Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Introduction 1 Regional instruments: between the CIADDIS and the CRPD 2.1 CIADDIS and CRPD: significance and limits 2.2 The OAS Programs of Action and the emerging concept of 'inclusive sustainability' 2 Country situation 2.1 North America 2.2 South America 3 Enforcing disability rights via the IAComHR and IACtHR 3.1 Sources: systemic limits and methodology 3.1 Jurisprudence Conclusion section examines the four largest countries by population in the region, notably, the United States of America (US), Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. 6The third section explores the enforcement of disability rights via key cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IAComHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). The purpose is providing a comprehensive understanding of disability rights in the region and identifying key regulatory problems and ways forward.1 Regional instruments: between the CIADDIS and the CRPD CIADDIS and CRPD: significance and limitsAmerican States are subject to disability regulation, on the one hand, via instruments under general international law, and, on the other, via regional instruments adopted in the context of the OAS. Since 1948, the OAS has promoted inter-State cooperation, particularly via the General Assembly, and rights-enforcement, particularly via the IAComHR and IACtHR. The principal regulatory instrument of the OAS in the area of fundamental rights is the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR: Pact of San José), 7 which is complemented by the 1988 San Salvador Protocol on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (SSP) 8 and spells out in detail the 1948 American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (ADRDM). 9 The main regulatory instrument promoted by the OAS in the area of disability is the 1998 CIADDIS, whilst the principal general instrument on disability under international law to which American States adhere is the 2006 CRPD.The purpose of the CIADDIS is affording more specific protection for people with disabilities as compared to general human rights instruments adopted in the context of the OAS. Persons with disabilities indeed represent a specific vulnerable group and, although fundamental rights also address disabled persons, they do not address their particular needs. 10 The Convention is an OAS instrument and most American States are parties to the CIADDIS, which entered into force in 2001, following the requested number of ratifications, with the notable exceptions of Canada and the US. 11 The CIADDIS is a short text including fourteen articles, exclusively focusing on the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, aiming to foster integration in society (Article II). Under Article I, 'disability' is defined as 'a physical, mental, or sensory impairment, whether permanent or temporary, that limits the capacity to perform one or more essential activities of daily life', which 'can be caused or aggravated by the economic and social environment.' Under the same provision, 'discrimination' is defined as 'any disti...
Introduction 1 Regional instruments: between the CIADDIS and the CRPD 2.1 CIADDIS and CRPD: significance and limits 2.2 The OAS Programs of Action and the emerging concept of 'inclusive sustainability' 2 Country situation 2.1 North America 2.2 South America 3 Enforcing disability rights via the IAComHR and IACtHR 3.1 Sources: systemic limits and methodology 3.1 Jurisprudence Conclusion section examines the four largest countries by population in the region, notably, the United States of America (US), Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. 6The third section explores the enforcement of disability rights via key cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IAComHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). The purpose is providing a comprehensive understanding of disability rights in the region and identifying key regulatory problems and ways forward.1 Regional instruments: between the CIADDIS and the CRPD CIADDIS and CRPD: significance and limitsAmerican States are subject to disability regulation, on the one hand, via instruments under general international law, and, on the other, via regional instruments adopted in the context of the OAS. Since 1948, the OAS has promoted inter-State cooperation, particularly via the General Assembly, and rights-enforcement, particularly via the IAComHR and IACtHR. The principal regulatory instrument of the OAS in the area of fundamental rights is the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR: Pact of San José), 7 which is complemented by the 1988 San Salvador Protocol on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (SSP) 8 and spells out in detail the 1948 American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (ADRDM). 9 The main regulatory instrument promoted by the OAS in the area of disability is the 1998 CIADDIS, whilst the principal general instrument on disability under international law to which American States adhere is the 2006 CRPD.The purpose of the CIADDIS is affording more specific protection for people with disabilities as compared to general human rights instruments adopted in the context of the OAS. Persons with disabilities indeed represent a specific vulnerable group and, although fundamental rights also address disabled persons, they do not address their particular needs. 10 The Convention is an OAS instrument and most American States are parties to the CIADDIS, which entered into force in 2001, following the requested number of ratifications, with the notable exceptions of Canada and the US. 11 The CIADDIS is a short text including fourteen articles, exclusively focusing on the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, aiming to foster integration in society (Article II). Under Article I, 'disability' is defined as 'a physical, mental, or sensory impairment, whether permanent or temporary, that limits the capacity to perform one or more essential activities of daily life', which 'can be caused or aggravated by the economic and social environment.' Under the same provision, 'discrimination' is defined as 'any disti...
This paper starts with a dilemma. How to ensure the adequate protection of individual health data and privacy in a global pandemic, which has intensified the use of digital applications for the purposes of data sharing and contact-tracing? There is no simple answer to this question when choosing between the protection of public health and individual privacy. However, the history of the existing case-law regarding infectious diseases control, both Polish and European, teaches about numerous examples in which health data and privacy were not adequately protected, but, on the contrary, were misused leading to human rights infringements. In light of this case law and public health ethics, this paper argues radically that the use of digital applications to fight the Covid-19 pandemic has not been sufficiently justified at least in the Polish context. Especially, unconvincing benefits from the use of these tools do not outweigh the likelihood of human rights infringements with far-reaching consequences for political, social and economic rights now and in the future. In its novelty, this article combines a historical-legal method with the concept of public health ethics and a human rights-based approach and to foster further research and discussion. The text also responds to the pressing need to analyze those human rights issues embedded in the Polish reality.
This article answers the question of whether trademark regulations and case law promote the aims of international and EU law regarding the inclusion of persons with disabilities in social and economic life, which includes the involvement of persons with disabilities as consumers of goods and services, or whether they generate a conflict between the principles of trademark protection and the accessibility of trademarks for persons with disabilities. Trademark law and its interpretation is developing in parallel with the development of the concept of access and the inclusion of people with disabilities in every sphere of life. Both the content of the legislation and, in particular, trademark decisions fail to take into account the disability perspective, thus the law perpetuates an approach that denies people with disabilities the possibility to be consumers and to distinguish the origin of products to the same extent as non-disabled people. It is possible to introduce changes through minor steps in order not to revolutionise but only to complement the trademark system with a disability perspective, and thus meet the requirements of including people with disabilities in social and economic life.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.