Disability-Specific Sporting Competitions and the UN CRPD: Segregation as Inclusion?

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Laws Pub Date : 2023-06-05 DOI:10.3390/laws12030050
Rinke Beekman, Frea De Keyzer, T. Opgenhaffen
{"title":"Disability-Specific Sporting Competitions and the UN CRPD: Segregation as Inclusion?","authors":"Rinke Beekman, Frea De Keyzer, T. Opgenhaffen","doi":"10.3390/laws12030050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was created, segregation of persons with disabilities is no longer allowed. Separate schools, sheltered workshops, and isolated social care homes impede inclusion and must be banned. Sport is a remarkable exception to this general principle. The CRPD explicitly states that persons with disabilities should have the opportunity to organize, develop, and participate in disability-specific sporting activities. This contribution—focusing on the Paralympics and Special Olympics—examines why the CRPD allows and encourages disability-specific sporting competitions, despite (or perhaps due to) its radical choice for inclusion. Beyond that, this contribution asks the obvious follow-up question: if disability-specific competitions are allowed, how can the criteria for participation be determined in a manner consistent with the CRPD? The CRPD opposes a medical approach to disability, yet that approach is often used in selection criteria. Although this contribution primarily focuses on sports, the impact is wider: it raises questions on inclusion and how to assess disability.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12030050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was created, segregation of persons with disabilities is no longer allowed. Separate schools, sheltered workshops, and isolated social care homes impede inclusion and must be banned. Sport is a remarkable exception to this general principle. The CRPD explicitly states that persons with disabilities should have the opportunity to organize, develop, and participate in disability-specific sporting activities. This contribution—focusing on the Paralympics and Special Olympics—examines why the CRPD allows and encourages disability-specific sporting competitions, despite (or perhaps due to) its radical choice for inclusion. Beyond that, this contribution asks the obvious follow-up question: if disability-specific competitions are allowed, how can the criteria for participation be determined in a manner consistent with the CRPD? The CRPD opposes a medical approach to disability, yet that approach is often used in selection criteria. Although this contribution primarily focuses on sports, the impact is wider: it raises questions on inclusion and how to assess disability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
残疾人体育比赛与联合国残疾人权利公约:隔离即包容?
自《联合国残疾人权利公约》(CRPD)制定以来,不再允许对残疾人进行隔离。单独的学校、庇护车间和孤立的社会护理院阻碍了包容性,必须予以禁止。体育是这一一般原则的一个显著例外。《残疾人权利公约》明确规定,残疾人应有机会组织、发展和参与针对残疾人的体育活动。这篇文章聚焦于残奥会和特奥会,探讨了为什么残疾人权利委员会允许和鼓励针对残疾人的体育比赛,尽管(或者可能是因为)它选择了激进的包容性。除此之外,这一贡献还提出了一个显而易见的后续问题:如果允许针对残疾的比赛,如何以符合《残疾人权利公约》的方式确定参赛标准?《残疾人权利公约》反对对残疾采取医学方法,但这种方法经常被用于选择标准。尽管这一贡献主要集中在体育上,但影响更广泛:它提出了关于包容和如何评估残疾的问题。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring Defuturing to Design Artificial-Intelligence Artifacts: A Systemic-Design Approach to Tackle Litigiousness in the Brazilian Judiciary Why Equity Follows the Law The Professional Conflict Pertaining to Confidentiality—The Obligation of Disclosure for Intermediaries of Financial Transactions Windfall Profit Taxation in Europe (and Beyond) To Enhance the Credibility of the Green Bond Market through Regulating GBERs: The Case of China
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1