particularly those in the developing world, public and private resources are scarce and all allocations require difficult trade-offs. There are clear limits to what is feasible. For example, in a country where education facilities are rudimentary, it might be difficult to provide for special education. Indeed, the issue of how to frame obligations in the area of education was one where the Expert Meeting paid particular attention, since there is no clear consensus on whether education of children with disabilities should be mainstreamed or special.

The proposed convention should provide guidance on how States with scarce resources are expected to provide accommodations. Here, however, the issue of feasibility is bound up with the concept of planning and design. In developing countries, where much public construction (of schools, hospitals, industries and commercial facilities) is new, accessibility and reasonable levels of accommodation can be built into the designs of facilities. There is, moreover, a growing interestin the architecture community in universal design.[23] Thus, where curricula are just being developed or are being extended, [reasonable levels of] accommodation for children with disabilities can be planned. And, where labor is relatively low, retrofitting buildings or providing assistance may be more feasible than in more developed countries, given adequate planning and design.

These kinds of considerations also need to be built into the proposed convention, wherever they apply, to give States a sense of what are the obligations to remove discrimination and to promote the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities.

Representation of Persons with Disabilities in Monitoring

Like all human rights conventions, the proposed convention on disability will have a monitoring mechanism. An issue in this, however, is how to ensure that the views and concerns of persons with disabilities will be reflected in the monitoring mechanism. Rule 18 of the Standard Rules deals specifically with the role of organizations of persons with disabilities when it states:

Rule 18. Organizations of persons with disabilities

States should recognize the right of the organizations of persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at national, regional and local levels. States should also recognize the advisory role of organizations of persons with disabilities in decision-making on disability matters.

The monitoring mechanism for the Standard Rules, the Special Rapporteur, has been advised by an expert panel and this was included in Section IV of the Rules (paragraph IV.3):

3. International organizations of persons with disabilities having consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and organizations representing persons with disabilities who have not yet formed their own organizations should be invited to create among themselves a panel of experts, on which organizations of persons with disabilities shall have a majority, taking into account the different kinds of disabilities and necessary equitable geographical distribution, to be consulted by the Special Rapporteur and, when appropriate, by the Secretariat.

No existing human rights convention makes specific provision for participation of persons who are expected to be specific beneficiaries. The question of how to involve persons with disabilities in the monitoring mechanism remains open. It was one of the issues that were discussed during the Expert Meeting, with some experts calling for language similar to that in the Standard Rules, while others called for an even more open approach.

While incorporating a normative statement such as found in rule 18 in a convention would not be controversial, placing that obligation for the monitoring mechanism might be, if only in terms of the precedent it might set. For example, there was no thought given to ensuring that children were included in the monitoring mechanisms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child or that migrant workers be included in the committee to be established to monitor that treaty, once it enters into force.

The issue may well be moot. Monitoring of international human rights treaties is consigned to committees composed of experts elected from the States parties. Persons proposed as experts are very often from the persons to whom the treaties are directed. For example, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women is composed almost exclusively of women. One would assume that persons with disabilities would be more likely to be elected to a committee to monitor the proposed convention.

Return to top

* Managing Director of Associates for International Management Services, Adjunct Professor of Public Administration at the Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, and former Deputy Director of the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (1987-1996)

[1] <http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/>.

[2] <http:// www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm>.

[3] Subsequently adopted as General Assembly resolution 56/168 0f 19 December 2001 <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disA56168e1.htm>.

[4] The International Convention on Migrant Workers and their Families has not yet come into force, in part because its obligations are too specific and comprehensive for most States to accept.

[5] General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000 <http:// www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm>.

[6] < http://www.sre.gob.mx/discapacidad/>.

[7] See “Overview of International Legal Frameworks for Disability Legislation” (United Nations Division for Social Policy and Development, unpublished paper, August 1998) <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disovlf.htm >.

[8] General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm>.

[9] General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm>.

[10] General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948<http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm.>.

[11] “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”; General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm>.

[12] “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination”; General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm>.

[13] General Assembly resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979 <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm>.

[14] General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989<http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm>.

[15] General Assembly resolution 45/158 of 18 December 1990 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/m_mwctoc.htm>.

[16] See “Report” of the Interregional Seminar and Symposium on International Norms and Standards relating to Disability (Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China, 13-17 December 1999), which considers in detail the question of definitions of disability in international and national norms, standards and law <http://www.worldenable.net/hongkong99/hkreport9907.htm>.

[17] General Assembly resolution 48/96, annex, of 20 December 1993 <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm.>.

[18] Public Law 101-336 of July 26, 1990; 104 Stat. 327; 101st Congress <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm>.

[19] “Census Bureau Data on Disability” < http://landview.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/intro.html>.

[20] World Health Organization, International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease (Geneva, 1980).

[21] (WHO: Geneva, 2001) < http://www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm>.

[22] “Americans with Disabilities Act,” op.cit.; TITLE I EMPLOYMENT SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS. 42 USC 12111.

[23] Universal design (UD) is based on the concept that all products, environments and communications should be designed to consider the needs of the widest possible array of users. The concept also is known as design for all, inclusive design, lifespan design. Universal design is based on the following premises: (a) varying ability is not a special condition of the few but a common characteristic of being human and we change physically and intellectually throughout our lives; (b) if a design works well for people with disabilities, it works better for everyone; (c) at any point in our lives, personal self-esteem, identity, and well-being are deeply affected by our ability to function in our physical surroundings with a sense of comfort, independence and control.; and (d) usability and aesthetics are mutually compatible <http://www.adaptenv.org/universal/index.php>. See “Report” of International Seminar on Environmental Accessibility; planning and design of accessible urban development in developing countries

(Beirut, 30 November - 3 December 1999) <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disisea.htm>. See also, Leslie Kanes Weisman, “Creating justice, sustaining life: the role of Universal Design in the 21st century”; Keynote address to Twentieth anniversary celebration, Adaptive Environments Center (Boston, MA, April 1999), which discusses three tenets of Universal Design: “First, universal design reminds us that there is no separation between mind and body, and between people and their environments. Second, universal design recognizes that there is no separation between human health, environmental health, and social justice. Third, universal design upholds the democratic ideals of social equality and personal empowerment because universal designers strive to create products and spatial environments that are designed to provide the same level of comfort, accessibility and assistance to multiple users and multiple publics.” <www.adaptiveenvironments.org/examples/article2.php >.