I was surprised to read that the US had not ratified the UN Convention on Rights for the Disabled. I’m not sure why, or what significance this has. I think the UN is of limited efficacy and understand the US does not always want treaty obligations. But are disabled rights in most States taken seriously? Why hesitate to sign?
No, in most states the rights of people with disabilities are not taken seriously.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is fairly robust, so state laws don’t always enter into the matter.
It requires 2/3 to ratify. This article is definitely an opinion piece, but tries to go into some of the Republican rejection, and seems to point to a skepticism of international treaties.
The ADA does provide stronger public accommodations than many other countries.
One of the two US parties has decided that they will not ratify treaties since they might create obligations on the US. Same mentality, really, that prevented the US from joining the League of Nations a century ago.
The ADA is not perfect, but it really does go quite far.
A good article. Not too much of a hijack, but the original idea of treaties between countries were ones of international concern. You may use this port, we may have free trade on this category of goods, etc. The idea of having treaties for purely internal affairs is fairly recent.
IOW, if the United States wants to protect the rights of the disabled, there is no need to sign a treaty with other countries; just pass an internal law. The creation of the UN accelerated these rights, but the United States is, IMHO, pretty concerned about a broad, unnecessary treaty being interpreted by UN bureaucrats who hate us more and more.
That’s a good article and I thank you for posting it. The ADA seems pretty good, but I find it bizarre 177 countries in the case of Disability (and literally every other country in the case of Children) have signed on. Of course, this does not guarantee bona fide commitment. What matters is implementation.
With many of those 177 nations all it meant was the cost of a little ink. If the USA ratifies a treaty, it because the second highest level of law int he land, right after the Constitution.
What did that treaty do that the ADA doesnt?
I agree that laws are often honoured in the breech. The article generously posted explains four things that differentiate it from the ADA. But in the end the differences are modest. All things considered, it is probably better to be disabled in Seattle than Shanghai.
(Though this is changing some. My impetus for writing was an Economist article on how there is modest improvement in Chinese treatment of disabled, still not that great, and a signee).