Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A New Human Rights Model of Disability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Abstract

Disability studies provide the theoretical background for what we call the shift from the medical to the social model of disability. The social model of disability was developed as a critique to the medical model of disability. However, within disability studies, the social model of disability has been almost as strongly criticized as the medical model of disability. Michael Oliver, one of the founding fathers of the social model of disability, has recently called for a halt to this criticism, unless someone can come up with a better alternative. The CRPD offers such an alternative: the human rights model of disability. It is by no means the only alternative to the social model of disability (many models have been developed, among them recently the capability approach model), but the human rights model is an improvement on the social model of disability, and it is a tool to implement the CRPD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Oliver (2013), p. 1026.

  2. 2.

    Mitra (2006).

  3. 3.

    Oliver (1990).

  4. 4.

    Dhanda (2007), pp. 429–462.

  5. 5.

    Kayess and French (2008), pp. 1–24; Trömel (2009), pp. 115–138.

  6. 6.

    The term ‘human rights model’ was already used in the run-up to the CRPD negotiations, e.g. by Degener and Quinn (2002), p. 13, and in Quinn and Degener (2002), p. 14.

  7. 7.

    Other models are, e.g., the normalization principle, the minority model, or the Nordic relational model, Traustadottir (2009).

  8. 8.

    Oliver (1996), p. 33.

  9. 9.

    Article 1 of the CRPD.

  10. 10.

    The “International Bill of Rights” is the collective term for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

  11. 11.

    Article 1 of the UDHR says that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

  12. 12.

    Preamble, para. (c), of the CRPD.

  13. 13.

    Preamble, para. ( j), of the CRPD.

  14. 14.

    Article 12, paras. 1 and 2, of the CRPD.

  15. 15.

    Oliver (1990), p. 63.

  16. 16.

    Waddington (2006); Degener and Quinn (2002); Lawson (2008); Lawson and Gooding (2005).

  17. 17.

    Finkelstein (2007); Priestley (2005), p. 23.

  18. 18.

    Degener and Quinn (2002), p. 6; Gooding (1994), pp. 10–13; Barnes (1991).

  19. 19.

    European Disability Strategy 2010–2020.

  20. 20.

    Oliver (1990), p. 112.

  21. 21.

    Davis (1997).

  22. 22.

    Oliver (1990) p. 83.

  23. 23.

    Breslin and Yee (2002); Lawson and Gooding (2005); Vanhala (2011).

  24. 24.

    Hvinden (2009), pp. 5–28.

  25. 25.

    Degener (1991); Power et al. (2013); Townsley (2010).

  26. 26.

    For an illustrative account of the political history of human rights, see Normand and Zaidi (2008).

  27. 27.

    Article 12 of the CRPD.

  28. 28.

    Article 16 of the ICCPR, Article 6 of the UDHR.

  29. 29.

    Article 19 of the CRPD.

  30. 30.

    Which in some countries was part of the disability rights movement; in other countries, it was not.

  31. 31.

    Degener and Koster-Dreese (1995); Parker (2011); Quinn and Doyle (2012).

  32. 32.

    Article 13, para. 1, of the UDHR: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of each State.” See also Article 12, para. 1, of the ICCPR, Article 5, para. (d) (i), of the CERD, Article 15, para. 4, of the CEDAW.

  33. 33.

    Article 11 of the ICESCR.

  34. 34.

    CESCR, General Comment No. 5: Persons with Disabilities, E/1995/22, December 9, 1994, para. 33.

  35. 35.

    For example: Townsley (2010); Quinn and Doyle (2012); Parker (2011); Mansell et al. (2007); FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2012).

  36. 36.

    Parker (2011); Quinn and Doyle (2012).

  37. 37.

    Article 4, para. 2, of the CRPD reads: “With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, each State Party undertakes to take measures to the maximum of its available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights, without prejudice to those obligations contained in the present Convention that are immediately applicable according to international law.”

  38. 38.

    Morris (1991), p. 10.

  39. 39.

    Morris (2001), p. 17.

  40. 40.

    Corker and French (1999), p. 6.

  41. 41.

    Hughes and Paterson (1997).

  42. 42.

    Shakespeare (2014), pp. 72–91.

  43. 43.

    Oliver (1990), p. 38.

  44. 44.

    Oliver (1990), p. 42.

  45. 45.

    Preamble, para ( j), of the CRPD.

  46. 46.

    Petersen (2012), pp. 1–9.

  47. 47.

