![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Accessibility refers to the inclusive practice of removing barriers to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities to, among others, built environments, goods and services, as well as facilities. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or Convention) formulates ‘accessibility’ as a general principle and overarching obligation of the Convention, rather than as a human right per se. This has given rise to debate regarding the normative status of accessibility . Those involved in promoting the Convention have widely asserted that the primary aim of the CRPD was not to create new rights but to ensure that existing human rights were made equally effective for persons with disabilities. On the contrary, this article hypothesises that the enactment of accessibility obligations for States Parties, falling indirectly on the private sector, results in some form of sui generis ‘entitlement’ for persons with disabilities, which can arguably be viewed as amounting to a corresponding new human right – the right to accessibility. This begs foundational and complex questions about the formation and scope of human rights norms, and in particular whether the CRPD actually creates new rights. It also raises fundamental questions regarding the relationship between rights and obligations.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Andrea Broderick is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International and European Law, Maastricht University. Andrea holds a Ph.D. in international and comparative disability equality law from Maastricht University. Her Ph.D. thesis was nominated for the Max Van der Stoel Human Rights Award 2016. She received the Edmond Hustinx Prize for Science 2018. Andrea also holds a BA International (law and French), awarded (with First Class Honours) jointly by the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) and the University of Poitiers, France. In addition, she graduated with an LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws), as well as an LL.M. in International and Comparative Disability Law and Policy, with First Class Honours, from NUIG. Andrea is also a qualified solicitor, having worked in professional legal practice for many years. Andrea’s current research interests lie in the areas of international and European disability law, EU equality law, non-state actors, the right to inclusive education and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Notes
1 John Tasioulas, ‘On the Foundations of Human Rights’, in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, ed. Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 48.
2 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 13 December 2006, in force 03 May 2008, UN Doc. A/RES/61/106, Annex I.
3 See Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment 2 on Accessibility (CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 14, 2014), where the Committee states that: ‘the right to access for persons with disabilities is ensured through strict implementation of accessibility standards’.
4 See Janet Lord, ‘Accessibility and Human Rights Fusion in the CRPD: Assessing the Scope and Content of the Accessibility Principle and Duty under the CRPD’: 7, Presentation for the General Day of Discussion on Accessibility, UN CRPD Committee, UN, Geneva, October 7, 2010, citing Gerard Quinn, ‘The Interaction of Non-discrimination with Article 9’, unpublished paper.
5 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (with annex). Concluded in Vienna on 23 May 1969, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf (accessed July 2, 2019).
6 See generally Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (New York: Cornell University Press, 1989). See also Andrew Fagan, Human Rights: Confronting Myths and Misunderstandings (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009).
7 See, for example, Bülent Algan, ‘Rethinking “Third Generation” Human Rights’, Ankara Law Review 1, no. 1 (2004): 121; See also Wiktor Osiatyński, Human Rights and their Limits (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
8 Gian Maria Greco, ‘On Accessibility as a Human Right, with an Application to Media Accessibility’, in Researching Audio Description: New Approaches, ed. Anna Matamala and Pilar Orero (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 20, citing Catherine McKinnon, Toleration: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2006).
9 Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions: as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923).
10 See generally Sandra Fredman, Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
11 On this point, see generally Pavlos Eleftheriadis, Legal Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
12 Fréderic Mégrét, ‘The Disabilities Convention: Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities or Disability Rights?’, Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2008): 507.
