Achieving UNCRPD Compliance

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，2009年由英国批准，2010年由欧盟（代表所有成员国）批准。在批准时，英国政府各部门的审查相当少，公开讨论也很少。那些了解《公约》的人一般认为，联合王国的法律已经符合其规定。在过去三年中，这一假设日益受到质疑。有人认为，特别是《精神能力法》违反了《公约》的要求。这一观点最初是由残疾人权利团体的活动人士提出的，但后来得到了一些学术律师的认可，最近也得到了一些高级法官的认可。他们的主张是，MCA未能在几个方面实现合规：它未能在平等的基础上保证所有人的法律行为能力；违反了《联合国儿童权利公约》禁止歧视的规定；它缺乏必要的保障机制；其最大利益条款违反了尊重残疾人个人权利、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，英国上议院特别委员会发布了一份呼吁提供证据的文件，其中明确提出了MCA是否遵守《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就《公约》第十二条评注文件草案征求意见。虽然联合国文件草案没有特别提到马华，但它在呼吁“废除替代决策机制”方面采取了强硬立场，马华是其中的一个主要例子。在爱尔兰共和国，一项以MCA为蓝本的精神能力法案被提议撤回，原因是爱尔兰残疾人权利团体不断批评其最大利益和监护条款违反了《联合国残疾人权利公约》的规定。今年夏天，一项新的法案被引入了奥里亚奇塔州；所有关于最大利益的提法都从新法案中删除了。这个问题的解决将在国内和国际上产生影响。英联邦议会在制定自己的国内法时经常参考英国的法定先例（例如，新加坡在2008年一字不改地采用了《马华法》）；现在的问题是，《千年发展目标》本身是否可以被采纳或改编为实现遵守新的联合国公约的模板，或者是否需要一种完全不同的方法。我们建议通过组织一个为期六个月的公共政策项目来扩大AHRC和埃塞克斯自治项目（EAP）之间的合作，该项目将把AHRC资助的研究带到这个问题上。重点将放在使《英格兰和威尔士精神能力法》（2005年）完全符合《公约》的挑战上。根据这项建议，环境评估小组将在整个项目期间举办一系列的三次公共政策会议和一次会议。拟议的项目将建立在前一轮由亚洲人权委员会委托EAP进行的研究的基础上，该研究侧重于公共政策和专业实践中有争议的自主权。

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.