Advertisement

Legal Culture and the CRPD

  • Gerard QuinnEmail author
Chapter
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Gerard Quinn advances the proposition that there is a ‘legal culture’, which consists of unstated values and institutional expectations that underpin legal orders and constitute a ‘morality’ which enables law to be possible. He focuses on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD 2006), in particular on Article 12—Equal recognition before the law, to discuss the limited power (to date) that it has had in dislodging fundamental assumptions in legal cultures concerning legal capacity. Quinn uses this example to show how changes to ideas of legal personhood and mental capacity are difficult to achieve because of ‘legal fictions’ that lie at the heart of legal systems’ legal cultures. Quinn puts forward some ways to dislodge the historical ‘legal fictions’ embedded in legal culture.

References

  1. A/CN.4/L.682. (2006). Report of the study group of the international law commission: fragmentation of international law—Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. International Law Commission (2006). Retrieved from http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf.
  2. Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act of 2015. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/64/enacted/en/html.
  3. Bernstein, M. H. (1998). On moral considerability: An essay on who morally matters. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Brudner, A., & Nadler, J. (2013). The unity of the common law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CoE (Council of Europe). (1999). Recommendation no. (99)4 of the committee of ministers to member states on principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults. Retrieved from https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016805e303c.
  6. CRPD/C/GC/1. (2014). (Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities) general comment no. 1 (2014) Article 12: Equal recognition before the law. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GC.aspx.
  7. Davy, L. K. (2015). Philosophical inclusive design: Intellectual disability and the limits of individual autonomy in political and moral theory. Hypatia, 30(1), 132–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demasio, A. (2012). Self comes to mind. Constructing the conscious brain. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  9. Feder-Kittay, E., & Carlson, L. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive disability and its challenge to moral philosophy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Fitzpatrick, C. A. (1988). Soviet abuses of psychiatry for political purposes. Report Prepared for U.S. Helsinki Watch Committee. Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=543132.
  11. Fried, C. (2015). Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuller, L. (1930). Legal fictions 25. Illinois Law Review, 25(4), 363–399.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, L. (1964). The morality of law. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Homes, O. W. (1896–1897). Path of the law. Harvard Law Review, 10, 457.Google Scholar
  15. Hood, B. (2013). The self illusion: How the social brain creates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ICCPR. (1966). International covenant on civil and political right. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  17. ICESCR. (1966). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  18. Klare, K. (1977–1978). Judicial de-radicalization of the Wagner act and the origins of modern legal consciousness. Minnesota Law Review, 62(3), 265–340.Google Scholar
  19. McSherry, B. (2015). Decision making, legal capacity and neuroscience: Implications for mental health laws. Laws, 4(2), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Midgley, M. (2014). Are you an illusion? Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Plucknett, F. T. (1926). Bonham’s case and judicial review. Harvard Law Review, 40(1), 30–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pound, R. (1908). Mechanical jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review, 8, 605–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandland, R. (2017). A clash of conventions? Participation, power, and the rights of disabled children. Social Inclusion, 5(3), 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. World Bank. (2015). World Bank development report mind, society and behaviour. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2015.
  25. Zand, J. (2017). The concept of democracy and the European convention on human rights. The University of Baltimore Journal of International Law, 5(2), 15–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Raoul Wallenberg InstituteUniversity of LundLundSweden

Personalised recommendations