    Articles 1 and 3, para. (a), of the CRPD.

  48. 48.

    Preamble, para. (h), of the CRPD.

  49. 49.

    Article 8, para. 1 (a), of the CRPD.

  50. 50.

    Article 16, para. 4, of the CRPD.

  51. 51.

    Article 24, para. 1 (a), of the CRPD.

  52. 52.

    Article 25, para. (d), of the CRPD.

  53. 53.

    Preamble, para. (a), of the CRPD.

  54. 54.

    Honneth (1996).

  55. 55.

    Watson (2004), pp. 101–117; Danermark and Gellerstedt (2004).

  56. 56.

    For a combination of capabilities and other approaches, see Stein (2007).

  57. 57.

    Ladd (2003); Corker (1996).

  58. 58.

    WBU (http://www.worldblindunion.org/English/Pages/default.aspx), WFD (http://wfdeaf.org/).

  59. 59.

    Beresford (2004).

  60. 60.

    Asch and Fine (1997); Wendell (1997); Garland Thomson (1997); Morris (2001).

  61. 61.

    Bell (2011).

  62. 62.

    Vernon (1998).

  63. 63.

    Silvers (1999); Shakespeare (2014), pp. 92–110.

  64. 64.

    Burke (2010); Bob (2009).

  65. 65.

    Mégret (2008), p. 495.

  66. 66.

    Gould (2004), p. 77.

  67. 67.

    Intersex or transgender people, as well as gay and lesbians, are yet to be explicitly included in international human rights law. See Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, UN Doc A/HRC/19/41, November 17, 2011.

  68. 68.

    Degener (2011); Bond (2003).

  69. 69.

    Article 6 and Article 7 of the CRPD.

  70. 70.

    Preamble, paras. (p), (q), (r), (s); Article 3, paras. (g) and (h); Article 4, para. 3; Article 8, para. 2 (b); Article 13; Article 16, paras. 2, 3, 5; Article 18; Article 23, paras. 1 (b) and (c), para. 3, para. 5; Article 25, para. (b); Article 28; Article 29; Article 34 of the CRPD.

  71. 71.

    Preamble, para. (p), of the CRPD.

  72. 72.

    Article 30, para. 4, of the CRPD.

  73. 73.

    Article 24, paras. 3 (a) and (b), of the CRPD.

  74. 74.

    Kauppinen and Jokinen (2014); Grandia (2014).

  75. 75.

    Oliver (1990), pp. 54–59.

  76. 76.

    Degener and Köbsell (1992); Parens and Asch (2000); Silvers et al. (1998); Saxton (2000); Morris (1991).

  77. 77.

    The Holy See is a UN Observer State, and its delegation took a very active role in this matter.

  78. 78.

    WPA A/37/351/Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1, annex.

  79. 79.

    WPA para. 13 and 52–56; StRE para. 22.

  80. 80.

    WPA para. 55 (emphasis added).

  81. 81.

    Degener (2001), p. 278; Nagase (1995).

  82. 82.

    Preamble, para. (f), of the CRPD.

  83. 83.

    Trömel (2009), p. 120.

  84. 84.

    Article 12 of the ICESCR.

  85. 85.

    Shakespeare (2014).

  86. 86.

    World Health Organisation/World Bank (2011), pp. 57–60.

  87. 87.

    Article 25, para. (b), of the CRPD.

  88. 88.

    Oliver (1990), pp. 12–13.

  89. 89.

    Shakespeare (2014), pp. 34–35.

  90. 90.

    World Health Organisation/World Bank (2011), pp. 10–11.

  91. 91.

    Barnes and Mercer (2005), p. 15; Driedger (1989); Watermeyer (2006), pp. 206–259; Priestley (2001); Stone (1999); Albert (2006).

  92. 92.

    Braithwaite and Mont (2008).

  93. 93.

    Trömel (2009), p. 132.

  94. 94.

    It is worth noting that because consensus could not be reached on a reference to foreign occupation in the treaty—initially in article 11, later in the preamble—this issue was the only part of the text that had to be adopted by a vote. For details, see Trömel (2009), p. 125.

  95. 95.

    Kayess and French (2008), p. 7.

  96. 96.

    Concluding Observations on the initial report of Argentina as approved by the Committee at its eighth session (17–28 September 2012), CRPD/C/ARG/CO/1, 2012, October 8, paras. 7–8; Concluding Observations on the initial report of China, adopted by the Committee at its eighth session (17–28 September 2012), CRPD/C/CHN/CO/1, October 15, 2012, paras. 9–10, 16, 54.

