Save

Connecting the Right of Collective Legal Capacity by Indigenous Peoples with the Right of Individual Legal Capacity by Persons with Disabilities

In: International Human Rights Law Review
Authors:
Matthew S Smith Research Associate, Harvard Law School Project on Disability, Cambridge, MA, USA msmith@law.harvard.edu

Search for other papers by Matthew S Smith in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Michael Ashley Stein Executive Director, Harvard Law School Project on Disability, Cambridge, MA, USA; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law SchoolExtraordinary Professor, University of Pretoria Faculty of Law, Centre for Human Rights, Pretoria, South Africa mastein@law.harvard.edu

Search for other papers by Michael Ashley Stein in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00

Abstract

This Article explores the juridical implications of indigenous peoples’ right to legal capacity in the Inter-American system for cases involving the same right of persons with disabilities within that system and beyond. It explicates the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) three-factor test in Saramaka People v Suriname and analogizes its reasoning with rationales underpinning the right to legal capacity under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (crpd). It then demonstrates how the IACtHR can apply a Saramaka-style test to future cases brought by persons with disabilities challenging legal capacity restrictions. The Article further argues that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) should also apply this rule to align its legal capacity jurisprudence with the crpd’s mandates. Finally, it suggests that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (crpd Committee) ought to consider this rule when resolving individual communications and thereby guide courts.

Content Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1388 280 17
Full Text Views 73 9 1
PDF Views & Downloads 144 10 2