Uncategorized

International Standards for Education: A Discussion of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

/ Angel Baker / Leave a comment
There were international declarations and conventions that are the foundation for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“Convention”).  One of those precursors was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”), which states, “Everyone has the right to education.” Furthermore, under the UDHR, education in the elementary and fundamental stages is to be free and compulsory. The UDHR further requires that education be directed towards the full development of the human personality and strengthen respect for human rights.  Lastly, the UDHR acknowledges that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that is given to their children.
Another precursor to the Convention is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”), which has two articles which set out the right to education. Article 13 of the ICESCR contains a general statement that everyone has the right to education and that education contributes to the full development of the human personality. Furthermore, Article 13 requires primary education be compulsory, available, and free to all.  Article 13 also requires secondary education, including technical and vocational education, to be available and accessible to all by every appropriate means.  Article 13 requires, as well, fundamental education to be intensified for people who have not received or completed their primary education.  Additionally, Article 13 mandates that systems of schools are established and the teaching staff be continuously improved.  Article 13 further requires that the liberty of parents to be able to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to minimum educational standards.  Article 14 of the ICESCR requires each state party that has not been able to secure compulsory primary education free of charge, “to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for the progressive implementation . . . of compulsory primary education free of charge for all” within two years.

Another international document, that lead the way for the Convention, is the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”).  Article 28 of the CRC requires free, compulsory, primary education for all.  Article 28 also requires that different forms of secondary education available and accessible to all.  Additionally, article 29 of the CRC requires the full development of the child’s personality and his or her talents and abilities to their full potential.  The right to education is universal and must extend to all children, youth, and adults with disabilities.  This right is further addressed in several significant, internationally approved declarations, including the World Declaration for Education for All (1990), the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disability (1993), the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994), and the Dakar Framework for Action (2000).

The Convetion offers more benefits and protections than the previous international documents.  Article 12 of the Convention recognizes equal recognition before the law for persons with disabilities.  Article 12 requires that countries ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities. Article 7 of the Convention requires that the best interests of the child be the primary consideration and due weight in accordance with their age and maturity.   Article 24 of the Convention ensures the right to education for persons with disabilities, which requires that all countries to have an inclusive education system.  The inclusive education system provides equal opportunity without discrimination at all levels of education for all types of learning. Article 24 states that an inclusive education system enhances the development of persons with disabilities in their emotional, physical, and mental abilities. Article 24 states that with greater access to education, persons with disabilities will likely more fully participate in their respective societies.

Article 24 requires an “inclusive education system.”  Article 24 of the Convention requires countries to ensure opportunities for persons with disabilities by not excluding them from the general education system due to their disability.  Article 24 requires that the general education system be free and compulsory at the primary education level on an equal basis with others in their own country.   Article 24 also requires countries to ensure secondary, tertiary, and life-long learning opportunities, for persons with disabilities, on equal with others in their own country. Additionally, article 24 requires countries to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities, so that they may receive an effective education. Article 24 states that reasonable accommodation includes effective individualized support to maximize academic and social development. Article 2 of the Convention defines “reasonable accommodation” as the “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The Convention is not a limitation on country laws to protect persons with disabilities, but sets out a minimum standard for all countries to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.  Additionally, the Convention allows countries to enact higher standards to give more protections for persons with disabilities to effectuate equality.

For more information, check out these links.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)  http://www.un-documents.net/icescr.htm

The Covenant on the Rights of the Child (1989) http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

The Flagship on Education for All and the Right to education for Persons with Disabilities: Towards Inclusion  http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/know_sharing/flagship_initiatives/disability_last_version.shtml

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03jdw6y

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

What Is The Role of the Police?

This was question being explored on the most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast.  Given that I have been studying criminal procedure this past semester, this has been a particular relevant question.

