Daily Summary related to the PREAMBLE
Prepared by Landmine Survivors Network

Volume 3, #7
January 13, 2004

Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3.17 pm
Adjourned: 6.00 pm

PREAMBLE

DPI noted that at the minimum, the Preamble should make a clear link between binding and nonbinding human rights documents such as the UNSR and reflecting prior developments in international law. None of the Preamble drafts refer to the paradigm shift in thinking about disability, which are “at the root of our discussions here.” There should be clear reference to the shift away from the medical / charity models.

Inclusion International called the Preamble the right place to stress our vision – that persons with all types of disability should be accepted as “full citizens of their countries with equal rights and opportunities” and the need to eliminate discrimination globally.

WNUSP was “strongly opposed” to any reference to previous medical model UN documents that have not been accepted by the relevant DPOs, or have been in fact rejected for their “substandard protections”, such as the Principles on the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness. While the Preamble is not binding, it can be a guide to the spirit of the convention particularly by a treaty monitoring body, and in this respect should cite some relevant human rights documents that are “in keeping with our vision”.

The Inter-American Institute on Disability suggested 2 preliminary proposals on draft text: 1. “Recognising that conditions of poverty seriously affect PWD, especially in developing countries”; 2. “Recognising the importance of international cooperation as an appropriate means for achieving the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms for PWD, in particular those living in developing countries.”

Ireland supported the Preamble put forward by the EU (pg 9 Compilation) and provided a brief comparative analysis between the EU (numbered) and Chair’s text (lower case letters). 1. generally corresponded with the link back to the UN Charter in (a); 2. the concept of universality is emphasized in the EU text; listing the types of discrimination as (b) does is too specific at this point; 2 and 3. in keeping with the EU’s approach to the convention overall, to ensure effective enjoyment of existing rights by emphasizing measures of implementation and avoiding mention of new rights, it specifies the 6 major human rights instruments in more detail than (d) and cites the example of the CRC; 4. echoing the position of the WNUSP, the EU text did not wish to cite the list of UN instruments, that have now been superseded; 5. the UNSR is highlighted as in (d), but with an action orientation, specifying its call for measures; 6. the EU’s text here ‘shares the sentiment’ of (e) on continuing violations; 7. the concept of diversity has been demonstrated at these meetings, that the problems of PWD are not the same; 8. and 9. the EU again avoids listing the types of discrimination, as in (i) but did feel that the situation of women with disabilities deserved particular mention; 10. the EU believes that, as has been reiterated, poverty is both a cause and effect, and situations of armed conflict (not dealt with at all in the Chair’s text) inhibit the enjoyment of rights; 11. the question of accessibility is a major issue in the enjoyment of rights. Ireland would be happy to see any of these provisions incorporated into an overall draft to the AHC.

EDF said that the Preamble should be used to present a picture of the ideal society, and the policies that have to be put in place.to help PWD get there.

WFDB hoped that the Preamble will reflect “all our negative experiences,” as this provides the rationale for this document. These experiences are “where this all started”.

Japan called for para (f) be worded in a more positive manner. When there is a better sense of self determination as discussed after small group discussions, (g) could be amended accordingly. It was not clear to them that there was a connection between disability and the “eradication of poverty” as asserted in Article (h). Para (i) is too prescriptive, and establishes a hierarchy of suffering between people with different kinds of disability.

Canada advised that if language in (g) on self determination is to be retained then it would be advisable to await the results of small group discussions. The last 2 paras in the EU’s text could benefit this Preamble, capturing expressions of concern from NGOs on the special challenges faced by developing countries on the question of poverty and the all important concept of accessibility.

RI anticipated a more positive and continuing role for the UNSR rather than “the backward glance” that is reflected in the current language of para (d). A rewording should reflect how the UNSR could function “in partnership with and in tandem with” this convention. In order to honor PWD choices and autonomy, “self determination” as mentioned in (g) could be followed by or replaced with “independent living” or “living independently.” Finally, as stated by Canada, there is language in the EU text in the last 2 paragraphs that should be reflected here, on poverty and armed conflict and accessibility.

