The United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate
Luisa Blanchfield, Coordinator
Specialist in International Relations
Cynthia Brougher
Legislative Attorney
James V. DeBergh
Legislative Attorney
November 28, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42749
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Summary
During the 112th Congress, the Senate may consider providing its advice and consent to
ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, or the
Convention). CRPD, which has been ratified or acceded to by 126 countries, is a multilateral
agreement that addresses the rights of disabled persons. Its purpose is to promote, protect, and
ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by persons
with disabilities. The United States has signed, but not ratified, the Convention.
Generally, many U.S. policymakers, including President Obama and some Members of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations (SFRC), agree that existing U.S. laws and policies are
compatible with CRPD. In fact, some CRPD provisions appear to be modeled after U.S. disability
laws. The United States has historically recognized the rights of individuals with disabilities
through various laws and policies, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended.
In July 2012, SFRC reported CPRD favorably to the full Senate, subject to certain conditions. If
the Senate considers providing its advice and consent to ratification, CRPD’s impact on U.S.
sovereignty may be a key issue of concern. For example, critics of the Convention maintain that
treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land” under the Constitution, and that U.S. ratification of
CRPD could supersede federal, state, and local laws. Supporters assert that CRPD is a non-
discrimination treaty that does not create new obligations. They contend that U.S. laws meet, and
in some cases exceed, CRPD requirements. Debate may also center on the following issues:
• Role of the CPRD committee. Critics are concerned that recommendations of
the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention’s
monitoring body, could deem U.S. laws to be in violation of CRPD and presume
authority over the private lives of U.S. citizens. Supporters, including the Obama
Administration, emphasize that committee decisions are non-binding under
international and domestic law.
• Possible impact on U.S. citizens and businesses abroad. Some CRPD
proponents contend that U.S. ratification may (1) improve the lives of U.S.
citizens with disabilities living, working, or traveling abroad, and (2) “level the
playing field” for U.S. companies that, unlike many of their foreign counterparts,
already comply with higher disability standards. The extent to which U.S.
ratification of CRPD may positively affect U.S. businesses or disabled U.S.
citizens living or traveling abroad remains unclear.
• Role in U.S. foreign policy. Supporters contend that U.S. ratification may
enhance U.S. credibility as it advocates the rights of persons with disabilities
globally. Opponents argue that existing U.S. laws and policies are robust enough
examples of U.S. commitment to the issue.
• Abortion. Some critics worry that the term “sexual and reproductive health” in
CRPD could be a euphemism for abortion. Supporters note that the word
“abortion” is never mentioned in CRPD and contend that no U.S laws related to
abortion would be created as a result of U.S. ratification.
• Parental rights. Some are concerned that the U.S. ratification may give
governments, and not U.S. parents, the right to make educational and treatment-
related decisions for their disabled children. Others, including the Obama
Congressional Research Service

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Administration, hold that existing federal, state, and local laws protect parental
rights.
Other issues that Senators may wish to consider include challenges to evaluating CRPD’s
effectiveness, obstacles to CRPD implementation, and the role and participation of civil society in
CRPD mechanisms.
For information on U.S. efforts to address the rights of persons with disabilities domestically, see
CRS Report 98-921, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Statutory Language and Recent
Issues, by Cynthia Brougher and James V. DeBergh.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives and Structure .................................................................................................................. 2
Optional Protocol ....................................................................................................................... 4
Conference of States Parties ...................................................................................................... 5
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities .............................................................. 5
Obama Administration Actions ........................................................................................................ 5
Senate Actions ................................................................................................................................. 7
U.S. Laws Protecting the Rights of Individuals with Disabilities ................................................... 9
Federal Versus State Law......................................................................................................... 10
Existing Laws and Policies ...................................................................................................... 10
U.S. Constitution ............................................................................................................... 11
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ........................................................................... 11
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ................................................................................................ 14
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ......................................................... 14
Policy Issues .................................................................................................................................. 15
The Role of the Disabilities Committee .................................................................................. 16
CRPD as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy ...................................................................... 16
Possible Impact on U.S. Citizens and Businesses Abroad....................................................... 17
Potential Impact on Parental Authority ................................................................................... 18
Possible Impact on Abortion Laws and Policies ..................................................................... 19
Issues on the Horizon .............................................................................................................. 20

Appendixes
Appendix. States Parties to CRPD ................................................................................................. 21

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Introduction
The Senate may consider providing its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the United
Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, or the Convention)
during the second session of the 112th Congress. CRPD is the only multilateral treaty that
specifically aims to protect the rights of those who are disabled. To date, 154 countries, including
the United States, have signed the Convention, and it has been ratified or acceded to by 126
countries.1
President Barack Obama signed CRPD on
U.S. Process for Making
behalf of the United States on July 30, 2009.
Multilateral Treaties
He transmitted it to the Senate for advice and
The making of multilateral treaties for the United States
consent to ratification in May 2012, where it
generally involves a series of steps in the following order:
was received and referred to the Committee on
(1) negotiation and conclusion; (2) signing by the
Foreign Relations (SFRC). The committee
President; (3) transmittal to the Senate by the President,
which may include any proposed reservations,
reported the Convention favorably to the full
declarations, and understandings; (4) referral to the
Senate on July 31, 2012, by a vote of 13 in
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; (5) committee
favor and 6 against, subject to three
consideration and report to the Senate recommending
reservations, eight understandings and two
approval and a proposed resolution of ratification, which
declarations.3 On November 27, the Senate
may include reservations, declarations, or
understandings; (6) Senate approval of advice and
decided to go into executive session to
consent to ratification by a two-thirds majority; (7)
consider the treaty (by a vote of 61 in favor
ratification by the President; (8) deposit of instrument of
and 36 against).
ratification; and (9) proclamation.
While the House of Representatives does not participate
Generally, issues related to disability rights
in the treaty-making process, legislation implementing
have received bipartisan agreement in
any treaties requires action by both houses of Congress.2
Congress, and there has been support for
CRPD among some Senators from both parties. Many policymakers—including those in the
Obama Administration—agree that existing U.S. laws are generally in line with CRPD’s
provisions, and that no U.S. laws or policies would change as a result of U.S. ratification of the
Convention. At the same time, other policymakers contend that ratification of CRPD would
adversely affect U.S. sovereignty and interests.
If the full Senate were to consider providing its advice and consent to CRPD ratification, a
number of issues may be discussed. For example, some policymakers have expressed concern
regarding the Convention’s possible impact on existing U.S. laws and policies, particularly the
role and authority of CRPD’s monitoring body, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. (The committee makes non-binding recommendations and has no authority over U.S.
law.) Senators may also debate the potential benefits to U.S. ratification, such as the ability of the
United States to advocate and share its experiences regarding the rights of disabled persons in
global fora, and improved disability rights for U.S. citizens living and traveling abroad.

