Unilateral commitments to persons with disabilities of armed non-state de facto authorities that govern

Green, Sarah and Marsden, Sarah and Skogly, Sigrun (2020) Unilateral commitments to persons with disabilities of armed non-state de facto authorities that govern. Masters thesis, Lancaster University.

Text (2020greenLLm)
2020greenLLm.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs.
Download (1MB)

Abstract

A central idea behind this dissertation relates to the efficacy of ‘outside’ interventions that target and/or seek to better understand the situation of persons with disabilities in territories governed by armed non-State de facto authorities. Its core premise is that such interventions are likely to be more effective if informed by deep knowledge of the disability pertinent normative environments of these authorities. Unilateral commitments of the authorities to persons with disabilities comprise an important component of these environments. To date little is known about the extent, form and genesis of such commitments – or, indeed, the situation more widely of persons with disabilities in territories under consideration. This dissertation responds to this lack of knowledge through a desk-based scoping review, analysis and case study. It finds that a broad range of armed non-State de facto authorities that govern regularly and explicitly make commitments to persons with disabilities. Their analysis through two complementary lenses - models of disability and legitimacy - suggests that an individual deficit response to persons with disabilities predominates. The welfare of veterans with physical disabilities is frequently prioritized over that of civilian persons with disabilities. Evidence of persons with disabilities’ influence on the development and form of commitments made is not strong but clearly discernable in isolated instances. The possible role of commitments in legitimation processes is most apparent in commitments to physically disabled veterans and public endorsement of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The commitments collated, presented and analysed highlight a breadth and complexity within responses to disability by armed non-State de facto authorities that govern. This demands significant further multi-disciplinary research, research to which outside intervenors can both contribute and draw. The conclusion therefore lays out a future multiple-disciplinary research agenda for this new field of enquiry. Potential fruitful avenues of research include longitudinal studies of non-State armed de facto authorities that govern that have explicitly endorsed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and ideological, diasporic and other situational influences on the development, evolution and implementation of commitments to persons with disabilities more generally.