Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 5 [Equality and Non-Discrimination]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Abstract

The right to equality and non-discrimination is a fundamental principle of international human rights law: it gives concrete expression to the central idea of human rights system that all human beings are equal and, regardless of their status or membership of a particular group, are entitled to a set of rights. Conceived as a free-standing provision, Article 5 of the CRPD provides broad mandates to achieve the equality of persons with disabilities and the eradication of all forms of discrimination on the basis of disability. In fact, after requiring States Parties to recognize that ‘all persons are equal before and under the law’ and thus entitled ‘to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law’ free of any discrimination, Article 5 calls them to promote equality and eliminate discrimination taking all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided. Moreover, Article 5 establishes that any specific measures necessary to accelerate or achieve de facto equality of persons with disabilities may not be construed as discriminatory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Moeckli (2014), p. 160.

  2. 2.

    See, for instance, Shaw (2008), pp. 286–289.

  3. 3.

    Arnardóttir (2009) defines such approach as ‘multidimensional disadvantage equality.’

  4. 4.

    See in particular the ICCPR, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 16 at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966); and the ICESCR, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 16 at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966).

  5. 5.

    CERD, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 14, at 47, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966).

  6. 6.

    CEDAW, G.A. Res. 34/180, U.N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Supp. No. 46, at 193, U.N. Doc. A/34/46 (1981) [hereinafter CEDAW]. As observed by Stein and Lord (2009), p. 20, such treaties target a specific identity characteristic that can overlap with an individual also having a disability but otherwise are not directed toward persons with disabilities.

  7. 7.

    On the interpretation of disability-based discrimination of children by the CRC Committee, see Vandenhole (2005), pp. 170–172.

  8. 8.

    See, in particular, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons With Disabilities, G.A. Res. 48/96, at 202, U.N. GAOR, 48th Sess, Supp. No. 49 at 68, U.N. Doc. A/RES/48/96 (1993) [hereinafter Standard Rules].

  9. 9.

    CoE, Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Explanatory Report, ETS No. 177 (2000), para. 15. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/177.htm. Accessed 1 Aug 2015.

  10. 10.

    CCPR, General Comment No. 18: Non-discrimination, 10 Nov 1989. Available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fa8.html. Accessed 9 Oct 2015.

  11. 11.

    ECtHR, Marckx v. Belgium, para. 43.

  12. 12.

    I/A Court H. R., Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 57. Available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_04_ing.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2015.

  13. 13.

    CCPR, Jacobs v. Belgium, para. 9.7.

  14. 14.

    Schulze (2010), p. 61.

  15. 15.

    Lucy (2011), p. 416, draws a useful distinction between the ideas of equality before the law and equality under the law. Such concepts are different, although only in the sense of being distinctive aspects of a single coherent idea of juridical equality. In particular, the author argues that equality before the law is associable with the ‘presumptive identity component,’ the idea that those who stand before laws are presumed for all relevant purposes to be the same or identical. Equality under the law is concerned not with the identity of the addresses but rather with ‘uniformity standards component,’ the equal application of whatever standards the law has enacted. ‘The former [equality before the law] illuminates the assumed similarity of those whom the law judges, the latter [equality under the law] the similarity of the standards by which they are judged.’

  16. 16.

    Barnard, Hepple (2000), Fredman (2011), Hendriks (1995).

  17. 17.

    Kanter (2015), pp. 842–845.

  18. 18.

    CRPD Committee, Draft General comment on Article 6: Women with disabilities, 22 May 2015, CRPD/C/14/R.1, para. 4. However, the principle of transformative equality has not been consolidated in the final text of General comment No. 3 (2016), Article 6: Women and girls with disabilities, CRPD/C/GC/3, 26 August 2016.

  19. 19.

    Broderick (2015), pp. 138–140.

  20. 20.

    Rothstein (2000).

  21. 21.