1 See the Appendix for a list of countries that have ratified or acceded to CRPD and its Optional Protocol.
2 For more information, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Treaties and Other International
Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate, committee print, prepared by the Congressional Research Service,
106th Cong., 2nd sess., January 2001, S. Prt. 106-71 (Washington: GPO, 2001).
3 For more information on these conditions, see sections on “Obama Administration Actions” and “Senate Actions.”
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Other areas of debate include the possible effects of U.S. ratification, if any, on parental rights,
particularly decisions related to the education of disabled children. Some policymakers have also
raised questions about CRPD’s possible impact on healthcare—including the extent to which, if
any, the Convention addresses existing laws and policies related to abortion. (For further
discussion of these and other subjects, see the “Policy Issues” section.)
Objectives and Structure
The CRPD and its Optional Protocol were adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December
2006.4 The treaty was opened for signature on March 30, 2007, and entered into force on May 3,
2008. Many experts view CRPD’s adoption as the culmination of a gradual shift in international
perceptions toward persons with disabilities
from “objects” of charity, medical treatment,
CRPD Timeline
and social protection to “subjects” with
2002-2006: The Convention text was negotiated during
fundamental rights who are able to make life
eight sessions of an Ad Hoc Committee of the U.N.
decisions based on free and informed consent
General Assembly. The United States observed and/or
and as active members of society.5
participated in these sessions.
December 2006: CRPD was adopted as General
The overall purpose of CRPD is to promote,
Assembly resolution 66/229. The Bush Administration
protect, and ensure the full and equal
joined the consensus adopting the resolution, but
enjoyment of all human rights and
indicated it would not sign or ratify the treaty due to
concerns over U.S. sovereignty.
fundamental freedoms by all persons with
disabilities. Parties to the treaty agree to
March 2007: CRPD was opened for signature.
“undertake to ensure and promote the full
May 2008: CRPD entered into force.
realization of all human rights and
July 2009: President Barack Obama signed CRPD on
fundamental freedoms for all persons with
behalf of the United States, stating that it would benefit
disabilities without discrimination of any kind
disabled persons worldwide, including U.S. citizens.
on the basis of disability.”6
May 2012: The President transmitted CRPD to the
Senate for advice and consent to ratification, where it
The Convention sets broad goals of autonomy,
was received and referred to SFRC.
equality, acceptance, and accessibility for
July 2012: SFRC reported CRPD favorably to the full
individuals with disabilities. It does not
Senate by a vote of 13 in favor and 6 against, subject to
provide a definition of “disability.” It
three reservations, eight understandings, and two
acknowledges that the term is an “evolving
declarations.
concept” that results from “the interaction
between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders full and
effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” (For example, a person in a
wheelchair might fail to gain employment not because he or she uses a wheelchair, but because

4 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 66/229, adopted December 13, 2006. The Convention was negotiated during eight
sessions of an Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly from 2002-2006. The negotiating history of the Ad Hoc
Committee is available at http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=1423. For information on the U.S. position, see
the “Obama Administration Actions” section.
5 Drawn from “United Nations (U.N.) Enable: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” at
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=14&pid=150. For additional information on the history of the
Convention and U.N. efforts to address disability issues, see “U.N. Enable: History of the United Nations and
Disability” at http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=121.
6 CRPD, Article (art.) 4(1).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

environmental barriers—such as stairs, lack of ramps, or insufficient transportation—impede
access to the work place.)
Parties to CRPD agree to take appropriate measures to carry out a range of policies, laws, and
administrative measures. The Convention’s provisions can grouped into five general themes:
• Equality and non-discrimination—CRPD prohibits discrimination and requires
States Parties to recognize that “all persons are equal before and under the law
and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal
benefit of the law.”7Accordingly, States Parties are required to take steps to
ensure that reasonable accommodations are provided to persons with disabilities.8
• Accessibility and personal mobility—States Parties must take measures to
ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to the physical
environment, to transportation, to information and communications, and to other
facilities open or provided to the public.9 States Parties also must ensure “liberty
of movement” and freedom of disabled persons to choose their nationality and
residence on an equal basis with others.
• Education—States Parties are required to “ensure an inclusive education system
at all levels.”10 Persons with disabilities must be offered the same opportunities
for free primary and secondary education as others in their communities, and
their individual requirements must be reasonably accommodated. Within the
general education system, persons with disabilities shall receive the support
required “to facilitate their effective education.”11
• Work and employment—CRPD recognizes the right of disabled persons to
work on an equal basis with others in an environment that is “open, inclusive and
accessible to persons with disabilities.”12 Parties agree to prohibit employee
discrimination against disabled persons and, if necessary, to adopt laws barring
such discrimination in the employment process, including recruitment, hiring,
retention, promotion and termination.13
• Health—The Convention calls on States Parties to ensure that persons with
disabilities have equal access to the same range, quality, and standard of free or
affordable health care and programs as provided to other persons—including in

7 CRPD, art. 5.
8 CRPD, art. 10. CRPD also reaffirms that every human being has the “inherent right to life and its effective enjoyment
by persons with disabilities on a equal basis with others.” It further states that Parties must provide equal access to
justice systems and prevent abuse in accordance with international human right laws. The Convention also recognizes
the rights of women and children with disabilities.
9 CPRD, art. 9.
10 CRPD, art. 24.
11 Ibid. CRPD also requires Parties to facilitate the use of sign language, Braille, and other modes of communication to
assist students with disabilities in fully participating in the educational process.
12 CRPD, art. 27. Under art. 27, employees with disabilities must also be reasonably accommodated and have access to
training and union benefits.
13 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

the areas of sexual and reproductive health.14 Under the Convention, health care
professionals must provide equal care to persons with disabilities.
CRPD offers other broad legal protections, such as ensuring that persons with disabilities are not
deprived of liberty, either unlawfully or arbitrarily.15 In addition, States Parties are required to
take measures to protect disabled persons from exploitation and violence and abuse, as well as in
emergency situations such as armed conflict, humanitarian crises, and natural disasters. States
Parties must also take steps to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to attain and maintain
maximum independence through comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services. Parties
must also guarantee equal political rights for disabled persons, including voting protection and
political participation.
Selected Activities Undertaken by States Parties to CRPD
An August 2012 report on the status of CRPD by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon highlighted States Parties’
efforts to implement the Convention’s provisions.16 For example,
•
Brazil established a National Human Rights Office under the Office of the President to monitor CRPD’s
implementation;
•
Indonesia is implementing a national plan of action on persons with disabilities for 2004-2013;
•
Mexico adopted a general law in May 2011 on the social inclusion of persons with disabilities, and launched a
national mechanism to implement and monitor national policies and actions plans for the rights of persons with
disabilities;
•
Paraguay adopted a law that requires public institutions to reserve at least 5% of staff positions for persons
with disabilities;
•
Spain approved a regulation regarding basic conditions for the participation of persons with disabilities in the
political and electoral process; and
•
Qatar launched a national development strategy that included social protections for persons with disabilities,
and in 2010 introduced a national population strategy that focused on empowering persons with disabilities
through anti-discrimination and equal opportunity measures.
Optional Protocol
The Optional Protocol to the CRPD establishes two procedures aimed at strengthening the
implementation and monitoring of the Convention.17 The first is an individual communications
procedure that allows individuals or groups of individuals from States Parties to bring petitions to
the committee claiming breaches of their rights. The second is an inquiry procedure that
authorizes the committee to undertake inquiries of grave or systematic violations of the
Convention. The Optional Protocol, which entered into force on May 3, 2008, has been signed by
91 countries and ratified or acceded to by 76 countries. The United States has not signed or
ratified the Optional Protocol.

