Back to: Daily
Summaries
Ad Hoc Committee Main
Daily summary of discussions
TITLE
UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee - Daily Summary
A service made possible by Landmine Survivors Network *
[Disclaimer]
Volume 5, #1
August 23, 2004
MORNING SESSION
MONITORING (Article 25)
TITLE
Intervening States were almost unanimous in calling for a shorter title
for the Convention.
New Zealand stated that the title was “too wordy and
excessively formal” and was a barrier to easily understanding what the
convention is all about. It supported the approach adopted in the Convention
on the Rights of the Child and proposed a new title: “Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Yemen stressed that the title was too long and suggested
a shorter new title: “The International Convention for the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities.”
China supported a simple and clear title. The proposed
title, “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” reflecting
the approach adopted for the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
is a “very good” one.
Bahrain noted the title was “quite long” and endorsed
the proposal by Yemen.
The Netherlands (on behalf of the EU) proposed “International
Convention on the Full and Equal Enjoyment of all Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms by PWD,” which parallels the EU proposal on Article 1 (Purpose).
The EU opposed a title referring to the protection and promotion of
disability rights as it may imply that not all rights apply to PWD or
that some rights exclusively apply to PWD and not to others.
Morocco supported Yemen’s proposal for a shorter title.
Thailand supported New Zealand’s proposal, and did
not think it would create confusion in relation to new rights.
Lebanon supported New Zealand’s proposal, but opposed
adding other references, such as “freedoms”. If a shorter title is not
adopted, the existing one should be retained.
South Africa proposed “An International Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ICRPD).”
Russian Federation supported New Zealand’s proposal.
Costa Rica supported “International Convention on the
Rights of PWD” as a shorter title and denied that this would give rise
to the erroneous idea that these are new rights.
Japan called for a shorter title.
El Salvador proposed: “International Convention to
Protect the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.”
Kenya proposed: “The International Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Guatemala supported the New Zealand proposal.
Republic of Korea agreed with the EU that the title
should capture the essence of the convention. It proposed: “International
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Tanzania proposed: “International Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Mali proposed: “International Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities.”
Canada acknowledged the reasoning put forward by the
EU but felt that these concerns will be addressed. It therefore supported
the New Zealand proposal, which would keep the title short and concise.
India supported the EU proposal.
Egypt noted that preference for a long title would
lead to endless negotiations among States before consensus was reached
and that a short title was therefore preferred. The New Zealand proposal
adequately responded to the EU concerns. As a compromise solution the
term “equal” could be added – “International Convention on the Equal
Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Mexico supported the Sierra Leone proposal in AHC3,
which ensured the inclusion of certain important concepts, like “dignity”
in the title.
The Phillipines did not object to the current title
given that it would not impact the operative parts of the convention,
but would support any formulation of the three main proposals from the
EU, Yemen and New Zealand.
Sierra Leone amended its proposal from AHC3 reflecting
its support for the NZ proposal: “International Convention on the Promotion
and Protection of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.”
Burkina Faso supported the New Zealand proposal.
Cameroon supported a “concise” title as follows: “The
International Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons.”
Non-Governmental Organizations:
South Africa Human Rights Commission (representing National
Human Rights Institutions) supported the New Zealand proposal
because it “goes along way in popularizing the convention that we are
seeking to develop.”
Disabled Peoples’ International supported the shorter
title: “International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,”
which was important for memory recall and other reasons.
World Blind Union supported the New Zealand proposal.
|