    For Hendriks, non-discrimination law should remain focused on offering protection against disadvantageous treatment based on a confined and exhaustive list of human characteristics. “It would – as with disability – be better to reserve the protection offered by non-discrimination law to individuals pertaining to groups with a history of discrimination in (almost) all fields of social life. Following this line of thought, it would be more accurate to delineate the corresponding protected grounds as ‘women’ and ‘transgender’ instead of ‘sex/gender’, as ‘ethnic or racial minorities’ instead or ‘race or ethnicity’, and ‘homosexual’ or ‘LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender)’ instead of ‘sexual orientation’.” Hendriks (2010), p. 12.

  22. 22.

    On the discussions during negotiations on the definition of discrimination on the basis of disability, see Article 2 [Definitions] in this Commentary.

  23. 23.

    CRPD Committee, HM v Sweden, para. 8.3.

  24. 24.

    Preamble, paragraph (p), reads as follows: ‘Concerned about the difficult conditions faced by persons with disabilities who are subject to multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic, indigenous or social origin, property, birth, age or other social status.’

  25. 25.

    Article 6, para. 1, establishes ‘States Parties recognize that women and girls with disabilities are subject to multiple discrimination, and in this regard shall take measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by them of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.’ See Article 6 [Women with Disabilities] in this Commentary.

  26. 26.

    CESCR, General Comment No. 5: Persons with Disabilities, E/1995/22, 9 Dec 1994, para. 16.

  27. 27.

    CRPD Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Australia, CRPD/C/AUS/CO/1, 21 Oct 2013, para. 15; Concluding observations on the initial report of Austria, CRPD/C/AUT/CO/1, 30 Sep 2013, para. 13.

  28. 28.

    CRPD Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Spain, CRPD/C/ESP/CO/1, 19 Oct 2012, para. 20.

  29. 29.

    CRPD Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Tunisia, CRPD/C/TUN/CO/1, 13 May 2011, para. 13; Concluding observations on the initial report of El Salvador, CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, 8 Oct 2013, para. 13.

  30. 30.

    CRPD Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Argentina, CRPD/C/ARG/CO/1, 8 Oct 2012, para. 11.

  31. 31.

    Doebbler (2007), p. 12.

  32. 32.

    CCPR, General Comment No. 31, The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, para. 8.

  33. 33.

    CRPD/C/AUT/CO/1, para. 13.

  34. 34.

    CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, paras. 13–16.

  35. 35.

    CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, paras. 13–16.

  36. 36.

    CRPD/C/ARG/CO/1, para. 12.

  37. 37.

    See the concept of ‘reasonable measures’ in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

  38. 38.

    See, for instance, the 1994 American Disability Act and the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act of the United Kingdom.

  39. 39.

    CESCR, General Comment No. 5, para. 15.

  40. 40.

    Such qualification was already present, for instance, in the ADA. See Kanter (2015), p. 854.

  41. 41.

    Lawson (2009), p. 104.

  42. 42.

    Lawson (2008), p. 32.

  43. 43.

    Like in the ADA, Kanter (2015), pp. 855–856.

  44. 44.

    Lord, Brown (2011), p. 277; Power et al. (2013), p. 36.

  45. 45.

    Kayess and French (2008), p. 120.

  46. 46.

    Kayess and French (2008), p. 9.

  47. 47.

    Lawson (2008), p. 34.

  48. 48.

    The Concept and Practice of Affirmative Action, Final report submitted by Mr. Marc Bossuyt, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Sub-Commission resolution 1998/s, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/21, 17 Jun 2002, para. 101.

  49. 49.

    CCPR, General Comment No. 18, para. 10.

  50. 50.

    CESCR, General Comment No. 5, para. 18.

  51. 51.

    CERD uses ‘special measures’ in Article 1, para. 4, while in CEDAW, Article 4, para. 1, reads ‘temporary special measures.’

  52. 52.

    Arnardóttir (2009), p. 60.

  53. 53.

    Broderick (2015), p. 118.

  54. 54.

    Ibid. p. 138.

  55. 55.

    De Shutter (2007), pp. 780–781.

  56. 56.

    Cera (2015), pp. 93–95.

  57. 57.

    Waddington and Bell (2011), pp. 1523–1524.

  58. 58.

    UN-DESA et al. (2007), pp. 66–68.

