The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Global South

Abstract

Despite the many successes of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, the treaty has yet to be as influential as it ought to be for eighty percent of the world’s more than one billion disabled people living in the Global South (or, developing world) relative to those living in the Global North (or, developed world). This Article critiques the manner in which the trajectory of the drafting process tilted from Global South priorities and perspectives toward those of Global North States and Disabled Peoples’ Organizations (DPOs). This is illustrated by the pervasively developed world view that prioritized the role of deinstitutionalization over family support when construing the right to independent living in the community, while also evincing an almost total disdain for many developing world considerations, including the rights to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene and the removal of landmines.

These power imbalances could have been mitigated, if not rectified, by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee), the body tasked with monitoring the treaty. The CRPD Committee is required to be geographically representative and inclusive, and is elected and guided by the Conference of States Parties to the CRPD, which itself is comprised by a majority of developing states; consequently, the Committee’s members have been chosen predominately from the Global South. Despite opportunities for responding to concerns relevant to the developing world through Concluding Observations (COs), the CRPD Committee has made only tentative and uneven efforts to advance the rights of persons with disabilities living in the Global South. We therefore propose constructive avenues through which, in fulfilment of its institutional duty, the Committee can and should make the CRPD increasingly responsive to the Global South and thus more truly representative of the vast majority of persons with disabilities worldwide. In addition to honoring its governance mandate, doing so would help mitigate the prevailing bias in human rights discourse and practice favoring the Global North.