LSN proposed 4 amendments / additions to the Chair’s text.
1. Recognizing that all human rights, civil, political, economic, cultural and social, are universal, indivisible, and interdependent and interrelated
2. Emphasizing the valuable contribution of persons with disabilities, disabled peoples’ organizations and other members of civil society to furthering the equal and effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by persons with disabilities, and the vital importance of their participation in national, regional and international efforts to this end;
3. Recognizing that the human rights of persons with disabilities remain unfulfilled on a global scale as a result of pervasive discrimination, and that the exclusion from society of persons with disabilities negatively affects all components of the social, economic and cultural environment, and that these issues need to be addressed at all levels of society in a spirit of common responsibility and with the highest level of international cooperation
4. Supporting our colleagues from Disabled Peoples’ International and Canada with regard to the need to include mention of the social model and rights based approach to disability.

Republic of Korea suggested including the concept of independent living, not as a model but as an overarchjng goal.

Sweden added the following to the Chair’s draft: (c) does not reflect the discussions in the WG on the topic of discrimination; (g) is a substantive right that should be dealt with in obligations; the deeply negative message in (f) about PWD was of concern.

Germany supported the EU proposal for the Preamble because in encapsulated the main moral values at stake. Equality, universality, effective enjoyment of human rights and accessibility are all dealt with here. The gender perspective wording is strongly recommended, as this is distinct from other forms of discrimination. The para on poverty reflects the many studies demonstrating that poverty and disability cannot be separated.

WNUSP supported the inclusion of the content of (g) with the understanding that the small group discussion had come to some resolution on “self determination”.

Mali wanted the word “development” to follow “freedom, justice and peace” in (a); (f) should be amended to say: “the principal purpose of this Convention is to ensure that PWD fully enjoy their fundamental human rights and freedoms and participate on a full fledged basis in the economies of their societies”. (j) should be amended to say: “Underlining the need of a convention dealing specifically with the human rights of PWD in order to significantly contribute to redressing ….”

South Africa suggested an amendment to (f) that reflected Sweden’s concerns which they were in agreement with. “We do not need to keep reminding ourselves of these negative perceptions” and in this regard only the first half of this paragraph should remain, until “stereotypes”.

China called for insertion of its draft convention text’s language into the Preamble (pg 8 of the Compilation). In addition, elements of international cooperation, as has been brought up in this forum, are very important, and they have precedents elsewhere.

Lebanon supports insertion of the EU text’s penultimate paragraph on poverty and armed conflict. The preamble should include a broad definition of disability were this not to be included in the body of the Convention, provided that this would reflect the rights based social model approach.

Sierra Leone described the structure of a Preamble generally: 1. reference to the existing instruments that highlight the progression of the disability and human rights issue, for example the declaration on the human rights of PWD which has not yet been mentioned. 2. recognition of issues, including armed conflict, gender, etc; 3. expression of concerns and regret that explains the rationale; 4. emphasis – “underlining” the main point; 5. implicit reference to the aim – “believing” where it could make a contribution (eg para (j); 6. a linkage between the preamble and the rest of the convention.

Serbia –Montenegro supported the EU draft and suggested that this be combined with the Chair;s draft, in particular the EU’s paras on the CRC and the UNSR, keeping in mind the comments from RI. Canada’s proposal to add the last 2 paras to the Chair’s draft was supported. Reflecting the sentiments of NGO members, the Preamble could incorporate language on mainstreaming and equality of opportunity.

Thailand supported China’s suggestion on the right to development as well as international corporation, which is also mentioned in BKK draft (q). Para (h) in the Chair’s draft is important and should be retained. Echoing the recommnedations of other members, the EU language on accessibility and poverty should be integrated into the Chair’s draft.

India stated its reservations to the use of “self determination” in (g) in the context of discussion in these meetings. Attempts to include “independent living” in this para are also not acceptable, as in the subcontinent the extended family remains the norm for persons with or without disabilities. With regard to the last 2 paras of the EU draft currently proposed for integration, the second is acceptable as is, but India has reservations to the first, because of its reference to armed conflict”.

Disability Australia Limited recommended using wording from the section of GA Resolution 168 that describes “the condition in which 600 million PWD are denied their rights and therefore the need to elaborate a convention to promote their rights.” This captures “the contest” in which this convention has come to be. The 1975 Declaration on the Rights of PWD set out standards that have serious limitations and were compromised; like the MI Principles, this referencing this text should be avoided.

Morocco endorsed the proposals for introducing into the Preamble the Millenium Development Goals, accessibility, international cooperation and ICT.

Venezuela cited text from its draft convention (pg 12 Compilation), specifically subparas (l) and (n), on equality of opportunity and poverty and disability to be included in the Chair’s draft.