13 Ibid.
14 Prior to the entry into force of the CRPD, accessibility featured as part of the third goal of The World Programme of Action (WPA), entitled ‘equalization of opportunities’. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/52, World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, of 3 December 1982. Another important instrument containing a reference to the principle of accessibility is the UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Standard Rules), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993. UN General Assembly Resolution 48/96, Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, of 20 December 1993. The underlying tenets of the Standard Rules are aimed at ensuring equal access as well as participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities in mainstream society. In Rule 5 of the document, the importance of accessibility is underlined, relating to access to the physical environment and access to information and communications. General Comment No. 5 of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also highlights the emphasis that the Standard Rules place, inter alia, on accessibility measures. General Comment No. 5 also interprets Article 11 ICESCR as a right to ‘accessible housing’ and to ‘support services including assistive devices’ which enable persons with disabilities ‘to increase their level of independence in their daily living and to exercise their rights’. It recommends that States Parties ‘should promote the accessibility to and availability of places for cultural performances and services’. It also emphasises the fact that ‘the right to adequate housing includes the right to accessible housing for persons with disabilities.’ [United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 5 on Persons with Disabilities UN Doc. E/1995/22, paras. 33 and 36, 1994].
15 Under the heading of accessibility, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that the right to health in all its forms and at all levels contains the following interrelated and essential elements: Non-discrimination, physical accessibility, economic accessibility (affordability), and information accessibility. [United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14 on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 12, 2000].
16 CRPD, Preamble para. (e) states as follows: ‘Recognizing the importance of accessibility to the physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education and to information and communication, in enabling persons with disabilities to fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
17 CRPD, Article 4(1)(h).
18 Accessibility also appears in two of the Convention’s implementation measures. In that regard, see CRPD, Article 31 (‘States Parties shall assume responsibility for the dissemination of these statistics and ensure their accessibility to persons with disabilities and others’); See also CRPD, Article 32 (States Parties shall ensure ‘that international cooperation, including international development programmes, is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities’ and shall facilitate ‘cooperation in research and access to scientific and technical knowledge’).
19 CRPD, Article 21.
20 CRPD, Article 27.
21 CRPD, Article 29.
22 Francesco Seatzu, ‘Article 9 [Accessibility]’, in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A commentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera and Giuseppe Palmisano (Cham: Springer, 2017), 229.
23 Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) expressed its ‘alarm’ at that very fact, and stated that it is ‘the specification of rights that is necessary to empower [persons with disabilities] and facilitate enforcement of this obligation by individuals’. 7th Session of the Ad Hoc Committee, Volume 8(2), January 17, 2006.
24 The IDC's proposals for Article 19, including two information sheets and a draft article, can be found at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6contngos.htm and at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc7docs/ahc7idcchairamend1.doc (accessed July 2, 2019).
25 Tara Melish, ‘An Eye Towards Effective Enforcement: A Technical-Comparative Approach to the Drafting Negotiations’, in Human Rights and Disability Advocacy, ed. Maya Sabatello and Marianne Schulze (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 82.
26 Ibid.
27 See https://www.eud.eu/news/accessibility-human-right/ (accessed July 2, 2019).
28 European Economic and Social Committee. (2014). Opinion on accessibility as a human right for persons with disabilities. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013IE3000 (accessed July 2, 2019).
29 See Anna Lawson, ‘Accessibility Obligations in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Nyusti & Takacs v. Hungary’ South African Journal of Human Rights 30, no. 2 (2014): 380; See also Delia Ferri and Anna Lawson, Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled People in Employment: A legal Analysis of the Situation in EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016), 11; See also, Francesco Seatzu, who continuously refers to ‘accessibility rights’ in her writings - Seatzu, ‘Article 9 [Accessibility]’, 227/232 - where the author refers to accessibility as a ‘social economic right’. Notably, the Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee that was set up to draft the CRPD, Don MacKay, Ambassador of New Zealand, referred to accessibility as a ‘right’. Ad Hoc Committee on the Disability Convention, Daily Summaries, Sixth Session, 5 August 2005, volume 7(5).
30 Marianne Hirschberg and Christian Papadopoulos, ‘“Reasonable Accommodation” and “Accessibility”: Human Rights Instruments Relating to Inclusion and Exclusion in the Labor Market’, Societies 6, no. 1 (2016): 3.
31 General Comment 2 on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 4.
32 CRPD, Article 9(1). Emphasis added.
33 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 4.
34 Ibid., para. 14.
35 Janet Lord and Michael Stein, ‘Charting the Development of Human Rights Law through the CRPD’, in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera and Giuseppe Palmisano (Cham: Springer, 2017), 732.
36 Greco, ‘On Accessibility as a Human Right’, 22.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.
40 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 2.
41 UN General Assembly, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted in by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965).
42 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 3.
43 Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (Kehl: N.P. Engel, 2nd Edition, 2005), 605. This interpretation also accords with: Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 16: The equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights (E/C.12/2005/3, para. 9, 2005).
44 General Comment on the Equal Right of Men and Women to the Enjoyment of all Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12/2005/3, para. 7.
45 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 6 on Equality and Non-Discrimination (UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/6, para. 11, 2018).
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Andrea Broderick, The Long and Winding Road to Equality and Inclusion for Persons with Disabilities: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Cambridge-Antwerp: Intersentia 2015), 77.
49 On the social model generally, see Michael Oliver, ‘If I had a Hammer’, in Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research, ed. Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer (Leeds: The Disability Press 2004), 18–31. See also Mark Priestley, ‘Constructions and Creations: Idealism, Materialism and Disability Theory’, Disability and Society 13, no. 1 (1998): 75–94. The ‘pure’ social model has been criticised for, among other things, not taking the role of impairment properly into account in the analysis of disability. For a critique of this aspect of the social model of disability, see Deborah Marks ‘Dimensions of Oppression: Theorising the Embodied Subject’, Disability & Society 14, no. 5 (1999): 661. The social-contextual model is a more refined elaboration of the ‘pure’ social model: see Andrea Broderick, The Long and Winding Road to Equality and Inclusion for Persons with Disabilities: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Cambridge-Antwerp: Intersentia, 2015), 77; see also Andrea Broderick and Delia Ferri, International and European Disability Law and Policy: Text, Cases and Materials (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, in press). Under the social-contextual model, disability is perceived as an interactive process between people with impairments and societal barriers.
50 See paragraph (e) of the Preamble of the CRPD, which recognises that: ‘Disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’.
51 See generally Theresia Degener, ‘A New Human Rights Model of Disability’, in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities: A Commentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera, and Giuseppe Palmisano (Cham: Springer, 2017), 41–60.
52 The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) highlights the fact that guaranteeing access to education means ensuring: ‘(a) Availability; (b) Accessibility; (c) Acceptability; and (d) Adaptability’. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 13 on the right to education (E/C.12/1999/10, 1999), provides at para 6(a) that: ‘Functioning educational institutions and programmes have to be available in sufficient quantity within the jurisdiction of the State party (..)’. Ibid, para. 6(b): ‘Educational institutions and programmes have to be accessible to everyone, without discrimination, within the jurisdiction of the State party (..)’. Ibid, para. 6(c): The form and substance of education, including curricula and teaching methods, have to be acceptable (e.g. relevant, culturally appropriate and of good quality) to students and, in appropriate cases, parents (..).’ Ibid, para. 6(d): ‘Education has to be flexible so it can adapt to the needs of changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings’.
53 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 14.
54 Greco, ‘On Accessibility as a Human Right’, 20.
55 Ibid. On this point, see however Mégrét, ‘The Disabilities Convention’, 516.
56 Ibid.
57 Several authors, including Onora O’ Neill, have asserted that ‘there can be no rights unless some configuration of counterpart duties that could realise or secure them is possible.’ Onora O’Neill, ‘Response to John Tasioulas’, in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, ed. Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 48.
58 Lord, ‘Accessibility and Human Rights Fusion in the CRPD’: 7.
59 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Individual Communication: Szilvia Nyusti and Péter Takács v. Hungary (1/2010, 2013).