14 CRPD, art. 25.
15 For a detailed account of how these provisions apply to U.S. laws and policies, see the “U.S. Laws Protecting the
Rights of Individuals with Disabilities” section.
16 U.N. document A/67/281, Status of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional
Protocol thereto—Report of the Secretary-General, August 9, 2012.
17 Optional Protocols sometimes accompany treaties. They are stand-alone agreements that can be signed and ratified
by countries that are not party to the main treaty.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Conference of States Parties
Under Article 40 of CRPD, the Conference of States Parties—composed of States Parties to the
Convention—has the authority to consider any matter with regard to implementation of the
Convention. The Conference has met four times since CRPD entered into force in 2008.
Participants have discussed issues ranging from accessibility and reasonable accommodation to
CRPD’s role in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.18 The fifth Conference session
was held in New York from September 12-14, 2012, and featured the theme, “Making the CRPD
Count for Women and Children.”
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, established under Article 34 of CRPD,
is the monitoring body of the Convention. It comprises 18 independent experts elected by the
Conference of States Parties, taking into account geographic distribution. States Parties are
required to submit periodic reports to the committee on their implementation of CRPD, including
an initial report within the first two years of ratification or accession and regular reports every
four years. The committee examines each report and makes suggestions and general
recommendations to the concerned States Parties. Under the CRPD Optional Protocol, the
committee may examine individual complaints regarding alleged violation of the Convention by
States Parties to the Protocol. The committee meets about twice a year in Geneva, and to date has
held eight sessions. The ninth session will be held from April 15-19, 2013, when the committee
expects to consider reports from Australia, Austria, El Salvador, and Paraguay.19
Obama Administration Actions
On July 30, 2009, President Obama signed the Convention. The Administration transmitted it to
the Senate for advice and consent to ratification on May 17, 2012, where it was received, referred
to the Committee on Foreign Relations (SFRC), and placed on the committee calendar. In his
letter of transmittal, the President expressed his support for U.S. ratification of CRPD, stating that
it would “position the United States to occupy the global leadership role to which our domestic
record already attests.”20 The Administration proposed three reservations, five understandings,
and one declaration to accompany the treaty:

18 The Millennium Development Goals are a group of measurable development targets agreed to by 189 U.N. member
states, including the United States, as part of the 2000 Millennium Declaration. Examples include eradicating extreme
hunger and poverty; achieving universal primary education; and reducing child and maternal mortality rates.
19 For more information on committee procedures, membership, and sessions, see http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/
crpd/pages/crpdindex.aspx. The committee’s monitoring role is further discussed in the “The Role of the Disabilities
Committee” section.
20 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
Message from the President of the United States Transmitting The Convention on the Rights of Persons With
Disabilities, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and Signed by the United States
of America on June 30, 2009, prepared by Office of the President, 112th Congress, 2nd session, May 17, 2012, Treaty
Doc. 112-7 (Washington: GPO, 2012) (hereinafter Treaty Doc. 112-7).
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

• a federalism reservation, which states that U.S. obligations under CRPD are
limited to those measures appropriate to the federal system, such as the
enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act;21
• a private conduct reservation, which states that the United States does not
accept CRPD provisions that address private conduct, except as mandated by
U.S. law;
• a torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment reservation, which states
that persons with disabilities are protected
against torture and other degrading
Reservations, Understandings, and
treatment consistent with U.S. obligations
Declarations that may Accompany U.S.
under the U.N. Convention Against
Ratification of Treaties
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations may
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and
recommend that the Senate approve a treaty
the International Covenant on Civil and
conditionally, granting its advice and consent subject to
Political Rights;
certain stipulations that the President must accept before
proceeding to ratification. These stipulations are
• a first amendment understanding,
generally referred to as “Reservations, Understandings,
which says that the United States
and Declarations” (RUDs). The President may also
understands that CRPD does not authorize
propose RUDs at the time he transmits the treaty to the
Senate or during the Senate’s consideration of the treaty.
or require actions restricting speech,
expression, or association that are
“Reservations” are specific qualifications or stipulations
protected by the Constitution;
that modify U.S. obligations without necessarily changing
the treaty language.
• an economic, social, and cultural rights
“Understandings” are interpretive statements that
understanding, which says the United
clarify or elaborate, rather than change, the provisions of
States understands that CRPD prevents
an treaty. They are generally deemed to be consistent
disability discrimination with respect to
with the obligations imposed by the treaty.
economic, social and cultural rights,
“Declarations” are statements of purpose, policy, or
insofar as such rights are recognized and
position related to matters raised by the treaty in
implemented under U.S. law;
question but not altering or limiting any of its
provisions.22
• an equal employment opportunity
understanding, which states that the United States understands that U.S. law
protects disabled persons against unequal pay, and that CRPD does not require
the adoption of a comparable framework for persons with disabilities;
• a uniformed military employee hiring understanding, which states that the
United States does not recognize rights in the Convention that exceed those under
U.S. law in regards to military hiring, promotion, and other employment-related
issues;

21 For a more detailed discussion of the federalism reservation, see the “U.S. Laws Protecting the Rights of Individuals
with Disabilities” section. For more information on the ADA, see CRS Report 98-921, The Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA): Statutory Language and Recent Issues, by Cynthia Brougher and James V. DeBergh.
22 Drawn in part from U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Treaties and Other International
Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate, committee print, prepared by the Congressional Research Service,
106th Cong., 2nd sess., January 2001, S. Prt. 106-71 (Washington: GPO, 2001).
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

• a definition of disability understanding, which states that CRPD does not
define “disability” or “persons with disabilities,” and that the United States
understands the definitions of these terms to be consistent with U.S. law;23 and
• a non-self executing declaration, which states that no new laws would be
required as a result of U.S. ratification of CRPD.
The federalism reservation and non-self executing declaration are standard RUDs that have
accompanied nearly every treaty transmitted to the Senate by the President in modern times.
Policymakers have also proposed a private conduct reservation for several human rights treaties
because of their potential impact on the private lives of U.S. citizens. Other RUDs proposed by
the Administration, including the understanding addressing the definition of disability, are
tailored to specific CRPD provisions.
The Obama Administration’s support for the Convention is a marked departure from President
George W. Bush’s policy toward the Convention. During CRPD negotiations between 2003 and
2006, the Bush Administration indicated that because disability issues were in the purview of
domestic policy and law, “the United States had no intention of becoming party to the treaty.”24
The Bush Administration did, however join consensus on the General Assembly resolution that
adopted the treaty and opened it for signature.25 Neither President Bush nor President Obama
signed, or indicated intent to sign, the Convention’s Optional Protocol.
Senate Actions
On July 31, 2012, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) reported CRPD favorably to
the full Senate by a vote of 13 in favor and 6 against.26 The full Senate decided, by a vote of 61 in
favor and 36 against, to go into executive session to consider the treaty on November 27. During
hearings and broader debates leading up to the votes and during the executive session, the
majority of discussions focused on the Convention’s possible impact on U.S. sovereignty,
particularly the impact of the recommendations of the Disabilities Committee on domestic laws
and policies, as well as the possible effect U.S. ratification might have on existing U.S. abortion
laws.27 To address these concerns, SFRC agreed to the following understandings and declarations
(in addition to or modifying the aforementioned RUDs proposed by President Obama):
• a role of the Disabilities Committee understanding, which states that the
committee has no authority to compel actions by States Parties, and that the

23 For further discussion of the disability understanding, see the “Senate Actions” and “U.S. Laws Protecting the Rights
of Individuals with Disabilities” sections.
24 Department of State, “U.S. Participation in the United Nations, 2005,” pp. 68-69. For more information on the Bush
Administration position on CRPD, also see, “U.S. Participation in the United Nations, 2006,” pp. 79-80.
25 Statement by Ambassador Richard T. Miller, “Explanation of Position on the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, Agenda Item 67(b), in the General Assembly,” U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release
#396(06), December 13, 2006.
26 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Treaty Doc. 112-7), Report Together With Minority Views [To accompany Treaty Doc. 112-7], 112th Cong., 2nd sess.,
July 31, 2012, Exec. Rept. 112-6 (Washington: GPO, 2012). (Hereinafter referred to as Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6.)
27 For a more detailed account of issues debated, see Congressional Quarterly article by Joanna Anderson, “Senate
Panel Supports Ratification of U.N. Treaty on the Disabled, Approves Nominees,” July 26, 2012. Also see Senate Exec.
Rept. 112-6. pp. 21-117.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

United States does not consider the conclusions, recommendations, or general
comments issued by the committee as constituting customary international law or
to be legally binding in the United States in any manner;
• an abortion-related understanding, which states that nothing in the agreement
requires States Parties to provide any health program or procedure; rather, the
Convention requires parties to provide health programs and procedures to
individuals with disabilities on a non-discriminatory basis;
• a best interests of the child understanding, which states that the use of “best
interests of the child” in CRPD Article 7(2) will be applied and interpreted as it is
under U.S. law, and that nothing in Article 7 requires a change to existing U.S.
law;28
• a definitions understanding that modifies President Obama’s proposed
understanding on the definition of disability—it clarifies that the terms
“disability,” “persons with disabilities,” “undue burden” (terms not defined by
the CRPD), “discrimination on the basis of disability,” and “reasonable
accommodation,” are defined in U.S law; and
• a U.S. obligations declaration, which states that current U.S. law fulfills or
exceeds the obligations of the Convention.29
The Senate may consider providing its advice
Consideration of Other Treaties
and consent to CRPD ratification during the
During the 112th Congress, the Senate may consider
112th Congress. Moving forward, several
several other treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on
different scenarios are possible:
the Law of the Sea, the U.N. Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
• the Senate could consider the treaty
Women (CEDAW), and the U.N. Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC). Similarly to CRPD, these
and provide its advice and consent
treaties have garnered considerable attention from
with RUDs proposed by SFRC, or
policymakers and members of the public due to concerns
with further modifications to these
that they could undermine national sovereignty.30
RUDs, or additional RUDs proposed
The Obama Administration has recommended the U.N.
and agreed to by Senators on the
Convention on the Law of the Sea and CEDAW as
floor;
treaties on which it supports Senate action at this time.31
CRC has not been transmitted to the Senate by the
• the Senate could give its advice and
President for advice and consent to ratification.
consent to ratification without
recommending any RUDs or any RUDs in addition to those already adopted by
SFRC;
• the Senate could choose not to consider the treaty by the end of the 112th
Congress, at which point the treaty would be returned to SFRC, which would, in

28 For a further discussion of this issue, see the “Potential Impact on Parental Authority” section.
29 For a full list of RUDs approved by SFRC, see Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, pp. 12-14.
30 For more information on CRC and CEDAW, see CRS Report R40484, The United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child: Background and Policy Issues, and CRS Report R40750, The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate, both by Luisa Blanchfield.
31 Letter from David S. Adams, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, State Department, to Senator John Kerry,
SFRC Chairperson, October 5, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

turn, have to report the Convention again for possible consideration during a
future Congress;
• the Senate could reject the treaty by failing to provide its advice and consent by a
two-thirds majority, returning the treaty to SFRC; or
• the Senate could request, by resolution, that the Convention be withdrawn and
sent back to the President without any action.32
U.S. Laws Protecting the Rights of Individuals
with Disabilities33
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires States Parties to adopt
“all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures” to implement its provisions.34 As
previously discussed, CRPD sets forth obligations for States Parties in a range of contexts,
including accessibility, education, employment, equal rights, and health. The language of the
Convention is broad and generally does not provide specific standards or requirements.35 State
Parties must thus consider whether existing laws satisfy CRPD requirements or whether new
measures may be required for compliance.
Generally, many U.S. policymakers agree that existing U.S. laws and policies are compatible with
the Convention. For example, in his letter of transmittal to the Senate, President Obama stated
that existing U.S. law is “consistent with and sufficient to implement the Convention, including
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).” In addition, SFRC adopted, by a vote of 14 in favor and 5
against, a declaration to accompany CRPD which states that “current United States law fulfills or
exceeds the obligations of the convention for the United States.”36 In its executive report, SFRC
also noted that “[t]he United States has a comprehensive network of existing federal and state
disability laws and enforcement mechanisms” and that “[i]n the large majority of cases, existing
federal and state law meets or exceeds the requirements of the Convention.”37
Indeed, the United States historically has recognized the rights of individuals with disabilities
through various constitutional and statutory protections, including the Americans with Disabilities