Volume 3, #10
January 16, 2004

Morning Session
Commenced: 10:30 AM
Suspended: 11:05 AM
Reconvened: 11:36 AM
Adjourned: 1:04 PM

PREAMBLE

The Coordinator referred to the text facilitated by Mexico on the Preamble (A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.24) for this discussion

Thailand suggested that “including communication and information technologies” be inserted after “communication” in paragraph (o).

Canada opposed reference to the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families in paragraph (d). There was general agreement that there would be reference to the 6 core human rights treaties. This particular treaty does not have the same status as the other 6 treaties.

Japan agreed that reference to the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families should be deleted. “And independence” should be added to paragraph (i). In paragraph (k), there should not be a distinction between those who have severe disabilities and those who do not. The Preamble, or a footnote, should mention that all PWD should enjoy the same degree of protection.

Sierra Leone opposed the phrase “some members” in the first sentence of footnote 1 because it was the dominant view that international cooperation should be referenced in the Preamble. International cooperation is the essence and the core of the UN and does not only refer to assistance. Members should refer to the Article 1(d) in the section on General Principles of the Mexican Proposal (page 24 of the Compilation) and paragraph (q) of the Preamble in the Bangkok Draft (page 16 of the Compilation). Sierra Leone proposed an additional paragraph on international cooperation after paragraph (m) in the Preamble, which says “and the imperative [or need] of strengthening international cooperation in this regard.”

The Coordinator commented that international cooperation would be discussed later when the text facilitated by Mexico on this issue was available. The footnote reflects the difference in views of the WG on this issue. The WG should avoid any attempt to quantify the number of WG members taking a position in a footnote. It is not possible to create agreement in a footnote when there is none.

Mexico concurred with the Coordinator and suggested the footnote be read in conjunction with the discussion on international cooperation. In footnote 1, “the living conditions of children,” which is taken from the CRC, should be changed to “the living conditions of PWD” to make it more applicable to the subject of the Convention. Also, the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families has now entered into force and has the same status as the other 6 human rights treaties and is relevant to PWD. This Convention also has a monitoring body so it should be on equal footing with the other conventions. A footnote on distinction between severe and non-severe disabilities is not necessary but can be included.

The World Federation of the DeafBlind (WFDB) said that because it is hard to measure what is a severe disability and it would be better to only reference multiple disabilities. Also, is “profound” the right term to be included in paragraph (p), though the meaning is understood?

China agreed that the footnote should reflect all opinions on international cooperation. China proposed that paragraph (b) and (d) be combined into one because it was not necessary to mention human rights instruments in 2 paragraphs. “And conventions” should be added after “Covenants” in paragraph (b) to cover the elements now listed in paragraph (d). “Recognizing” is clearer than “reaffirming” in paragraph (d).

Morocco affirmed the relevance of the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. International cooperation should be included in the Preamble as a separate paragraph.

Mali regretted that international cooperation was not referenced in the Preamble because members were working on the basis of the UN Charter, which furthers international cooperation.

Uganda supported Sierra Leone on the matter of international cooperation.

Ireland objected to referencing international cooperation in the Preamble and proposed a second sentence in the footnote: “Other members, however, considered that any such reference should be subject to final agreement.” Merging paragraphs (b) and (d) would weaken the Preamble because one focuses on non-discrimination while the other reaffirms human rights treaties. Paragraph (e) should have a more active formulation, like in the Preamble of the EU Draft. The Preamble should also include reference to the diversity of PWD. Paragraph (k) should be broader because PWD, irrespective of the nature of their disabilities, face multiple discrimination. Paragraph (m) should also reflect the fact that disability is exacerbated by armed conflict.

Republic of Korea suggested that “independence” or “independent living” be added after “autonomy” in paragraph (i). Does the freedom to make one’s own choices, replace “self-determination?” If this is the case, the term self-determination should be included in a footnote.

The Coordinator noted that the WG report will not limit what is discussed in the AHC and not everything had to be in a footnote.

Lebanon said that the Preamble should make reference to international cooperation with a footnote that says “some delegations objected to this reference”

Thailand supported Paragraph (q) in the Preamble of the Bangkok Draft. “Independence” should be included in paragraph (i), but not “independent living” because the term focuses on one movement.

The Coordinator responded that a footnote reflected the view of India on not including the term “independent living” in the Convention, because it could create a problem in the Asian context.

Back to Draft Article