Compliance by Australia with its obligations under article 18 “Liberty of movement and nationality” of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(2011) JAMM04 20101Department of Law
- Abstract
- While migrating to other countries, persons with disabilities often face additional obstacles as non-nationals and having a disability. Being a vulnerable group it might be hard for them to access remedies and justice.
As a light in the darkness, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in 2006 in order to promote and protect the human rights of persons with disabilities. It brought a “paradigm shift” in attitudes to the persons with disabilities in society. According to the Convention, persons with disabilities are no longer viewed as objects in need of care or charity, medical treatment and social protection. They are viewed as subjects with rights, capable of making decisions and claiming their rights.
... (More) - While migrating to other countries, persons with disabilities often face additional obstacles as non-nationals and having a disability. Being a vulnerable group it might be hard for them to access remedies and justice.
As a light in the darkness, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in 2006 in order to promote and protect the human rights of persons with disabilities. It brought a “paradigm shift” in attitudes to the persons with disabilities in society. According to the Convention, persons with disabilities are no longer viewed as objects in need of care or charity, medical treatment and social protection. They are viewed as subjects with rights, capable of making decisions and claiming their rights.
Many countries ratified the Convention and with this action identified their commitment to the rights of persons with disabilities. But unfortunately, the human rights of persons with disabilities are still being violated. In my thesis I look at the immigration treatment of disability and trying to find whether Australia complies with its obligations under article 18 “Liberty of movement and nationality” of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. For this purpose all the applicable national and international law, case-law and relevant literature were systematized interpreted and then analyzed.
From the first sight the immigration policy of Australia does not consist of any discrimination: the health test is obligatory for every visa applicant, there is a waiver process, which allows appeal of the decision primary made. Nonetheless the major area of concern for Australia became its policy on treatment of immigrants with disabilities. Even though Australian federal and state anti-discrimination law seem to provide substantial protection to persons with disabilities, the ‘health test’ and the ‘health requirements’ under this test exclude large groups of migrants with disabilities from Australia.
Further examination of the ‘health test’ and the ‘health requirements’ showed that they subscribe to an outdated view of disability, perceiving persons with disabilities as burdens on society and may even lead to direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of disability. Moreover, the analysis of Australian ‘interpretive declaration’ to the article 18 of the CRPD proved that the State failed to comply with its own understanding and interpretation of its immigration policy and showed that the ‘interpretive declaration’ is merely a tool aimed at defending Australia against the claims of discrimination. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/2060504
- author
- Andreyeva, Anna LU
- supervisor
-
- Anna Nilsson LU
- organization
- course
- JAMM04 20101
- year
- 2011
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- language
- English
- id
- 2060504
- date added to LUP
- 2011-09-16 12:00:36
- date last changed
- 2011-09-16 12:00:36
@misc{2060504,
abstract = {{While migrating to other countries, persons with disabilities often face additional obstacles as non-nationals and having a disability. Being a vulnerable group it might be hard for them to access remedies and justice.
As a light in the darkness, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in 2006 in order to promote and protect the human rights of persons with disabilities. It brought a “paradigm shift” in attitudes to the persons with disabilities in society. According to the Convention, persons with disabilities are no longer viewed as objects in need of care or charity, medical treatment and social protection. They are viewed as subjects with rights, capable of making decisions and claiming their rights.
Many countries ratified the Convention and with this action identified their commitment to the rights of persons with disabilities. But unfortunately, the human rights of persons with disabilities are still being violated. In my thesis I look at the immigration treatment of disability and trying to find whether Australia complies with its obligations under article 18 “Liberty of movement and nationality” of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. For this purpose all the applicable national and international law, case-law and relevant literature were systematized interpreted and then analyzed.
From the first sight the immigration policy of Australia does not consist of any discrimination: the health test is obligatory for every visa applicant, there is a waiver process, which allows appeal of the decision primary made. Nonetheless the major area of concern for Australia became its policy on treatment of immigrants with disabilities. Even though Australian federal and state anti-discrimination law seem to provide substantial protection to persons with disabilities, the ‘health test’ and the ‘health requirements’ under this test exclude large groups of migrants with disabilities from Australia.
Further examination of the ‘health test’ and the ‘health requirements’ showed that they subscribe to an outdated view of disability, perceiving persons with disabilities as burdens on society and may even lead to direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of disability. Moreover, the analysis of Australian ‘interpretive declaration’ to the article 18 of the CRPD proved that the State failed to comply with its own understanding and interpretation of its immigration policy and showed that the ‘interpretive declaration’ is merely a tool aimed at defending Australia against the claims of discrimination.}},
author = {{Andreyeva, Anna}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Compliance by Australia with its obligations under article 18 “Liberty of movement and nationality” of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities}},
year = {{2011}},
}