32 All treaties favorably reported by SFRC remain on the Executive Calendar and at the end of the Congress are
automatically returned to the President or referred back to the committee. The committee may then report those treaties
during a subsequent Congress for consideration on the Senate floor. For more information, see U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate,
committee print, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., January 2001, S. Prt. 106-71
(Washington: GPO, 2001); and CRS Report 98-384, Senate Consideration of Treaties, by Valerie Heitshusen.
33 This section was written by Cynthia Brougher, Legislative Attorney, and James V. DeBergh, Legislative Attorney.
34 CRPD, art. 4(a).
35 For example, the Convention directs States Parties to “take appropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilities
access, on an equal basis with others,” to various facilities and services. See CRPD, art. 9.1. The Convention does not
indicate what those measures might be, nor what the standard of accessibility is. Rather, it requires only that whatever
facilities or services are provided to individuals without disabilities are also accessible to individuals with disabilities.
36 Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, p. 14.
37 Ibid., 6.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Act of 1990 (ADA).38 As such, many of the Convention’s provisions addressing the protection of
disability rights already exist in federal law. In fact, some CRPD requirements appear to be
modeled after these U.S. disability laws.39
Federal Versus State Law
It is important to note that some of the obligations in the Convention address matters typically
covered by U.S. state laws, such as guardianship, civil commitment, and education.40 As
discussed earlier, to address concerns regarding constitutional principles of federalism, the
Obama Administration proposed, and SFRC adopted, a federalism reservation to CRPD, stating,
This Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government of the United States of
America to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters
covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and
local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the obligations of the United
States of America under the Convention are limited to the Federal Government’s taking
measures appropriate to the Federal system, which may include enforcement action against
state and local actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, or other Federal laws, with the ultimate objective of fully implementing the
Convention.41
Thus, the authority of state and local governments would not be controlled by the terms of the
treaty unless they are acting subject to federal law. For example, education is an issue that
generally falls under state and local jurisdiction. However, the federal government has enacted
legislation requiring schools that receive federal funding to implement certain federal standards.42
If the United States were to ratify the Convention, the federal legislation must comport with the
obligations imposed by the Convention, but state and local policies on education that are not
implicated by the federal legislation—for example, homeschooling—would not be governed by
the Convention’s provisions.
Existing Laws and Policies
The following sections discuss the most significant existing U.S. laws that might fulfill the
requirements of the CRPD, if the Senate provides its advice and consent to ratification. A number
of other disability laws are in effect that may likewise satisfy obligations required by the
Convention. Many of these are discussed specifically in both the President’s transmittal package
and the SFRC Committee Report on the CRPD.43

38 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.
39 Compare 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. with CRPD, art. 24.
40 Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, p. 134.
41 Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, pp. 14-15.
42 See, e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
43 See Treaty Doc. 112-7, and Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

U.S. Constitution
Many of the rights required by CRPD are already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,
particularly the CRPD provisions relating to equal rights and equal access to justice systems.44
For instance, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents U.S. states from
denying any person under its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”45 This constitutional
requirement for equal protection under the law is applicable to the federal government through
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that “[n]o person ... shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.”
Courts therefore have construed laws that discriminate against people with disabilities as
unconstitutional when there is no rational basis or legitimate purpose for those laws. In City of
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., for example, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a
city ordinance requiring a special use permit for the operation of a group home for the mentally
disabled was unconstitutional.46 The Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as a “direction
that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike, ultimately concluding that “requiring
the permit in this case appears to us to rest on an irrational prejudice against the mentally
retarded.”47 In sum, as the President observed in his transmittal package to the Senate, the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution ensure that all individuals are equal before the
law.
In addition, the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which is applicable to the federal
government and to states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, bars the
use of “cruel and unusual punishment.”48 In general, punishments violate this amendment when
they are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime committed.49 The Supreme Court has held that
deliberate indifference to prisoners’ serious medical needs, including the requirements of disabled
inmates, would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.50
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Enacted in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides broad non-discrimination
protections for people with disabilities. As the most comprehensive disability rights law in the
United States, the ADA might fulfill many of the CRPD obligations addressing accessibility,
employment, transportation, health care, and equal participation in government and private
programs.51
The ADA received bipartisan support, as did the ADA Amendments Act in 2008.52 Among other
changes, the 2008 amendments broadened the definition of disability to expand coverage to a

44 See, e.g., CRPD, art 5, art. 10, art. 13, art. 12, art. 14, art. 15.
45 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
46 See 473 U.S. 432 (1985).
47 Id. at 439, 450.
48 U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.
49 See Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010) (citing Harmellin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 277, 997, 1000-1001 (1991)
(Kennedy, J. concurring in part and concurring in judgment)).
50 See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
51 See, e.g., CRPD, art. 1, art. 5, art. 9, art. 10, art. 18, art. 19, art. 21, art. 25, art. 27, art. 30.
52 See P.L. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (September 25, 2008).
Congressional Research Service
11

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

wider range of individuals with disabilities. Currently, the ADA defines disability as “(A) a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of
such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an
impairment.... ”53 The act also contains rules of construction providing, among other things, that
the definition of disability shall be construed in favor of broad coverage to the maximum extent
permitted by the terms of the law.54
Although the Convention does not define disability, it does identify which individuals may
qualify as persons with disabilities, including “those who have long-term physical, mental,
intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their
full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”55 During negotiations for
the Convention, an explicit definition for disability was intentionally omitted so that the term
could be altered “depending on the prevailing environment from society to society.”56 As
previously discussed, to clarify the U.S. position on how disability would be defined under the
Convention, the Administration proposed, and SFRC adopted, an understanding stating that the
term will be defined coextensively with its definitions under domestic law.57
Employment
The ADA provides protections related to employment of individuals with disabilities.
Employment discrimination protections under the ADA apply to employers with 15 or more
employees58 and to state and local governments.59 The ADA generally prohibits discrimination in
employment based on an individual’s disability if the individual is otherwise qualified for the
position.60 Discrimination based on a disability is prohibited across a range of employment
decisions, including application procedures; hiring, retention, and promotion; compensation;
training; and other terms of employment.61 The ADA requires that employers offer qualified
individuals reasonable accommodation to perform the desired position if such an accommodation
would not create an undue hardship on the employer’s business.62
Under the ADA, reasonable accommodation may include making facilities readily accessible to
individuals with disabilities; offering alternative work schedules; reassignment to a different
position; modification of equipment; assistance with communications needs; or other similar
accommodations.63 Undue hardship is defined as “an action requiring significant difficulty or

53 42 U.S.C. §12102(1).
54 42 U.S.C. §12102(4).
55 CRPD, art. 1.
56 See United Nations Enable, “Are the terms ‘disability’ and ‘persons with disabilities’ defined in the Convention?”
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, available at
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=24&pid=151#sqc3. See also Treaty Doc. 112-7, pp. 4-7.
57 Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, p. 16.
58 42 U.S.C. §12111(5)(A).
59 42 U.S.C. §12131.
60 42 U.S.C. §12112.
61 42 U.S.C. §12112(a).
62 See 42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(5).
63 42 U.S.C. §12111(9).
Congressional Research Service
12

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

expense.”64 To determine whether an accommodation constitutes an undue hardship, an employer
may consider its nature and cost; the financial resources involved and the accommodation’s
impact on expenses and resources; and the type of operation of the employer and its facilities.65
State and Local Governments
Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded from
participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity
or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.66 “Public entity” is defined as state and local
governments, any department or other instrumentality of a state or local government, and certain
transportation authorities.
In Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court interpreted Title II of the ADA to find that individuals
with mental disabilities have the right to live in the community rather than in institutions if “the
State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the
transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected
individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources
available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.”67 In other words, the
ADA’s prohibitions on discrimination by state and local governments may require the placement
of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than institutions. The Court found
that “[u]njustified isolation ... is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability.”68
Public Accommodations
Title III of the ADA provides that no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or
leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.69 Entities that are covered by the term
“public accommodation” are listed, and include, among others, hotels, restaurants, theaters,
auditoriums, laundromats, travel services, museums, parks, zoos, private schools, day care
centers, professional offices of health care providers, and gymnasiums.70 Religious institutions or
entities controlled by religious institutions are not included on the list.
There are some limitations on the non-discrimination requirements, and a failure to remove
architectural barriers is not a violation unless such a removal is “readily achievable.”71 “Readily
achievable” is defined as meaning “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without
much difficulty or expense.”72 Reasonable modifications in practices, policies, or procedures are
required unless they would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, or

