Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-lwxm7 Total loading time: 0.449 Render date: 2021-06-20T22:56:27.195Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

The right to legal agency: domination, disability and the protections of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2017

Anna Arstein-Kerslake
Affiliation:
Hallmark Disability Research Initiative & Melbourne Law School, Australia. E-mail: anna.arstein@unimelb.edu.au.
Eilionóir Flynn
Affiliation:
Centre for Disability Law and Policy, NUI Galway, Ireland. E-mail: eilionoir.flynn@nuigalway.ie.

Abstract

Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has created a revolution in legal-capacity law reform. It protects the right to exercise legal agency for people with disabilities with more clarity than any prior human rights instrument. This paper explores what constitutes an exercise of legal agency and what exactly Article 12 protects. It proposes a definition of legal agency and applies it to the lived experience of cognitive disability. It also uses a republican theory of domination to argue that people with cognitive disabilities who are experiencing domination are forced to assert legal agency in even daily decision-making because of the high level of external regulation of their lives and the ever-present threat of others substituting their decision-making. It identifies Article 12 as a tool for protecting such exertions of legal agency and curtailing relationships of domination.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

The development of the ideas in this article was a collaborative effort and could not have been achieved without the valuable insights and feedback of many other scholars in this field. We wish to particularly acknowledge the comments of Tina Minkowitz, Elizabeth Kamundia, Piers Gooding, Michelle Browning, Alex Ruck-Keene, Kristijan Gordan, Mirriam Nthenge, Theresia Degener, and Lucy Series for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. Alberto Vasquez, Sarah Hofmayer, Charlotte May Simera, Liz Brosnan and John Danaher also gave valuable feedback at a roundtable discussion on a very early draft of this paper. Any errors or inaccuracies are the sole responsibility of the authors.