Table of Cases

  • CRPD Committee 19.04.2012, Communication No. 3/2011 HM v Sweden, CRPD/C/7/D/3/2011

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 13.06.1979, Application No. 6833/74, Marckx v Belgium, 2 EHRR 330

    Google Scholar 

  • CCPR 17.08.2004, Communication No. 943/2000, Jacobs v Belgium, CCPR/C/81/D/943/2000

    Google Scholar 

  • I/A Court H.R. 09.01.1984, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Series A No. 4

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Arnardóttir OM (2009) A future of multidimensional disadvantage equality? In: Arnardóttir OM, Quinn G (eds) The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian perspectives. Martinus Nijoff, Leiden, pp 41–66

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C, Hepple B (2000) Substantive equality. Camb Law Journ 59:562–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broderick A (2015) The long and winding road to equality and inclusion for persons with disabilities. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Cera R (2015) National legislations on inclusive education and special educational needs of people with autism in the perspective of article 24 of the CRPD. In: Della Fina V, Cera R (eds) Protecting the rights of people with autism in the fields of education and employment. International, European and national perspectives. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 79–108

    Google Scholar 

  • De Shutter O (2007) Positive action. In: Schiek D, Waddington L, Bell M (eds) Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international non-discrimination law. Hart Publishing, Portland, pp 757–869

    Google Scholar 

  • Doebbler CFJ (2007) The principle of non-discrimination in international law. CD Publishing, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredman S (2011) Discrimination law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks A (1995) The significance of equality and non-discrimination for the protection of rights and dignity of disabled persons. In: Degener T, Koster-Drees Y (eds) Human rights and disabled persons. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 40–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks A (2010) The UN disability Convention and (multiple) discrimination: should EU non-discrimination law be modelled accordingly? In: Quinn G, Waddington L (eds) European yearbook of disability law, vol 2. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 7–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter AS (2015) The Americans with Disabilities Act at 25 years: lessons to learn from the convention on the rights of people with disabilities. Drake Law Rev 63:819–883

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayess R, French P (2008) Out of darkness into light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Hum Rights Law Rev 8(1):1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson A (2008) Disability and equality law in Britain. Hart Publishing, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson A (2009) The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and European disability law: a catalyst for cohesion? In: Arnardottir OM, Quinn G (eds) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord J, Brown R (2011) The role of reasonable accommodation in securing substantive equality for persons with disabilities. In: Rioux MH, Basser LA, Jones M (eds) Critical perspectives on human rights and disability law. Martinus Nijoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucy W (2011) Equality before and under the law. Univ Tor Law J 61(3):411–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moeckli D (2014) Equality and non-discrimination. In: Moeckli D, Shah S, Sivakumaran S, Harris (eds) International human rights law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 157–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Power A, Lord JE, DeFranco AS (2013) Active citizenship and disability: implementing the personalization of support. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein LF (2000) Reflections on disability discrimination policy - 25 years. Univ Ark Little Rock Law Rev 22:147–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze M (2010) Understanding the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. http://www.handicap-international.fr/fileadmin/documents/publications/HICRPDManual.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2015

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stein MA, Lord JE (2009) Future prospects for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In: Arnardóttir OM, Quinn G (eds) The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian perspectives. Martinus Nijoff, Leiden, pp 17–40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • UN-DESA, OHCHR, IPU (2007) From exclusion to equality. Realizing the rights of persons with disabilities. In: Handbook for parliamentarians on the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and its optional protocol. UN, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenhole W (2005) Non-discrimination and equality in the view of the UN human rights treaty bodies. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington L, Bell M (2011) Exploring the boundaries of positive action under EU law: a search for conceptual clarity. Common Mark Law Rev 48(5):1503–1524

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Legal Studies (ISGI), National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Rachele Cera

Authors
  1. Rachele Cera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachele Cera .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Valentina Della Fina

  2. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Rachele Cera

  3. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Giuseppe Palmisano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cera, R. (2017). Article 5 [Equality and Non-Discrimination]. In: Della Fina, V., Cera, R., Palmisano, G. (eds) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43788-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43790-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation