Back to: Third Session of the Ad Hoc Committee
Daily summary of discussions
Daily
summary of discussions related to
ARTICLE 3: DEFINITIONS
UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Third session of the Ad Hoc Committee - Daily Summary
A service made possible by Landmine Survivors Network *
Volume 4, #1
May 24, 2004
AFTERNOON SESSION
Commenced: 3:06 pm
Adjourned: 6 pm
New Zealand (NZ) favored postponing discussion on
Article 3 since many of the terms may be defined in art as discussion
proceeds through the draft, and would not need separate definition in
Article 3. Thos would avoid unnecessary work as many terms may not appear
in the final text.
The European Union (EU) agreed in general with the
NZ view, stating that if there are to be definitions of terms and concepts,
it is best if defined in the Article where that term first occurs rather
than being placed in a separate context. They felt that trying to define
disability would be problematic, unnecessary for purpose of a convention,
so would prefer no specific Article on definitions.
South Africa, speaking as the Coordinator of the African
Group, suggested a more generic model of definitions, as opposed to
a medical model, and in the broad context of persons with disabilities
(PWD) instead of disability alone. Concern was expressed that if the
AHC defines disabilities, it might be problematic.
Yemen, suggested that a separate list of terms could
be annexed to the Convention rather than devoting a separate article
to definitions. It also supported a social model versus a medical model
of disability, but added that a definition may lead into “lexicographic
waters.”
The Russian Federation argued it was inappropriate
to define disability, since different countries' laws approach this
term in different ways, and a number of labor organization conventions
deal with this as well.
The Holy See stated a necessity for some definitional
terms, but also for openness and flexibility as the drafting process
proceeds -- especially for terms not appearing in any juridical instrument.
Japan expressed concern that if the Convention's definitions
of disability and PWD do not correspond to various countries' definitions,
it may be more difficult to obligate those governments to implement
its provisions.
A delegate suggested that the issue should be deferred, at the Chair’s
discretion, to set aside time in a later committee session to deal specifically
with definitions, with submission of written proposals to enhance debate,
in addition to the current notes, footnotes, and Working Group draft.
Canada questioned the need for a definitions section
at all, or a definition of disabilities -- suggesting going through
the text first, then revisiting it to see if a definition of disability
is necessary or possible. Specifically, it would be helpful to look
at it in a small group where the necessary technical expertise would
be available.
Australia suggested there might be some merit to addressing
terms in the context that they appear; however “disability” is already
in the Convention title, and it may not be useful to address definitions
at this stage.
South Africa supported the need for an opportunity
to address a definitions section during this Ad Hoc meeting, feeling
it is the time to derive a number of definitions as referred to in the
Working Group (WG) draft text. Norway supported Canada, NZ and EU’s
position of deferral of definition discussion to a later date. Colombia
said that the subject of definitions would be crucial as member states
seek to build a convention. Their suggestion was to set aside time,
either in a small group or in the regular session, but to discuss the
issue and build compromise around it would be beneficial.
The Chair postponed discussion of Definitions noting
that “a series of delegations voiced feeling that deferring this article
is imperative because the following articles will tackle related matters,
and it is not appropriate here and now to hammer this out until we deal
with other issues. It will be taken up later, but not this present session.”
* Disclaimer
|