conference | programme | overview | presentations | declaration | links
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: ratification and implementation
By Tony Aston
Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
In December 2006 the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN)
adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the
Convention). This was the acclaimed outcome of five years of work by the
Ad Hoc Committee, (AHC) established by the UN to elaborate a convention
that identified the rights to be accorded to disabled people throughout
the world. A caucus of organisations representing the interests of
disabled people at a global level interacted with the AHC during its
twice yearly sessions. The World blind Union played a full part in the
IDC, working to ensure that the Convention took account of the
requirements of blind and partially sighted people. The result is a
Convention that, whilst it is by no means perfect, does constitute a
step change in the status of disabled people. As the Convention is
ratified and comes into effect in countries that are members of the UN ,
we should not have to asked for the rights that we are entitled to; we
should expect to be accorded those rights. However, this will not happen
automatically. We will have to persuade our governments of the vital
importance of full implementation of the Convention in a way that meets
the requirements of blind, partially sighted and other groups of
disabled people.
After a government has signed a UN convention or treaty, a process of
ratification takes place. All relevant aspects of a country's
legislation should be brought into line with the requirements of the
convention. During the last two years, governments throughout the world
who are members of the UN and who have signed the Convention have been
following the process of ratification. Up to 27 April, eight European
countries had advised the UN that ratification was complete:
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Croatia
- Germany
- Hungary
- Slovenia
- Spain
- Sweden
During the ratification process, a government will decide whether or not
to make reservations or declarations. These have the effect of
restricting the scope and / or impact of the convention in that country.
A reservation means that a government does not intend to implement one
or more aspects of the Convention, though reservations should not be
incompatible with the object or purpose of the Convention. A declaration
indicates how a government interprets a particular aspect of the
Convention. It may be necessary to campaign against such restrictions if
they are likely to have an adverse affect on the rights of blind and
partially sighted people. National organisations representing blind and
partially sighted people should therefore identify the process to be
followed by their government to ratify the Convention and be aware of
politicians' and civil servants' views on those aspects of the
Convention that are of special importance to blind and partially sighted
people.
In 2007 the EBU Commission on the Rights of Blind and Partially Sighted
People prepared a series of statements that set out the requirements of
blind and partially sighted people in relation to 15 Convention Articles
that are crucial to us. These form the basis of EBU's strategy for the
implementation of the Convention. The statements are on the EBU website
and provide guidance for EBU member organisations on those aspects of
the Convention that are critical for blind and partially sighted people
in Europe.
In most instances, a decision on ratification will be required by
parliament. However, the legislative process of ratification varies from
country to country. Some states differentiate between domestic and
international law. International conventions and the like have then to
be transposed from international into national law. The result is that
the provisions of international treaties and conventions are only
available through national law. In other countries, the Convention will
have to be transposed as an entity into national law. The provisions of
the Convention are then available through national law. Another
approach, adopted in some countries is that international and national
law is seen as a single legal system and in this case, no legislative
transposition of the Convention will be necessary.
When governments have ratified the Convention, its potential benefits
will not automatically be handed to us. Few, if any governments will
take action to implement the convention unless they are persuaded to do
so by organisations representing the interests of disabled people.
Article 33 of the Convention describes the actions that governments
should take to achieve effective national implementation and monitoring.
Governments are expected to designate one or more implementation focal
points, and to establish co-ordination mechanisms. Governments are also
called upon to develop frameworks to promote, protect and monitor
implementation of the Convention. Additionally, civil society, in
particular persons with disabilities and their representative
organizations must be involved and participate fully in the monitoring
process.
Article 4 (General Obligations) of the Convention makes it very clear
that governments should actively involve disabled people through
'representative organisations'. For me, a representative organisation is
one that has a constituency; democratically elected representatives, who
not only understand my requirements, but also know my views and those of
other blind and partially sighted people.
My requirements that relate to my visual loss are in many respects
different to those of a deaf or physically disabled person. I therefore
expect my requirements to be represented to government by a
representative organisation that has a constituency of blind and
partially sighted people. A 'generalist' disability organisation will
not do. It is essential that governments understand this expectation and
that our representative organisations are fully and directly involved in
the monitoring and implementation of the Convention.
Although I think it essential that the interests of blind and partially
sighted people are represented by representative organisations of blind
and partially sighted people, I also think it essential that we work
collaboratively at a national and European level with organisations that
represent the interests of other groups of disabled people. Furthermore,
we must do our best to reach an agreement with these organisations on a
common approach to our governments. If we don't do this, our prospects
of successfully campaigning for the implementation of the Convention in
a way that meets our requirements will be substantially diminished.
Governments will simply play one organisation or group of disabled
people off against another.
I began this presentation with a description of the way the IDC
interacted with the UN AHC. The IDC was immensely successful in
influencing the AHC. This was essential as all the power lay with the
AHC. The Caucus was so successful because we hammered out a common
approach behind closed doors and spoke with one voice to the AHC and
states' delegations privately and publicly. If this level of
collaboration can be achieved at an international level, it ought to be
possible to do it at a national level too. EBU member organisations
start with a big advantage. Through the work of the EBU Rights
Commission, we know exactly what we wish to gain from the Convention.
That will strengthen our ability to negotiate with other disability
organisations. In the final analysis though, what is important is not
what we expect to gain, but what it is possible to gain! Working
collaboratively with representative organisations serving the interests
of other groups of disabled people, we may have the strength to persuade
our governments that full implementation of the Convention is in
everyone's interest. Only then will we be empowered to take a full part
in the life of our families, our communities and our society.
Disclaimer: This document has been supported by the European
Commission. The content of this document is the sole responsibility of its
publishers and represents in no way the views of the Commission and its
services.