Here is a description of the podcast:

“Plebgate”, the Hillsborough disaster, evidence of blatant fixing of crime statistics – by any standards our police have come under searching scrutiny lately and haven’t exactly come out with flying colours. So this week’s report by a former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, John – now Lord Stevens – on the future of policing is certainly timely. But this is more than just a debate about numbers, structures and complaints procedures, this is a fundamental question about what our police should be for. Lord Stevens says it’s time to accept that police “are not simply crime fighters”, but they should also have a “social mission” that should be enshrined in law which would incorporate improving safety and well-being within communities. We’ve come a long way since the days of the Sweeney catchphrase “get your trousers on – you’re nicked”, but do we want our police to take on the mantle of social workers as well as crime fighters? Is this mission creep by the police, or an abdication of our own responsibility? By widening the scope of what we expect our police to police are we in danger of turning them from law enforcers, in to enforcers of social norms? And that this will lead to a subjective understanding of what society regards as right and wrong and blur the moral line between what is and isn’t a crime?

Is The Second Amendment Antiquated?

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

That was the proposition being debated on the Intelligence Squared squared podcast.

Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and University of Texas Law and Governmet Professor Sanford Levinson, who argued for the motion; and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh and David Kopel– Research Director, Independence Institute & Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, who argued against the motion.

Here is description of the debate:

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” –2nd Amendment

Recent mass shooting tragedies have renewed the national debate over the 2nd Amendment. Gun ownership and homicide rates are higher in the U.S. than in any other developed nation, but gun violence has decreased over the last two decades even as gun ownership may be increasing. Over 200 years have passed since James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights, the country has changed, and so have its guns. Is the right to bear arms now at odds with the common good, or is it as necessary today as it was in 1789?

Sunday Funday: War on Christmas Sarah Palin Redux

/ Matthew Clemente / 2 Comments

Sunday Funday: War on Christmas Sarah Palin Redux

Tis the season… for the War on Christmas, or World War C as The Daily Show‘s Jon Stewart puts it. This year’s version of the annual War on Christmas is lead by Sarah Palin, who recently wrote a book about Christmas.  Palin is supported by long time Christmas warrior Bill O’Reilly.  In an interesting turn, Palin and O’Reilly argue that the consumerism is an integral part of the Christmas. 

Here this how The Daily Show video is described on the Comedy Central website: 

Sarah Palin and Bill O’Reilly rush to Christmas’s defense, despite its not being in any way threatened. 

United States Refuses to Recognize China’s New No-Fly Zone

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

China has announced that they are erecting an “air defense zone” or no-fly zone over the East China Sea. The alleged zone encompasses some uninhabited islands currently contested between China and Japan.

In a meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Vice President Biden, the Chinese president insisted on China’s right to maintain their air defense zone, regardless of America’s refusal to recognize it. Despite the breakdown, Vice President Biden focused on nurturing good relations between the two nations.
The article also highlights the meeting as a suggested turning point in the focus of American foreign policy from the Middle East to Asia.
“As we’ve discussed in the past, this new model of major-country cooperation ultimately has to be based on trust, and a positive notion about the motive of one another,” Biden said.
“The relationship that you and President Obama have established thus far is full of promise, and real opportunity for us,” Biden told Xi, according to a pool report.
Whether this spirit of cooperation between the two countries persist in the short and long-term remains to be seen. The meeting between Xi and Biden lasted more than two hours, according to reports, and allegedly covered every topic in U.S.-Chinese relations. Part of this discussion touched on the precedent iran’s new nuclear deal sets for international relations with North Korea going forward. Given that the P5+1 has shown willingness to encourage civilian nuclear development among countries with troubled relationships with the West, it is conceivable North Korea could pursue a similar path. A nuclear North Korea would further complicate the relationships between China, North Korea, and the United States.

Regarding the air defense zone itself, the article suggests that the United States is concerned that China’s implementation of the zone suggests an aggressive policy in pursuing its national interests in the region. “China is asking aircraft entering its air defense zone to identify themselves and submit flight plans.” While the actual implementation does not seem too drastic at this point, there are concerns that it is just a first step in China’s attempt to control the region.

China “says the zone is similar to others maintained by nations around the world, saying that it is not asserting territorial control over the airspace and that legitimate commercial traffic will continue to move through the region unhindered.” While Japan has instructed its commercial airline pilots to ignore the alleged zone, the United States is asking its commercial pilots to comply, even while its military pilots refuse to recognize the zone.
Should the United States recognize the air defense zone? Are there positive or negative implications if the U.S. does so? How should America pursue relations with China given these developments?