60 Ibid., paras. 9.2 and 9.6.
61 As Oliver de Schutter observes, the CRPD Committee has ‘clarified the State’s responsibility to prevent non-State actors from discriminating, and it has ensured that the State obligation on accessibility which is set out in the Convention is justiciable by individual applicants. Oliver Lewis, ‘Case Comment on Nyusti and Takacs v Hungary: Decision of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, European Human Rights Law Review 1 (2013): 419–24, 419.
62 Maria Ventegodt Liisberg, ‘Accessibility of Services and Discrimination: Concentricity, Consequence, and the Concept of Anticipatory Reasonable Adjustment’, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 15, no. 1–2 (2015): 123–44, 129.
63 Gerard Quinn, ‘The interaction of Non-discrimination with article 9’, unpublished paper, cited by Lord, ‘Accessibility and Human Rights Fusion in the CRPD’. For a discussion of the CRPD Committee’s failure to allude specifically to the progressively realisable nature of Article 9 CRPD in its General Comment No. 2 on Accessibility, see Anna Lawson, ‘Article 9: Accessibility’, in The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, ed. M.A. Stein, I. Bantekas and D. Anastasiou (Oxford University Press, 2018).
64 Ibid. Several scholars have written about the general interface between the intertwined norms of accessibility, reasonable accommodation and equality. See, for instance, Anna Lawson, Disability and Equality Law in Britain: The Role of Reasonable Adjustment (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Bloomsbury, 2008) and Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility Obligations: Towards a More Unified European Approach?’, European Anti-Discrimination Law Review 11 (2011): 11–21; See also Maria Ventegodt Liisberg, Disability and Employment: A Contemporary Disability Human Rights Approach Applied to Danish, Swedish and EU Law and Policy (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2011).
65 Delia Ferri, ‘The Conclusion of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the EU/EC: A Constitutional Perspective’, in European Yearbook of Disability Law 2, ed. Lisa Waddington and Gerard Quinn (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2009), 54.
66 Daily Summary of discussions at the seventh session of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Ad Hoc Committee, January 31, 2006, Volume 8(12), http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/adhoccom.htm. (accessed July 2, 2019).
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Lisa Waddington and Andrea Broderick, Disability Law and the Duty to Reasonably Accommodate Beyond Employment: A Legal Analysis of the Situation in EU Member States (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016), 45.
70 Ibid.
71 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 25.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid., para. 26.
74 Ibid., para. 25.
75 Ibid., para. 26.
76 Anna Lawson sets out the ‘close and mutually reinforcing relationship’ between reasonable accommodation and accessibility measures: ‘The disadvantage caused to a person with intellectual disabilities by inaccessible information would call for reasonable accommodation (perhaps in the form of a verbal explanation) whereas, had the information been accessible to that person (eg because it was in easy read format) there would have been no requirement for reasonable accommodation’. Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Non-Discrimination in Employment: Rising to the Challenges?’, in Disability Law and Policy: An Analysis of the UN Convention, ed. Charles O’Mahony and Gerard Quinn (Dublin: Clarus Press, 2017), 366; See further Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility Obligations: Towards a More Unified European Approach?’, European Anti-Discrimination Law Review 11 (2011): 11–21.
77 Rosemary Kayess and Philip French, ‘Out of Darkness Into Light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, Human Rights Law Review 8, no. 1 (2008): 1, 9.
78 Jenny Goldschmidt has stated that a clear example of third party benefits arising from the reasonable accommodation duty can be seen in the US context under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In that regard, she states that when the Metropolitan Transport Agency in Washington, DC was under an obligation to make the public transport system (including platforms, exits and trains) accessible for people with disabilities, ‘they subsequently noticed that the metro was used much more by fathers and mothers with prams, and this led to far more profit than expected’. Jenny Goldschmidt, ‘Shifting the Burden of Proof: How the CRPD is Transforming our Understanding of Discrimination, Intersectionality and Priorities’, in Disability and Human Rights: Legal, Ethical and Conceptual Implications of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ed. Joel Anderson and Jos Philips (Netherlands Institute of Human Rights: SIM Special 35, 2012), 52.