64 42 U.S.C. §12111(10)(A).
65 42 U.S.C. §12111(10)(B).
66 42 U.S.C. §§12131-12133.
67 527 U.S. 581, 587 (1999).
68 Id. at 597.
69 42 U.S.C. §12182.
70 42 U.S.C. §12181.
71 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).
72 42 U.S.C. §12181.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

privileges or they would result in an undue burden.73 As previously discussed, an undue burden is
defined as an action involving “significant difficulty or expense.”74
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
While the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals based on disability by state and local
governments and certain private entities, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 197375 provides
similar protection in the context of federal entities and federal programs. It provides that
[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by
reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or
by the United States Postal Service.76
Each federal agency is then required to promulgate regulations implementing the act.77
The standards for establishing a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA
are essentially the same. Furthermore, the Rehabilitation Act explicitly adopts the same
requirements and standards as the ADA in cases alleging employment discrimination based on
disability (for example, reasonable accommodations required unless such accommodations would
create an undue hardship).78
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the major federal statute for the
education of children with disabilities.79 As a result, it might satisfy the education provisions in
the CRPD.80
IDEA authorizes federal funding for special education and related services and, for states that
accept these funds, it sets out principles under which special education and related services are to
be provided. It requires that states and school districts make available a “free appropriate public
education” (FAPE) to all children with disabilities, generally between the ages of three and 21.81
FAPE is defined to include “special education and related services that—(A) have been provided
at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the
standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary

73 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A).
74 28 C.F.R. §36.104.
75 29 U.S.C. §794 (P.L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (September 26, 1973))
76 29 U.S.C.A. §794(a).
77 See id.
78 See 29 U.S.C. §794(d).
79 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
80 See, e.g., CRPD, art. 24.
81 20 U.S.C. §1412.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity
with the individual education program required [under the statute].”82
Students receiving special education services under IDEA must have an individual education plan
(IEP), which specifies the particular services that will be provided to meet the student’s
educational needs.83 After a child has been identified as a child with a disability under IDEA, an
individualized education team is formed to write an individualized education program for the
child.84 The IEP must indicate the child’s current levels of academic achievement and functional
performance; measurable annual goals; the special education and related services to be provided;
and the extent to which the child is to be educated with children without disabilities.85
Additionally, when developing a child’s IEP, the IEP team must consider the child’s language and
communication needs, including whether Braille, sign language, or other assistance would be
appropriate.86
One of the stated purposes of IDEA is that special education students should be educated with
students without disabilities “to the maximum extent possible.”87 IDEA requires that separate
schooling or special classes occur “only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is
such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be
achieved satisfactorily.”88
Policy Issues
The question of U.S. ratification of CRPD has generated debate among U.S. policymakers and
members of the public. A significant issue underlying almost all aspects of these discussions is the
treaty’s possible impact on national sovereignty. Opponents of the Convention argue that treaties
are the “supreme Law of the Land” under the Constitution, and that U.S. ratification of CRPD
could supersede federal, state, and local laws.89 Specifically, critics are concerned that ratification
could lead to the United Nations, the international community, or the Disabilities Committee
having authority over existing U.S. laws and policies related to disability rights, as well as the
private lives of U.S. citizens in areas such as education, health care, and parental rights.
Supporters of ratification emphasize that CRPD is a non-discrimination treaty that does not create
new obligations. They contend that U.S. laws such as the ADA meet, and in some cases exceed,
the requirements of the Convention, thereby having little or no impact on U.S. sovereignty.
Proponents also note that the RUDs that may accompany the treaty—particularly the non-self
executing declaration which states that no new laws would be created as a result of U.S.
ratification—address any concerns that the CRPD may undermine national sovereignty. More

82 20 U.S.C. §1401(9).
83 See 20 U.S.C. §1414.
84 Id.
85 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A).
86 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B).
87 20 U.S.C. §1400.
88 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A).
89 U.S. CONST. art. 6. For additional discussion of this issue, see Martin S. Flaherty, “History Right?: Historical
Scholarship, Original Understanding, and Treaties as “Supreme Law of the Land,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 99, No.
8, December 1999, pp. 2095-2153.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

broadly, supporters point out that many of CRPD’s provisions call on States Parties to take “all
appropriate measures” [emphasis added], thereby leaving it to governments to determine what
actions are appropriate based on their domestic laws and policies. More broadly, many emphasize
that CRPD brings increased global attention to rights of disabled persons, and that ratification has
led some countries to adopt laws and policies to improve disability rights. These and other
selected issues are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
The Role of the Disabilities Committee
Opponents of CRPD ratification are concerned about the role of the Disabilities Committee in
monitoring States Parties’ compliance with CRPD. Specifically, critics are concerned that
committee recommendations and decisions could supersede U.S. laws and presume authority
affecting the lives, freedoms, and decisions of private citizens. Opponents highlight decisions
made by other human rights treaty committees that in their view advocate abortion, undermine
parental rights, or make recommendations that extend beyond the scope of the treaty. They are
worried that such decisions or recommendations could be used in U.S. courts to challenge
existing laws and policies.
Proponents of the CRPD ratification, including the Obama Administration, emphasize that any
decisions or recommendations made by the committee are “advisory only” and non-binding under
international and domestic law.90 Supporters also note that there are no established rules in CRPD
for enforcing the committee’s decisions or addressing treaty non-compliance. Moreover, several
human rights treaties ratified by the United States have monitoring committees similar to CRPD,
and there appears to be no instance where a U.S. federal court or the executive branch has
construed a committee’s recommendations or decisions as having the force of law.91
To address concerns related to the committee’s role and authority, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee (SFRC) adopted an understanding to accompany CRPD, which states that the
committee has no authority to compel action by States Parties, and that the United States does not
consider conclusions, recommendations, or general comments issued by the committee as
constituting customary international law or to be legally binding on the United States in any
manner.92
CRPD as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy
Supporters of CRPD contend that U.S. ratification would enhance the United States’ credibility as
it advocates the rights of persons with disabilities globally. For example, Obama Administration
officials state that ratification will put the United States in the best possible position to influence
the international community on disability rights, and that non-ratification would make it
“difficult” to advance such interests.93 Supporters also emphasize that as a leader in disability

90 Under art. 36 of CRPD, the committee “considers” States Parties’ reports on treaty implementation and “shall make
such suggestions and general recommendations” to the State Party.
91 These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
92 The understanding, which was introduced by Senator John Kerry as an amendment to an amendment proposed by
Senator Rubio, was agreed to by a voice vote. The full text is available in Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, p. 16.
93 Statement of Honorable Judith Heumann, Special Adviser for International Disability Rights, U.S. Department of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

rights, the United States could work within the framework of CRPD, such as in the Conference of
States Parties, to provide expertise, guidance, and technical assistance to countries that seek to
improve the well-being of disabled persons, particularly in the areas of education, employment,
and accessibility. Moreover, many supporters suggest that, as a State Party, the United States
could engage with the Disabilities Committee to nominate and vote for committee experts—
including, perhaps, a U.S. citizen—to leverage U.S. expertise and influence the work of the
committee.
On the other side, opponents argue that the United States does not need to ratify CRPD to
demonstrate its credibility and leadership in disability rights. They suggest that U.S. laws and
policies, such as the ADA, are robust examples of U.S. commitment to the issue. Critics also
express concern regarding CRPD provisions that would obligate the United States to report to the
treaty’s monitoring body, the Disabilities Committee. Specifically, they worry that instead of
providing a forum to share U.S. expertise or advocate disability rights, the committee may be
used as a platform for political criticism of the United States, particularly by countries with lesser
human rights standards. Opponents also emphasize that U.S. ratification itself may not enhance
the rights of disabled persons in countries with poor human rights records. Any such
improvements, they argue, can only be made by the governments of these countries.
Possible Impact on U.S. Citizens and Businesses Abroad
When advocating for U.S. ratification of CRPD, many supporters highlight two key benefits for
the United States. First, proponents contend that U.S. ratification, as well as the United States’
overall support for the treaty, may improve the lives of U.S. citizens with disabilities living,
working, or traveling abroad—including students, retirees, veterans, and members of the U.S.
armed forces. Currently, many developed countries do not have comparable disability services or
infrastructure. This makes it difficult for U.S. citizens to be employed, move freely, and have the
same rights and access to disability-related services in other countries as they would in the United
States.94 Supporters suggest that as more countries ratify the Convention and implement its
provisions, disability rights and services in other countries may improve.
Second, some CRPD supporters maintain that U.S. ratification would help U.S. companies that
already comply with higher disability standards. Since the ADA was enacted in 1990, U.S.
businesses have been required to make reasonable accommodations for their employees and
customers, while businesses in countries with less stringent laws and policies have not been
required to do so. Proponents suggest that CRPD ratification by the United States and other
countries may lead foreign companies to institute such standards and thus help “level the playing
field” for U.S. businesses.95 In addition, some maintain that increased global standards for and

(...continued)
State, Washington DC, at SFRC Hearing, “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Treaty Doc. 112-7),”
July 12, 2012.
94 A number of veterans and international education groups support U.S. ratification for these reasons, including the
American Veterans (AMVETS), the Air Force Sergeant’s Association, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America,
the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Association on Higher Education and Disability, the Disability Law Center, the
National Disabilities Rights Network, among others. For a complete list, see Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, pp. 9-12.
95 Prepared Statement of John L. Wodatch, Former Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, at SFRC hearing, “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Treaty Doc. 112-7),”
July 12, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

awareness of disabilities rights through CRPD ratification may provide new economic
opportunities for U.S. companies. Supporters note that if international disabilities standards were
to improve, new markets could emerge for U.S. companies that develop, manufacture, and sell
disability-related products and technologies.
The extent to which U.S. ratification of CRPD may positively affect U.S. businesses or disabled
U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad is not entirely clear. States Parties to CRPD are
responsible for implementing its provisions, and U.S. ratification of the treaty does not guarantee
that all countries will fulfill their obligations under the Convention. Ultimately, CRPD’s impact
on disability rights and on the scope of the global market for disability-related services, expertise,
and products will become more apparent as individual countries begin to implement the
Convention’s provisions.
Potential Impact on Parental Authority
Some opponents of CRPD contend that the treaty undermines the rights of parents of disabled
children. Specifically, many take issue with Article 7(2), which states, “In all actions concerning
children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Critics
believe that this provision may give governments, and not U.S. parents, the right to make
educational and treatment-related decisions for their disabled children. Additionally, opponents
are concerned that the Disabilities Committee could have the authority to make decisions
regarding the “best interests” of disabled children in the United States. For example,
homeschooling advocates worry that the committee could declare homeschooling inconsistent
with the best interest of the child, thereby undermining the right of parents to educate their
children as they see fit.96
Supporters of the Convention, including the Obama Administration, maintain that CRPD would
not undermine the rights of U.S. parents. They contend that existing federal, state, and local laws
provide adequate protection for parents to do what they believe is in the best interests of their
children. These protections, they emphasize, would be ensured through proposed reservations,
understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to CRPD that include a non-self executing declaration
and private conduct and federalism reservations.97 To further alleviate concerns about parental
rights, SFRC adopted an understanding that states that the use of “best interests of the child” in
Article 7(2) will be applied and interpreted as it is under U.S. law, and that nothing in Article 7
requires a change to existing U.S. law.98 More broadly, some supporters emphasize that concerns
about CRPD’s potential impact on parental rights should be viewed in the context of other
provisions that appear to support the role of parents and families in the lives of disabled
children.99

96 For more information on the Disabilities Committee, see the “Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”
and “The Role of the Disabilities Committee” sections.
97 For more information on RUDs, see the “Obama Administration Actions,” “Senate Actions,” and “U.S. Laws
Protecting the Rights of Individuals with Disabilities,” sections.
98 Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, pp. 130, 135. For descriptions of these RUDs, see the “Obama Administration Actions”
and the “Senate Actions” sections.
99 For example, art. 18 states, “Children with disabilities shall … have … the right to know and be cared for by their
parents.” Art. 23 states, “In no case shall a child be separated from parents on the basis of a disability of either the child
or one or both of the parents.”
Congressional Research Service
18

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Possible Impact on Abortion Laws and Policies
The debate over U.S. ratification of CRPD reflects concern as to whether, and to what extent, the
treaty might address abortion. In particular, some critics have raised questions about CRPD
Article 25, which states that States Parties shall
a) Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or
affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of
sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes; [and]
b) Provide those health services needed by persons with disabilities specifically because of
their disabilities, including early identification and intervention as appropriate, and services
designed to minimize and prevent further disabilities, including among children and older
persons….
Many CRPD opponents maintain that abortion is an issue that should be handled at a state or
local level, and not by an international body. They are concerned that the term “sexual and
reproductive health” could be interpreted to be a euphemism for abortion.100 They also worry that
U.S. ratification could obligate the United States to provide persons with disabilities access to
free or affordable abortions or to overturn parental notification laws, thereby undermining current
laws that ban federal funding for abortion.101 When advocating these views, critics note that after
CRPD was adopted by the General Assembly, a Bush Administration official remarked that the
United States understood that the phrase “reproductive health” in Article 25(a) did not include
abortion.102 They further emphasize that Poland, Malta, and Monaco included reservations or
declarations to CRPD that stated that nothing in Article 25 shall be interpreted to include
abortion.103 Some opponents also suggest that the Disabilities Committee could interpret Article
25 to include abortion.
CRPD advocates note that the word “abortion” is never mentioned in the treaty and contend that
no U.S laws related to abortion would be created as a result of U.S. ratification. They maintain
that references to sexual and reproductive health and health services are non-discrimination
requirements that would not obligate the United States to modify its existing abortion laws or
other health services. The Obama Administration emphasizes that Article 25, and the treaty as a
whole, already complies with obligations under the ADA; specifically, any health care programs
and benefits provided under domestic law, including those related to “sexual and reproductive
health,” should also be provided to disabled persons.104 Supporters also point out that any

100 In the minority views of Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6 (pp. 17-18), for example, some Senators took issue with a 2009
statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: “We happen to think that
family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I
believe should be safe, legal, and rare.”
101 For more information on existing abortion restrictions in U.S. law, see CRS Report RL33467, Abortion: Judicial
History and Legislative Response, by Jon O. Shimabukuro, CRS Report 95-724, Abortion Law Development:
A Brief Overview, by Jon O. Shimabukuro, and CRS Report R41360, Abortion and Family Planning-Related
Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, by Luisa Blanchfield.
102 Statement by Ambassador Richard T. Miller, “Explanation of Position on the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, Agenda Item 67(b), in the General Assembly,” U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release
#396(06), December 13, 2006.
103 A list of RUDs by States Parties is available at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&
mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=4&lang=en#6.
104 Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, p. 143.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

recommendations made by the Disabilities Committee related to abortion are not legally binding.
As discussed earlier, CRPD has no established mechanisms for treaty non-compliance; it relies
primarily on States Parties to fulfill their treaty obligations.
To address ongoing concerns about CRPD’s potential impact on existing abortion laws, SFRC
approved an understanding stating that nothing in the Convention, including Article 25, addresses
“the provision of any particular health program or procedure.”105 The understanding amended a
previous proposal by Senator Marco Rubio that stated that Article 25(a) does not include abortion
or create any abortion rights, nor could it be interpreted to constitute the support, endorsement, or
promotion of abortion (including as a method of family planning).106 Although the amended
measure was adopted by the committee, several Senators have expressed dismay that the word
“abortion” was not specifically mentioned in the understanding.107
Issues on the Horizon
Historically, ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities has enjoyed bipartisan support among
many Members of Congress, and there are indications of support for CRPD by both Republican
and Democratic Senators.108 It remains unclear, however, when or if the full Senate will vote on
advice and consent to ratification. As the Senate considers CPRD and States Parties take steps
toward implementing the Convention, Members may wish to monitor several potential issues:
• Evaluating effectiveness—CRPD has been in force for four years. As a result,
there is minimal evidence demonstrating its effectiveness or potential areas for
improvement. Evaluating the country-specific or global impact of the treaty may
be particularly difficult because there is a lack of consistent or comparable data
on persons with disabilities worldwide and often within countries and regions.
• Challenges to implementation—As States Parties take steps toward
implementing the treaty’s provisions, Senators may wish to monitor any
challenges these countries face and how, if at all, CRPD mechanisms such as the
Conference of States Parties or Disabilities Committee may assist with such
issues. The United States may also consider ways that it can contribute to these
bodies and share its expertise in disability rights as a CRPD observer.
• Role of civil society—Civil society, including human rights and disability rights
groups, play a particularly important role not only in raising awareness of
disability issues, but also in holding governments accountable to their CRPD
commitments. As such, the United States may wish to monitor and encourage the
full participation of civil society in CRPD mechanisms, particularly the
Disabilities Committee, which is charged with evaluating reports from States
Parties—some of which have weak disability rights standards.

105 The proposal was adopted by a committee vote of 10 in favor and 9 against.
106 For a description of the debates over the amendments, see Congressional Quarterly article by Joanna Anderson,
“Senate Panel Supports Ratification of U.N. Treaty on the Disabled, Approves Nominees,” July 26, 2012.
107 See, for example, Senate Exec. Rept. 112-6, pp. 17-19 (Minority Views), and Grace Melton, U.N. Disabilities Treaty
Leaves Door Open for Abortion Advocates,” The Heritage Foundation,, August 1, 2012.
108 “Bipartisan Group of Senators Announce Support for Disability Treaty,” Press Release, Office of Senator John
McCain, May 25, 2012; “In Bipartisan Vote, Foreign Relations Committee Passes Disabilities Treaty,” Press Release,
SFRC, July 16, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Appendix. States Parties to CRPD
Afghanistan* Ecuador*
Maldives
San
Marino*

Algeria
Egypt
Mali*
Saudi Arabia*
Argentina* El
Salvador* Malta*
Senegal
Armenia Estonia* Mauritania*
Serbia*
Australia* Ethiopia Mauritius Seychelles
Austria*
European Union
Mexico*
Sierra Leone
Azerbaijan* France*
Mongolia* Slovakia*
Bahrain Gabon Montenegro*
Slovenia*
Bangladesh* Germany* Morocco* South
Africa*
Belgium* Ghana* Mozambique*
Spain*
Belize
Greece*
Myanmar
St. Vincent & Grenadines*
Benin* Guatemala
*
Namibia*
Sudan*
Bolivia* Guinea* Nauru Swaziland*
Bosnia and Herzegovina*
Haiti*
Nepal*
Sweden*
Brazil*
Honduras*
New Zealand
Syrian Arab Republic*
Bulgaria Hungary*
Nicaragua*
Thailand
Burkina Faso*
India
Niger*
The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia*
Canada Indonesia
Nigeria* Togo*
Cape Verde
Israel
Oman
Tunisia*
Chile* Iran Pakistan
Turkey
China Italy* Panama*
Turkmenistan*
Colombia Jamaica Paraguay* Uganda*
Cook Islands*
Jordan
Peru*
Ukraine*
Costa Rica*
Kenya
Philippines
United Arab Emirates
Croatia*
Lao People’s Democratic
Portugal* United
Kingdom*

Republic
Cuba
Latvia*
Poland
United Republic of
Tanzania*
Cyprus* Lesotho Qatar Uruguay*
Czech Republic
Liberia
Republic of Korea
Vanuatu
Denmark
Lithuania*
Republic of Moldova
Yemen*
Djibouti* Luxembourg*
Romania Zambia
Dominica* Malawi
Russian
Federation

Dominican Republic*
Malaysia
Rwanda*

Source: U.N. Treaty Collection.
Note: An asterisk* indicates that the country is a State Party to the CRPD Optional Protocol.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities


Author Contact Information

Luisa Blanchfield, Coordinator
James V. DeBergh
Specialist in International Relations
Legislative Attorney
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
jdebergh@crs.loc.gov, 7-8022
Cynthia Brougher

Legislative Attorney
cbrougher@crs.loc.gov, 7-9121

Congressional Research Service
22

---