{"title":"The Universal Right to Legal Capacity—Clearing the Haze","authors":"T. Opgenhaffen","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngac021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The right to legal capacity (Article 12) is the most contested realization of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). If implemented, it would revolutionize the position of persons with psychosocial disabilities, intellectual disabilities and other cognitive conditions. Yet its implementation has been hindered by conceptual misunderstandings and a lack of distinction between the key questions in the debate. This contribution first demonstrates that advocates and opponents apply ‘substitute decision-making’ and ‘legal capacity’ differently, leading to different expectations. Second, it substantiates that once all the concepts are understood correctly, three distinct questions underpin the interpretation of Article 12 CRPD: (1) What makes a person’s will reliable? (2) What is good support? and (3) How can such a reliable will be diverged from, given other interests? Instead of giving the answers, this contribution brings consistency to the debate and proposes a pathways for a future approach to legal capacity.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The right to legal capacity (Article 12) is the most contested realization of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). If implemented, it would revolutionize the position of persons with psychosocial disabilities, intellectual disabilities and other cognitive conditions. Yet its implementation has been hindered by conceptual misunderstandings and a lack of distinction between the key questions in the debate. This contribution first demonstrates that advocates and opponents apply ‘substitute decision-making’ and ‘legal capacity’ differently, leading to different expectations. Second, it substantiates that once all the concepts are understood correctly, three distinct questions underpin the interpretation of Article 12 CRPD: (1) What makes a person’s will reliable? (2) What is good support? and (3) How can such a reliable will be diverged from, given other interests? Instead of giving the answers, this contribution brings consistency to the debate and proposes a pathways for a future approach to legal capacity.
期刊介绍:
Launched in 2001, Human Rights Law Review seeks to promote awareness, knowledge, and discussion on matters of human rights law and policy. While academic in focus, the Review is also of interest to the wider human rights community, including those in governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental spheres, concerned with law, policy, and fieldwork. The Review publishes critical articles that consider human rights in their various contexts, from global to national levels, book reviews, and a section dedicated to analysis of recent jurisprudence and practice of the UN and regional human rights systems.