References

  • Albert B (2006) In or out of the mainstream? Lessons from research on disability and development cooperation. Disability Press, Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch A, Fine M (1997) Nurturance, sexuality, and women with disabilities. In: Davis LJ (ed) The disability studies reader. Routledge, New York, pp. 241–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes C (1991) Disabled people in Britain and discrimination. A case for anti-discrimination legislation. C. Hurst & Co., University of Calgary Press in association with the British Council of Organizations of Disabled People, London, Calgary, Alta

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes C, Mercer G (2005) The social model of disability. Disability Press, Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell CM (2011) Blackness and disability. Critical examinations and cultural interventions. Michigan State University Press, Lit. Verlag, East Lansing, Münster

    Google Scholar 

  • Beresford P (2004) Madness, distress, research and a social model. In: Barnes C, Mercer G (eds) Implementing the social model of disability. Theory and research. Disability Press, Leeds, pp 208–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Bob C (ed) (2009) The international struggle for new human rights. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond JE (2003) International intersectionality: a theoretical and pragmatic exploration of women’s international human rights violations. Emory Law J 52(1):71–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite J, Mont D (2008) Disability and poverty: a survey of world bank poverty assessments and implications. SP Discussion Paper No 0805. World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslin ML, Yee S (2002) Disability rights law and policy. Transnational, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke R (2010) Decolonization and the evolution of international human rights. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Corker M (1996) Deaf transitions. Images and origins of deaf families, deaf communities and deaf identities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Corker M, French S (1999) Disability discourse. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Danermark B, Gellerstedt LC (2004) Social justice: redistribution and recognition – a non-reductionist perspective on disability. Disabil Soc 19(4):339–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis LJ (1997) The disability studies reader. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener T (1991) Personal assistance services and laws: a commentary. In: Rehabilitation International/World Institute on Disability (eds) International symposium on personal assistance models. Oakland, CA, 28–30 September 1991. World Institute on Disability. Rehabilitation International, pp 15–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener T (2001) Disabled women and international human rights. In: Askin KD, Koenig DM (eds) Women and international human rights law, vol 3. Transnational, Ardsley, pp 267–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener T (2011) Intersections between disability, race and gender in discrimination law. In: Schiek D, Lawson A (eds) European Union non-discrimination law and intersectionality. Ashgate, Burlington, pp 29–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener T, Köbsell S (1992) Hauptsache es ist gesund? Konkret Literatur, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener T, Koster-Dreese Y (1995) Human rights and disabled persons: essays and relevant human rights instruments. International studies in human rights, vol 40. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Degener T, Quinn G (2002) A survey of international, comparative and regional disability law reform. In: Yee S, Breslin ML (eds) Disability rights law and policy. International and national perspectives. Transnational, New York, pp 3–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanda A (2007) Legal capacity in the disability rights Convention. Syracuse J Int’l L & Com 37:429–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Driedger D (1989) The last civil rights movement. Disabled Peoples’ International. Hurst & Company, St. Martin’s Press, London, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein V (2007) The ‘Social Model of Disability’ and the Disability Movement. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/The%20Social%20Model%20of%20Disability%20and%20the%20Disability%20Movement.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2015