References

Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret (1957) Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arstein-Kerslake, Anna (2014) ‘An Empowering Dependency: Exploring Support for the Exercise of Legal Capacity’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 18(1): 7792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arstein-Kerslake, Anna and Flynn, Eilionóir (2016) ‘The General Comment in Article 12 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Roadmap for Equality before the Law’, International Journal of Human Rights 20(4): 471490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Michael and Kerzner, Lana (2010) A New Paradigm for Protecting Autonomy and the Right to Legal Capacity. Ontario: Law Commission of Ontario.Google Scholar
Brammer, Alison (2012) ‘Inside the Court of Protection’, Journal of Adult Protection 14(6): 297301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, Michael (1999) Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, Michael E. (1990) ‘What Is Intention?’ in Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry L. and Pollack, Martha E. (eds) Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1532.Google Scholar
Brosnan, Liz and Flynn, Eilionóir (2017) ‘Freedom to Negotiate: A Proposal Extricating “Capacity” From “Consent”’, International Journal of Law in Context 13(1), 5876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Anne Louise, Goodley, Dan and Lawthom, Rebecca (2001) ‘Making Connections: The Relevance of the Social Model of Disability for People with Learning Difficulties’, British Journal of Learning Disabilities 29(2): 4550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlton, James I. (1998) Nothing about Us without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Philip R. and Levesque, Hector J. (1990) ‘Intention Is Choice with Commitment’, Artificial Intelligence 42(2): 213261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2014) General Comment No. 1 – Article 12: Equal Recognition Before the Law, UN Doc. No. CRPD/C/GC/1, adopted at the 11th Session.Google Scholar
de Bhailís, Clíona and Flynn, Eilionóir (2017) ‘Recognising Legal Capacity: Commentary & Analysis of Article 12 CRPD’, International Journal of Law in Context 13(1), 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wispelaere, Jurgen and Casassas, David (2014) ‘A Life of One's Own: Republican Freedom and Disability’, Disability & Society 29(3): 24022416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhanda, Amita (2006–2007) ‘Legal Capacity in the Disability Rights Convention: Stranglehold of the Past or Lodestar of the Future?’, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 34: 429462.Google Scholar
Edwards, J.L.J. (1958) ‘Automatism and Criminal Responsibility’, Modern Law Review 21(4): 375386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, Eilionóir and Arstein-Kerslake, Anna (2014) ‘Legislating Personhood: Realising the Right to Support in Exercising Legal Capacity’, International Journal of Law in Context 10(1): 81104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooding, Piers (2015) ‘Navigating the “Flashing Amber Lights” of the Right to Legal Capacity in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Responding to Major Concerns’, Human Rights Law Review 15(1): 4571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, Gemma, Hutchinson, Lisa and Hastings, Richard (2013) ‘“I'm Not a Patient, I'm a Person”: The Experiences of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behavior – a Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies’, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 20(4): 469488.Google Scholar
Kanter, Arlene S. (2012) ‘There's No Place Like Home: The Right to Live in the Community for People with Disabilities, Under International Law and the Domestic Laws of the United States and Israel’, Israel Law Review 45(2): 181233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayess, Rosemary and French, Philip (2008) ‘Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, Human Rights Law Review 8(1): 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder (1999) Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder and Carlson, Licia (eds) (2010) Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehman, Jeffrey and Phelps, Shirelle (2005) West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Detroit: Thomson/Gale.Google Scholar
Lo, Bernard (1990) ‘Assessing Decision-Making Capacity’, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 18(3): 193201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovett, Frank (2010) A General Theory of Dominance and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McSherry, Bernadette (2012) ‘Legal Capacity Under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, Journal of Law and Medicine 20: 2227.Google ScholarPubMed
Minkowitz, Tina (2006–2007) ‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Right to Be Free from Nonconsensual Psychiatric Interventions’, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 34: 405428.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Timothy R.J., Cutter, William and Hotopf, Matthew (2008) ‘Assessing Mental Capacity: The Mental Capacity Act’, BMJ: British Medical Journal 336(7639): 322325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha (2006) Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O'Shea, Tom (2015) ‘Disability and Domination: Lessons from Republican Political Philosophy’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 33(2), online.Google Scholar
Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (2005) Background Conference Document on Legal Capacity (Prepared as Part of the Ad Hoc Committee Deliberations Following the Fifth Session). New York: OHCHR. Available at: <http://www2.ohchr.org/SPdocs/CRPD/DGD21102009/OHCHR_BP_Legal_Capacity.doc> (assessed 28 October 2016).+(assessed+28+October+2016).>Google Scholar
Oliver, Michael (2004) ‘The Social Model in Action: If I Had a Hammer’ in Barnes, Colin and Mercer, Geof (eds) Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research. Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
Owen, Gareth S., Freyenhagen, Fabian, Richardson, Genevra and Hotopf, Matthew (2009) ‘Mental Capacity and Decisional Autonomy: An Interdisciplinary Challenge’, Inquiry 52(1): 79107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Phillip (1997) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, Gerard (2009) ‘A Short Guide to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ in Quinn, Gerard and Waddington, Lisa (eds) European Yearbook on Disability Law: Volume 1. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (2009) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rehbinder, Manfred (1970–1971) ‘Status, Contract, and the Welfare State’, Stanford Law Review 23: 941–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Series, Lucy (2013) ‘The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Institutional Domination of People with Learning Disabilities’, doctoral thesis in Law, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Series, Lucy (2015) ‘Relationships, Autonomy and Legal Capacity: Mental Capacity and Support Paradigms’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 40: 8091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, Tom and Watson, Nicholas (1997) ‘Defending the Social Model’, Disability & Society 12(2): 293300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, Stephanie A. (1982) ‘The Variability Hypothesis: The History of a Biological Model of Sex Differences in Intelligence’, Signs 7(4): 769797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri (2010) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, James Stacey (ed.) (2005) Personal Autonomy: New Essays on Personal Autonomy and Its Role in Contemporary Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (2000) ‘Contracting Worlds: The Many Autonomies of Private Law’, Social and Legal Studies 9(3): 399418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topor, Alain, Andersson, Gunnel, Bülow, Per, Stefansson, Claes-Göran and Denhov, Anne (2016) ‘After the Asylum? The New Institutional Landscape’, Community Mental Health Journal 52(6): 731737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The right to legal agency: domination, disability and the protections of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The right to legal agency: domination, disability and the protections of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The right to legal agency: domination, disability and the protections of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *