Skip navigation links Sitemap | About us | FAQs

UN Programme on Disability   Working for full participation and equality

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.




Home | Sitemap | About us | News | FAQs | Contact us

© United Nations, 2003-04
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Division for Social Policy and Development