  • FRA-European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2012) Choice and control: the right to independent living. Experiences of persons with intellectual disabilities and persons with mental health problems in nine EU member states. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland Thomson R (1997) Feminist theory, the body, and the disabled figure. In: Davis LJ (ed) The disability studies reader. Routledge, New York, pp 279–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding C (1994) Disabling laws, enabling acts. Disability rights in Britain and America. Pluto Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould CC (2004) Globalizing democracy and human rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grandia L (2014) Imagine to be part of this. In: Sabatello M, Schulze M (eds) Human rights and disability advocacy, 1st edn. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 146–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Honneth A (1996) The struggle for recognition. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes B, Paterson K (1997) The social model of disability and the disappearing body: towards a sociology of impairment. Disabil Soc 12(3):325–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvinden R (2009) Redistributive and regulatory disability provision: incompatibility or synergy? In: Quinn G, Waddington L (eds) European yearbook of disability law, vol 1, Intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford, Portland, pp 5–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauppinen L, Jokinen M (2014) Including deaf culture and linguistic rights. In: Sabatello M, Schulze M (eds) Human rights and disability advocacy, 1st edn. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 131–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayess R, French P (2008) Out of darkness into light? Hum Rights Law Rev 1:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd P (2003) Understanding deaf culture. In search of deafhood. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Buffalo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson A (2008) Disability and equality law in Britain. The role of reasonable adjustment. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson L, Gooding C (2005) Disability rights in Europe. From theory to practice. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansell J et al (2007) Deinstitutionalization and community living. Tizard Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2008) The disabilities Convention: human rights of persons with disabilities or disability rights? Hum Rights Quart 30(2):494–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra S (2006) The capability approach and disability. J Disabil Policy Stud 16(4):236–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris J (1991) Pride against prejudice. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris J (2001) Impairment and disability: constructing an ethics of care which promotes human rights. Hypatia 16(4):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagase O (1995) Difference, equality and disabled people. Disability rights and disability culture. Master Thesis, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Normand R, Zaidi S (2008) Human rights at the UN. The political history of universal justice. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver M (1990) The politics of disablement. A sociological approach. St. Martin’s Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver M (1996) Understanding disability. From theory to practice. St. Martin’s Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver M (2013) The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disabil Soc 28(7):1024–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parens E, Asch A (2000) Prenatal testing and disability rights. Georgetown University Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker C (2011) A community for all: implementing Article 19. A guide for monitoring progress on the implementation of Article 19 CRPD. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/community-for-all-checklist-20111202_0.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2015

  • Petersen N (2012) Human dignity, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopaedia of public international law, Oxford University Press, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Power A, Lord JE, DeFranco AS (2013) Active citizenship and disability. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley M (2001) Disability and the life course. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Priestley M (2005) We’re all Europeans Now! The social model of disability and european social policy. In: Barnes C, Mercer G (eds) The social model of disability. Disability Press, Leeds, pp 17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn G, Degener T (2002) Human rights and disability. The current use and future potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of disability. OHCHR, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn G, Doyle S (2012) Getting a life. Living independently and being included in the community. A legal study to the current use and future potential of the EU structural funds to contribute to the achievement of Article 19 CRPD. http://www.nuigalway.ie/cdlp/documents/getting_a_life_art_19_crpd_and_eu_structural_funds.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2015

  • Saxton M (2000) Why members of the disability community oppose prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. In: Parens E, Asch A (eds) Prenatal testing and disability rights. Georgetown University Press, Washington, pp 147–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare T (2014) Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvers A (1999) Triple difference: disability, race, gender and the politics of recognition. In: Marks LAB, Jones M (eds) Disability, divers-ability and legal change. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 75–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvers A, Wasserman DT, Mahowald MB (1998) Disability, difference, discrimination. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein MA (2007) Disability human rights. Calif Law Rev 95:75–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone E (1999) Disability and development. Disability Press, Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsley R (2010) The implementation of policies supporting independent living for disabled people in Europe. http://www.disability-europe.net/theme/independent-living. Accessed 27 Feb 2015

  • Traustadottir R (2009) Disability studies, the social model and legal developments. In: Arnadóttir OM, Quinn G (eds) The UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Trömel S (2009) A personal perspective on the drafting history of the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In: Quinn G, Waddington L (eds) European yearbook of disability law, vol 1. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland, pp 115–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhala L (2011) Making rights a reality? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon A (1998) Multiple oppression and the disabled people’s movement. In: Shakespeare T (ed) The disability reader, 2nd edn. Cassell, New York, pp 201–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington L (2006) From Rome to Nice in a wheelchair. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Watermeyer B (2006) Disability and social change. HSRC Press, Cape Town

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson N (2004) The dialectics of disability: a social model for the 21st century? In: Barnes C, Mercer G (eds) Implementing the social model of disability. The Disability Press, Leeds, pp 101–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendell S (1997) Toward a feminist theory of disability. In: Davis LJ (ed) The disability studies reader. Routledge, New York, pp 260–278

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organisation/World Bank (2011) World report on disability. http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2015

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bochum Center for Disability Studies (BODYS), Protestant University of Applied Sciences Rhineland-Westphalia-Lippe, Bochum, Germany

    Theresia Degener

Authors
  1. Theresia Degener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theresia Degener .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Valentina Della Fina

  2. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Rachele Cera

  3. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Giuseppe Palmisano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Degener, T. (2017). A New Human Rights Model of Disability. In: Della Fina, V., Cera, R., Palmisano, G. (eds) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43788-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43790-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation