This essay contemplates the rights of children with disabilities under international law. It analyses the philosophical and practical reasons for the failure of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to protect the rights of children with disabilities, and looks at the remedial measures adopted under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The argument advanced is that, especially when children’s perspectives are considered, assistive technologies are at the heart of national and international efforts to advance the rights of children with disabilities, most importantly, a right to inclusion. I consider the challenges ahead and draw conclusions on the future of the rights of children with disabilities.
BoezaartT. ‘Protecting the reproductive rights of children and young adults with disabilities: The roles and responsibilities of the family, the state, and judicial decision-making’ Emory International Law Review26 (2012): 69–85.
BorgJ.LindstromA. & LarssonS. ‘Assistive technologies in developing countries: National and international responsibilities to implement the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities’ Lancet374 (2009): 1963–1965.
BorgJ.LindstromA. & LarssonS. ‘Assistive technologies in developing countries: A review from the perspective of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities’ Prosthetic and Orthotics International35(1) (2011b): 20–29.
CESCRGeneral Comment 17, the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author (Article 15 para 1 (c) of the Covenant) U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/17 (2006).
SilvaDede AlwisR. ‘Mining the intersections: Advancing the rights of women and children with disabilities within an interrelated web of human rights’ Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal18 (2009): 293–322.
MurphyN.A.CarboneP.S. & the Council on Children with Disabilities ‘Promoting the participation of children with disabilities in sports, recreation, and physical activities’ Pediatrics121(5) (2008): 1057–1061.
O’CinneideC. ‘Extracting protection for the rights of persons with disabilities from human rights frameworks: Established limits and new possibilities’. In The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives. eds. ArnardottirO.M. & QuinnG. (Martinus Nijhoff2009) 163–200.
Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on Deinstitutionalisation and community living of Children with Disabilities (Council of Europe 10 February 2010). http://www.crin.org/Law/instrument.asp?InstID=1444.
Sentges v. The Netherlands ECHR Application no.27677/02 judgment of 8 July 2003.
Stanev v. Bulgaria ECHR (Grand Chamber) Application no. 36760/06 judgment of 17 January 2012.
Stergious-KitaM.YantziA. & JeffreyW. ‘The personal and workplace factors relevant to work readiness evaluation following acquired brain injury: Occupational therapists’ perceptions’ Brain Injury24(7–8) (2010): 948–958.
TaubD.E. & GreerK.R. ‘Physical cctivity as normalizing experience for school-age children with physical disabilities: Implications for legitimation of social identity and enhancement of social ties’ Journal of Sport & Social Issues24 (2000): 395–414.
UNESCO ‘Gendered outcomes in education: Why girls still held back’. In Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2003/4 (2003). http://www.unesco.org/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_5AE8EE78E881D08503D5D42C7049E295EB340500/filename/chapter3.pdf.