权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Achieving UNCRPD Compliance

实现 UNCRPD 合规性

基本信息

批准号：
AH/L01484X/1
负责人：
Wayne Martin
金额：
$ 2.96万
依托单位：
University of Essex
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2014
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2014 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FL01484X%2F1
关键词：
Achieving UNCRPD Compliance

项目摘要

In 2006, the UN adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), a landmark international human rights instrument. The Convention came into effect internationally in 2008, was ratified by the UK in 2009, and by the EU (on behalf of all member states) in 2010. At the time of ratification there was fairly minimal review by UK government ministries, and little public discussion. Those who were aware of the Convention generally assumed that UK law was already compliant with its provisions. In the last three years that assumption has increasingly been called into question. It has been argued that the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) in particular stands in violation of the requirements of the Convention. The argument was first formulated by activists in the disability rights community, but has since come to be endorsed by some academic lawyers and more recently by some senior judges. Their claim has been that the MCA fails to attain compliance on several counts: it fails to guarantee legal capacity to all on an equal basis; it violates UNCRPD prohibitions on discrimination; it lacks the requisite safeguarding mechanisms; and its best interests provisions violate the requirement to respect the rights, will and preferences of the disabled individual. The criticism has now begun to affect public policy in the UK. In the Summer of 2013, a House of Lords Select Committee issued a Call for Evidence in which it explicitly posed the question concerning MCA compliance with the UNCRPD. On September 19, 2013, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities invited comment on a draft document that provides commentary on Article 12 of the Convention. Although the draft UN document does not mention the MCA in particular, it takes a hard line in calling for "the abolition of substitute decision-making regimes," of which the MCA is a leading example. In the Republic of Ireland, a proposed mental capacity bill modelled on the MCA was withdrawn amid insistent criticism from the Irish disability rights community that its best-interest and guardianship provisions violated UNCRPD precepts. This summer a new bill was introduced into the Oireachtas; all mention of best interests had been eliminated from the new bill. The settling of this question will have consequences both domestically and internationally. Commonwealth Parliaments often look to statutory precedent in the UK in shaping their own domestic law (Singapore adopted the MCA verbatim in 2008, for example); the question now is whether the MCA can itself be adopted or adapted as a template in achieving compliance with the new UN Convention, or whether an entirely different approach is required.We propose to extend the collaboration between the AHRC and the Essex Autonomy Project (EAP) by organising a six month public policy project which would bring AHRC-funded research to bear on this issue. The focus will be on the challenge of bringing the Mental Capacity Act of England and Wales (2005) into full compliance with the Convention. Under this proposal, the EAP would organise a series of three public policy meetings and one conference over the course of the project. The proposed project would build upon the earlier round of AHRC-commissioned research undertaken by the EAP, which focussed on contested autonomy in public policy and professional practice.

2006年，联合国通过了《残疾人权利公约》，这是一项具有里程碑意义的国际人权文书。该公约于2008年在国际上生效，英国于2009年批准，欧盟（代表所有成员国）于2010年批准。在批准时，英国政府各部的审查相当少，公众讨论也很少。那些了解《公约》的人通常认为联合王国法律已经符合《公约》的规定。在过去的三年里，这一假设越来越受到质疑。有人认为，《心智能力法》尤其违反了《公约》的要求。这一论点最初是由残疾人权利团体的活动家提出的，但后来得到了一些学术界律师的认可，最近又得到了一些高级法官的认可。他们声称，《残疾人法》在若干方面未能得到遵守：它未能保证人人平等享有法律的能力;它违反了《残疾人权利公约》禁止歧视的规定;它缺乏必要的保障机制;它的最大利益条款违反了尊重残疾人的权利、意愿和偏好的要求。这些批评现在已经开始影响英国的公共政策。2013年夏天，上议院特别委员会发布了一份证据呼吁，其中明确提出了关于MCA遵守《联合国残疾人权利公约》的问题。2013年9月19日，联合国残疾人权利委员会邀请各方就《公约》第12条的评注文件草案发表意见。虽然联合国文件草案没有特别提到MCA，但它采取了强硬路线，呼吁“废除替代决策制度”，MCA是其中的一个主要例子。在爱尔兰共和国，由于爱尔兰残疾人权利团体坚持批评其最佳利益和监护条款违反了《残疾人权利公约》的规定，一项以《精神能力法》为范本的拟议精神能力法案被撤回。今年夏天，议会提出了一项新的法案;新法案中删除了所有提及最佳利益的内容。这个问题的解决将在国内和国际上产生影响。英联邦议会在制定其国内法时经常参考英国的法定先例（例如，新加坡于2008年逐字采用了《多层次分析法》）;现在的问题是，《多边协议》本身是否可以作为一个模板被采纳或调整，以实现对新的联合国公约的遵守，或者是否需要一种完全不同的方法。我们建议扩大AHRC和埃塞克斯自治项目（EAP）之间的合作。通过组织一个为期六个月的公共政策项目，该项目将使亚洲人权委员会资助的研究对这一问题产生影响。重点将是使《英格兰和威尔士心智能力法》（2005年）完全符合《公约》的挑战。根据这一建议，EAP将在项目期间组织一系列的三次公共政策会议和一次会议。拟议的项目将以澳大利亚人权委员会委托EAP进行的上一轮研究为基础，该研究侧重于公共政策和专业实践中有争议的自主权。