Is it possible to ‘legally desegregate’ sheltered employment? General Comment No. 8 of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Benelux Countries

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW
Mathias Wouters
{"title":"Is it possible to ‘legally desegregate’ sheltered employment? General Comment No. 8 of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Benelux Countries","authors":"Mathias Wouters","doi":"10.1177/20319525231222161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2022, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities issued General Comment No. 8 on the right of persons with disabilities to work and employment. The general comment most notably recommends States parties to expeditiously phase out segregated employment, including sheltered workshops. After covering the contents of the general comment on this issue in Section I, this contribution argues that the Committee does not take into account that sheltered employment is a complex notion and that domestic sheltered employment systems can evolve. Since General Comment No. 8 outlaws segregated (sheltered) employment, the question becomes, can sheltered employment be legally desegregated, and hence does not have to be expeditiously phased out? Section III illustrates, based on examples from the Benelux countries, that domestic sheltered employment systems do not necessarily exhibit the distinguishing features of segregated employment, as described in General Comment No. 8. Section IV explains that this leaves the CRPD Committee with a decision to make. It could assert that sheltered employment is ipso facto segregated employment, which is to be phased out. It could also draw on its non-exhaustive list of the distinguishing features of segregated employment to incite States parties to at least desegregate sheltered employment legally if they decide not to phase it out entirely.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231222161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2022, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities issued General Comment No. 8 on the right of persons with disabilities to work and employment. The general comment most notably recommends States parties to expeditiously phase out segregated employment, including sheltered workshops. After covering the contents of the general comment on this issue in Section I, this contribution argues that the Committee does not take into account that sheltered employment is a complex notion and that domestic sheltered employment systems can evolve. Since General Comment No. 8 outlaws segregated (sheltered) employment, the question becomes, can sheltered employment be legally desegregated, and hence does not have to be expeditiously phased out? Section III illustrates, based on examples from the Benelux countries, that domestic sheltered employment systems do not necessarily exhibit the distinguishing features of segregated employment, as described in General Comment No. 8. Section IV explains that this leaves the CRPD Committee with a decision to make. It could assert that sheltered employment is ipso facto segregated employment, which is to be phased out. It could also draw on its non-exhaustive list of the distinguishing features of segregated employment to incite States parties to at least desegregate sheltered employment legally if they decide not to phase it out entirely.
是否有可能 "合法地消除 "庇护性就业?残疾人权利委员会第 8 号一般性意见和比荷卢三国
2022年,联合国残疾人权利委员会发布了关于残疾人工作和就业权利的第8号一般性意见。该一般性意见特别建议各缔约国尽快淘汰隔离就业,包括庇护工场。在第一部分介绍了有关这一问题的一般性意见的内容之后,本文认为委员会没有考虑到庇护性就业是一个复杂的概念,而且国内的庇护性就业制度也会不断演变。既然第 8 号一般性意见规定隔离(庇护)就业为非法,那么问题就来了,庇护就业能否在法律上取消隔离,从而不必被迅速淘汰?第 III 节根据比荷卢经济联盟国家的例子说明,国内的庇护性就业制度并不一定表现出第 8 号一般性意见所述的隔离就业的显著特点。第 IV 部分解释说,这使得《残疾人权利公约》委员会需要做出决定。委员会可以断言,庇护性就业是当然的隔离就业,应当逐步淘汰。委员会还可以利用其关于隔离就业显著特点的非详尽清单,鼓励缔约国在决定不完全淘汰庇护性就业的情况下,至少在法律上取消隔离。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信