Disability Human Rights

[Excerpt] Responding to the absence of an international treaty expressly protecting people with disabilities, the United Nations General Assembly will soon adopt a disability-based human rights convention. This Article examines the theoretical implications of adding disability to the existing canon of human rights, both for individuals with disabilities and for other under-protected people. It develops a “disability human rights paradigm” by combining components of the social model of disability, the human right to development, and Martha Nussbaum’s version of the capabilities approach, but filters them through a disability rights perspective to preserve that which provides for individual flourishing and modifying that which does not. This Article maintains that Nussbaum’s capabilities approach provides an especially fertile space within which to understand the content of human rights. However, because her scheme excludes some intellectually disabled individuals and conditions the inclusion of others, it falls short of a comprehensive framework. Amending Nussbaum’s capabilities approach to develop the talents of all individuals results in a disability human rights paradigm that recognizes the dignity and worth of every person. This Article also argues that a disability rights paradigm is capable of fortifying human rights in two ways: first, it can reinforce protections afforded to groups already protected, such as women; and second, it can extend protections to people currently not protected, such as sexual minorities and the poor. Ultimately, the disability rights paradigm indicates that human rights protection can progress from a group to an individual basis. Repositioning disability as an inclusive concept embraces disability as a universal human variation rather than an aberration

Beyond Disability Civil Rights

[Excerpt] This Article argues that to be effective, both domestic and international disability rights must adopt a disability human rights paradigm. Such a framework combines the type of civil and political rights provided by antidiscrimination legislation (also called negative or first-generation rights) with the full spectrum of social, cultural, and economic measures (also called positive or second-generation rights) bestowed by many human rights treaties.16 By acting holistically, this agenda accounts for factors normally exogenous to civil rights laws and ensures that individuals can flourish and participate in their societies. Accordingly, our intention is to share some thoughts on how to best provide disabled citizens with equal opportunity rather than “merely” equal treatment. Internationally, States and civil society organizations have been developing innovative and effective equality measures. We draw on their experiences in providing examples of how disability legislation and policy can be developed to implement a more holistic human rights approach. These lessons are also pertinent for invigorating the ADA

Priestley v. Fowler (1837) and the Emerging Tort of Negligence

Priestley v. Fowler has long been noted as the source of the doctrine of common employment. This Article, however, argues that the case is better understood in the context of the then-emerging independent tort of negligence—specifically, as an unsuccessful attempt to require of masters a duty of care towards their servants. The Article re-examines the facts, arguments, personalities, and various reported versions of the case in tracing the effort to establish a new duty of care. The Article traces, as well, to another case, Hutchinson v. York, the true origins of the common employment doctrine. Finally, the Article compares the perspectives of nineteenth century authorities to those of modern writers hi establishing how Priestly came to be detached from its true significance