79 See generally Rosemary Kayess and Philip French, in their article: Kayess and French, ‘Out of Darkness Into Light?’, 10.
80 Waddington and Broderick, Disability Law and the Duty to Reasonably Accommodate, 45.
81 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 31. Emphasis added.
82 Unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary’ (proportional). This is the definition of indirect discrimination according to European Union law. See further, Justyna Maliszewska-Nienartowicz, ‘Direct and Indirect Discrimination in European Union Law - How to Draw a Dividing Line?’ International Journal of Social Sciences 3, no. 1 (2014): 41-55.
83 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 28.
84 See further, European Network for Accessible Tourism, Joint Report on Accessibility in built environment (2011), document no. CEN/BT/WG 207, http://www.lhac.eu/resources/news/cen_joint_report.pdf (accessed July 2, 2019); See also, Zero Project, International Study on the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Focus of the Year 2014 on Accessibility (2014), http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/egm2014/Fembek.pdf (accessed July 2, 2019).
85 The comments by the CRPD Committee on existing barriers seem to contrast with its more ‘radical’ findings in the individual communication against Hungary, outlined above.
86 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 14.
87 Individual Communication: Szilvia Nyusti and Péter Takács v. Hungary (1/2010, para. 10(2)(a), 2013).
88 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 24.
89 Ibid.
90 Individual Communication: F v Austria (21/2014, para. 8.5, 2014).
91 Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities (E/CN.4/2002/18/Add.1, 2002).
92 Mégrét, ‘The Disabilities Convention’, 498.
93 Elif Celik, ‘The Role of CRPD in Rethinking the Subject of Human Rights’, The International Journal of Human Rights 21, no. 7 (2017): 934/935.
94 Mégrét, ‘The Disabilities Convention’, 510.
95 Paul Harpur, ‘Embracing the New Disability Rights Paradigm: The Importance of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, Disability and Society 27, no. 1 (2012): 1, 2.
96 As well as the clear justiciability inherent in Article 9 CRPD, one can argue that Article 19 CRPD also constitutes a new human right. Theresia Degener has argued that Article 19 ‘has no clear equivalent in binding pre-treaty law’ and is not rooted ‘in mainstream human rights philosophy’. Theresia Degener, ‘Disability in a Human Rights Context’, Laws no. 5(3), 35 (2016): 5. Degener claims that ‘the common catalogue of human rights of the UDHR does not contain a right to independent or community living’ and that ‘the concept derives from the disability rights movement and other social movements such as the deinstitutionali[s]ation movement, which came into being in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, Scandinavia, Italy and many other countries’. Ibid., 6.
97 Broderick, The Long and Winding Road, 66.
98 Ibid., 67.
99 As the UNCESCR has previously acknowledged in its General Comment 5 on persons with disabilities: ‘The obligation in the case of such a vulnerable and disadvantaged group [as persons with disabilities]’ is to take positive action to reduce structural disadvantages and to give appropriate preferential treatment to people with disabilities […]. This almost invariably means that additional resources will need to be made available for this purpose and that a wide range of specially tailored measures will be required’. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment 5 on persons with disabilities, E/1995/22, para. 9.
100 Ron McCallum, Opening remarks at the General Day of Discussion on Accessibility of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Geneva, October 7, 2010).
101 Lord, ‘Accessibility and Human Rights Fusion in the CRPD’: 6.
102 Colm O’ Cinneide, ‘Extracting Protection for Persons with Disabilities from Human Rights Frameworks: Established Limits and New Possibilities’, in The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives, ed. Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir and Gerard Quinn (Antwerp: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), 164.
103 See generally Mégrét, ‘The Disabilities Convention’.
104 Bruce Porter, ‘The Reasonableness of Article 8(4) - Adjudicating Claims from the Margins’, Nordisk Tidsskrift for Menneskerettigheter 27, no. 1 (2009): 39, 42.