人权和无障碍法律之间的相互作用:经验教训和对联邦无障碍立法计划的考虑。

Laverne Jacobs
{"title":"人权和无障碍法律之间的相互作用:经验教训和对联邦无障碍立法计划的考虑。","authors":"Laverne Jacobs","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3180846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, the author analyzes, comparatively, the administrative governance functions of legislation that provides accessibility standards in six jurisdictions that also offer legal protection from discrimination to people with disabilities: Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. The following governance functions were examined: a) creating accessibility standards, b) enforcing accessibility standards, c) enforcing decisions, d) encouraging compliance, e) raising public awareness (and promoting systemic culture change) and f) public education. The study was conducted with a view to understanding how human rights laws, principles and values can be used to further and strengthen disability access laws on the ground. The federal government has proposed to introduce legislation that will likely establish a framework for the development of accessibility standards within Canada’s federal legislative jurisdiction. This follows on the heels of accessibility legislation being enacted in Ontario (2005), Manitoba (2013) and, most recently, Nova Scotia (2017). Public consultations in 2016-17 for the proposed federal accessibility legislation identified confusion about the practical differences between human rights laws and accessibility laws, and the need for more clarity about how these two laws interact. This study was commissioned to examine the interplay between human rights legislation and accessibility legislation in Canada and internationally. Based on the research findings, several recommendations are made regarding the complete set of governance functions examined. These recommendations include: incorporating a mechanism for public enforcement within the enforcement of accessibility standards, incorporating human rights supports and technical expertise within the development of standards, strengthening the statutory language to ensure an inclusive equality approach, avoiding confusion between reactive and proactive approaches to accessibility legislation by keeping the two systems distinct, and, establishing a Commissioner to take leadership in promoting awareness and systemic culture change, in encouraging compliance and in public education both across the federal government and with the general public. Finally, throughout this report, the author argues that all administrative governance functions in the proposed federal accessibility legislation should be guided by and promote an inclusive equality approach. Inclusive equality is a theoretical framework put forward by the UN that focuses on recognizing the intersectionality of individuals with disabilities in their experiences of disability discrimination. Power relations, access to justice, and the socio-historical context surrounding legal efforts to realize equality by people with disabilities within a reactive regulatory (complaints-based and adjudicative) system should also be considered through this lens.The views expressed in this document are those of the author and not those of Employment and Social Development Canada (Government of Canada) (ESDC).","PeriodicalId":172026,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Interplay between Human Rights and Accessibility Laws: Lessons Learned and Considerations for the Planned Federal Accessibility Legislation.\",\"authors\":\"Laverne Jacobs\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3180846\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this study, the author analyzes, comparatively, the administrative governance functions of legislation that provides accessibility standards in six jurisdictions that also offer legal protection from discrimination to people with disabilities: Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. The following governance functions were examined: a) creating accessibility standards, b) enforcing accessibility standards, c) enforcing decisions, d) encouraging compliance, e) raising public awareness (and promoting systemic culture change) and f) public education. The study was conducted with a view to understanding how human rights laws, principles and values can be used to further and strengthen disability access laws on the ground. The federal government has proposed to introduce legislation that will likely establish a framework for the development of accessibility standards within Canada’s federal legislative jurisdiction. This follows on the heels of accessibility legislation being enacted in Ontario (2005), Manitoba (2013) and, most recently, Nova Scotia (2017). Public consultations in 2016-17 for the proposed federal accessibility legislation identified confusion about the practical differences between human rights laws and accessibility laws, and the need for more clarity about how these two laws interact. This study was commissioned to examine the interplay between human rights legislation and accessibility legislation in Canada and internationally. Based on the research findings, several recommendations are made regarding the complete set of governance functions examined. These recommendations include: incorporating a mechanism for public enforcement within the enforcement of accessibility standards, incorporating human rights supports and technical expertise within the development of standards, strengthening the statutory language to ensure an inclusive equality approach, avoiding confusion between reactive and