Part II The law: International human rights law and disability Section I Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Given that the purpose of the Convention is to achieve equal enjoyment of all existing rights, it made sense for those who drafted it to identify the obstacles to the enjoyment of specific rights and to include specific obligations to deal with those obstacles, article by article. The general obligations of States to reform laws, policies and practices (article 4) is, therefore, accompanied by specific obligations in each substantive article, depending on the subject area. 3.2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE UN CRPD The rights and obligations in the UN CRPD are underpinned by a set of indivisible and interdependent principles in article 3. They are grounded in existing international human rights law and were framed in light of historical problems relating to disability. Since these principles give life to the spirit of the Convention, it is useful to refer to them when in doubt about the meaning of specific articles. As set out under article 3, these principles are rather undifferentiated. One way of thinking about them – and there are different ways – is to reflect on the principles in light of the shift from the ‘medical model’ of disability to the ‘social model’ and now to the ‘human rights model’. Dignity (article 3(a)): This underscores inherent and equal worth of each human being, regardless of disability. It reinforces the point that persons with disabilities must be seen as full ‘subjects’ and not as ‘objects’ to be cared for or managed by others.82 Autonomy (article 3(a)): This underscores the right of each person to chart their own life course and make their own autonomous decisions. It reinforces the point that the person is an end in themselves and is capable of choosing their own ends in a wide variety of dimensions to their personal lives.83 Equality of opportunity and non-discrimination (article 3(e)): This underscores the point that not only do persons with disabilities have their own personhood and autonomy, all rights must be afforded to them on an equal basis as others. Again, the concept of equality can be seen as central to the entire Convention.84 Respect for difference (article 3(d)): This underscores the point that the material ‘difference’ of disability, such as it is, is to be viewed positively and not negatively. Accordingly, any temptation to use the material ‘difference’ of intellectual disability, for example, to justify the segregation of persons with disabilities must be resisted. Respect for intersecting identities (article 3(g), (h)). This underscores the importance of recognising equality between men and women and respect for the rights of the child. It highlights the malleable nature of human identity, where a wide range of personal characteristics, including gender and age, can overlap. This understanding gives us another window through which to ‘see’ – and seek to reverse – accumulated disadvantages that may have accrued through multiple discrimination in the past.85 Full and effective participation and inclusion in society (article 3(c)): This point serves to underscore the reality, for everyone, that it is through social interaction that we become fully human and grow over time. Having this possibility adds to the quality of our lives. It follows, therefore, that a comprehensive public policy commitment to social – as well as economic and public – inclusion is necessary in order to “achieve full and equal enjoyment of all human rights” (article 1).86 82 See, generally, M. Rosen, Dignity, Its History and Meaning, 2012; and C. McCrudden, Understanding Human Dignity, 2013. 83 For a useful introduction to the concept of autonomy, see G. Dworkin, The Theory and Practice of Autonomy, 1988. A useful think tank on the application of autonomy in the context of disability can be found at Essex University: see http://autonomy.essex.ac.uk. 84 The previously noted essay by Prof. Arnardottir is probably the best explication of the fit between equality theory (and its many layers). See ‘A Future of Multidimensional Disadvantage: Equality?’ in O. Arnardottir and G. Quinn (eds.), The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives, 2009, pp. 41-66. 85 For a more detailed discussion on intersectionality, see Equal Rights Review, Vol. 16, 2016; available at www.equalrightstrust.org/ news/equal-rights-review-vol-16-here-focus-intersectionality. 86 See generally, A. Rimmerman, Social Inclusion of people with Disabilities: National and International Perspectives, 2013. Chapter 3: Overview of the purpose, content and structure of the Convention | 39