proactive approaches to accessibility legislation by keeping the two systems distinct, and, establishing a Commissioner to take leadership in promoting awareness and systemic culture change, in encouraging compliance and in public education both across the federal government and with the general public. Finally, throughout this report, the author argues that all administrative governance functions in the proposed federal accessibility legislation should be guided by and promote an inclusive equality approach. Inclusive equality is a theoretical framework put forward by the UN that focuses on recognizing the intersectionality of individuals with disabilities in their experiences of disability discrimination. Power relations, access to justice, and the socio-historical context surrounding legal efforts to realize equality by people with disabilities within a reactive regulatory (complaints-based and adjudicative) system should also be considered through this lens.The views expressed in this document are those of the author and not those of Employment and Social Development Canada (Government of Canada) (ESDC).\",\"PeriodicalId\":172026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Comparative Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Comparative Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3180846\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Comparative Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3180846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在本研究中,作者对比分析了澳大利亚、英国、美国和加拿大安大略省、马尼托巴省和新斯科舍省这六个为残疾人提供免受歧视法律保护的司法管辖区提供无障碍标准的立法的行政治理功能。研究了以下治理功能:a)创建可访问性标准,b)执行可访问性标准,c)执行决策,d)鼓励遵从性,e)提高公众意识(并促进系统文化变革),f)公众教育。进行这项研究的目的是了解如何利用人权法、原则和价值观来进一步加强残疾人无障碍法律。联邦政府已提议立法,可能在加拿大联邦立法管辖范围内为无障碍标准的制定建立框架。在此之前,安大略省(2005年)、马尼托巴省(2013年)和新斯科舍省(2017年)相继颁布了无障碍立法。2016- 2017年联邦无障碍立法提案的公众咨询发现,人们对人权法和无障碍法之间的实际差异感到困惑,需要更清楚地了解这两部法律如何相互作用。委托进行这项研究是为了审查加拿大和国际上人权立法和无障碍立法之间的相互作用。根据研究结果,针对所研究的治理功能的完整集合提出了一些建议。这些建议包括:在无障碍标准的执行中纳入公共执行机制,在标准的制定中纳入人权支持和技术专长,加强法定语言以确保包容性平等方针,通过保持两种制度的区别,避免在无障碍立法中被动和主动的做法混淆,设立一名专员,在提高意识和系统性文化变革方面发挥领导作用,在整个联邦政府和公众中鼓励遵守和公共教育。最后,在本报告中,作者认为,拟议的联邦无障碍立法中的所有行政治理职能都应以包容性平等方法为指导并促进其发展。包容性平等是联合国提出的一个理论框架,其重点是承认残疾人个人在残疾歧视经历中的交叉性。权力关系、诉诸司法的机会以及围绕在被动监管(基于投诉和裁决)系统中实现残疾人平等的法律努力的社会历史背景也应通过这一视角加以考虑。本文件所表达的观点仅代表作者的观点,而不代表加拿大就业和社会发展部(加拿大政府)的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Interplay between Human Rights and Accessibility Laws: Lessons Learned and Considerations for the Planned Federal Accessibility Legislation.
In this study, the author analyzes, comparatively, the administrative governance functions of legislation that provides accessibility standards in six jurisdictions that also offer legal protection from discrimination to people with disabilities: Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. The following governance functions were examined: a) creating accessibility standards, b) enforcing accessibility standards, c) enforcing decisions, d) encouraging compliance, e) raising public awareness (and promoting systemic culture change) and f) public education. The study was conducted with a view to understanding how human rights laws, principles and values can be used to further and strengthen disability access laws on the ground. The federal government has proposed to introduce legislation that will likely establish a framework for the development of accessibility standards within Canada’s federal legislative jurisdiction. This follows on the heels of accessibility legislation being enacted in Ontario (2005), Manitoba (2013) and, most recently, Nova Scotia (2017). Public consultations in 2016-17 for the proposed federal accessibility legislation identified confusion about the practical differences between human rights laws and accessibility laws, and the need for more clarity about how these two laws interact. This study was commissioned to examine the interplay between human rights legislation and accessibility legislation in Canada and internationally. Based on the research findings, several recommendations are made regarding the complete set of governance functions examined. These recommendations include: incorporating a mechanism for public enforcement within the enforcement of accessibility standards, incorporating human rights supports and technical expertise within the development of standards, strengthening the statutory language to ensure an inclusive equality approach, avoiding confusion between reactive and proactive approaches to accessibility legislation by keeping the two systems distinct, and, establishing a Commissioner to take leadership in promoting awareness and systemic culture change, in encouraging compliance and in public education both across the federal government and with the general public. Finally, throughout this report, the author argues that all administrative governance functions in the proposed federal accessibility legislation should be guided by and promote an inclusive equality approach. Inclusive equality is a theoretical framework put forward by the UN that focuses on recognizing the intersectionality of individuals with disabilities in their experiences of disability discrimination. Power relations, access to justice, and the socio-historical context surrounding legal efforts to realize equality by people with disabilities within a reactive regulatory (complaints-based and adjudicative) system should also be considered through this lens.The views expressed in this document are those of the author and not those of Employment and Social Development Canada (Government of Canada) (ESDC).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信