Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Accessibility as a Human Right, with an Application to Media Accessibility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Researching Audio Description

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting ((PTTI))

Abstract

Greco makes the case that within the human rights framework there is a serious problem regarding accessibility, what he deems the ‘Accessibility as a Human Right Divide’ Problem (AHRD Problem). The AHRD Problem highlights the divide between accessibility as a human right per se versus accessibility as an instrument for the fulfilment of human rights. Greco critically rejects the former, skilfully arguing how accessibility is indeed a proactive principle and that access is a necessary requirement for achieving human rights. As a case in point, Greco closes with an example from South Africa, showing how full acknowledgement of the AHRD Problem, and the interpretation of accessibility as a means, and not an end, has the ability to transform the field of media accessibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The UN Human Rights Council also supports this position: ‘human rights, which are by nature dynamic and constantly evolving, need to accommodate new rights, just as each generation should contribute to their evolution, in keeping with the aspirations and values of the time’ (UNHRC, 2009: 6).

  2. 2.

    Greco (2015c) asserts the need to define accessibility studies as a discipline per se, with its unique set of methods, ideas and models.

  3. 3.

    This definition of a right was first proposed by Gewirth (1981) and further developed by Vincent (1988). Vincent’s definition is slightly different from Gewirth’s, in that the latter conceives a right as consisting of only four elements, and refers to them jointly as the contents of the right. The explicit notion of ‘exercising the right’ is added by Vincent in his reformulation, which has by and large been the most widely cited in the literature. See also Minas (2007) and Dunne and Wheeler (1999).

  4. 4.

    Over the past 50 years we have witnessed a ‘proliferation of agencies thought capable of bearing rights’ (Vincent, 1988: 8). One need only consider the myriad of claims, discussions and research that asserts animals or nature as right-holders per se, which flourished in the wake of theories such as Leopold’s ‘Land Ethics’ (Leopold, 1987) and Singer’s ‘Animal Liberation’ (Singer, 1975). See also Bedau (1984).

  5. 5.

    However, some scholars, most notably Shue (1996), have argued against the distinction between positive and negative rights. See also Lippke (1995), Holmes and Sunstein (1999), Gewirth (2001), Cohen (2004), Mowbray (2004), and Bilchitz (2010).

  6. 6.

    The controversy revolves mainly around the substance, subjects and scope of these rights (Freedman, 2013). More specifically, it is still under debate (1) who the right-holders are, that is, whether these are individuals, groups or some kind of hybrid of the two; (2) what the right-holders have a right to; (3) who the duty-bearers are; and (4) what correlative duties of the duty-bearers are included (Freeman, 2002). Other concerns are that (5) the claims to these rights might give way to systemic violation of previously established individual human rights; and (6) that since they can be reformulated as individual rights, their claims are thus already included in pre-existing human rights (Brems, 2001; Donnelly, 1993). Finally, a major concern is that regarding their justiciability (Gehring & Cordonier Segger, 2005; Tomuschat, 2003).

  7. 7.

    Greco (2015a) carries out a specific analysis of this General Comment.

  8. 8.

    For a more detailed analysis of the first side of this divide, see Greco (2014).

  9. 9.

    Considering accessibility as concerning only persons with disabilities also goes against the Universal Design (or Design for All) approach. I owe this point to Pilar Orero.

  10. 10.

    Ockham’s Razor is the name typically used to indicate the principle of parsimony of explanations proposed by Ockham: ‘pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate’, plurality should not be assumed without necessity (Ordinatio I, d.30, q.2, Opera Theologica IV, 322) (Ockham, 1979).

References

  • Algan, B. (2004). Rethinking “third generation” human rights. Ankara Law Review, 1(1), 121–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BA. (1999). Broadcasting Act no. 4 of 1999, Republic of South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedau, H. A. (1984). Why do we have the rights we do? Social Philosophy and Policy, 1(2), 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilchitz, D. (2010). The Ruggie framework: An adequate rubric for corporate human rights obligations? SUR: International Journal on Human Rights, 7(12), 199–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brems, E. (2001). Human rights: Universality and diversity. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cemaforre. (2011). Definition of cultural accessibility, Espace PRO. Accessed September 20, 2013, from http://espacepro.e2ca.org/node/477

  • Cohen, A. I. (2004). Must rights impose enforceable positive duties? Journal of Social Philosophy, 35(2), 264–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CRSA. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Accessed July 12, 2014, from www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/a108-96.pdf

  • Díaz Cintas, J. (2005). Audiovisual translation today. A question of accessibility for all. Translating Today, 4, 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibetso, L. T., & Smith, T. (2012). Lack of diversity (repeat). In W. Radu, W. Bird, & S. Banjac (Eds.), Analysis of SABC News and Programming. Johannesburg: Media Monitoring Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, J. (1989). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, J. (1993). Third generation rights. In C. Brolmann, R. Lefebe, & M. Zieck (Eds.), Peoples and minorities in International law. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, T., & Wheeler, N. J. (1999). Introduction: Human rights and the fifty years’ crisis. In T. Dunne & N. J. Wheeler (Eds.), Human rights in global politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • EESC. (2014). Opinion on accessibility as a human right for persons with disabilities. European Economic and Social Committee. Accessed March 2, 2015, from http://toad.eesc.europa.eu/viewdoc.aspx?doc=ces/ten/ten515/en/CES3000-2013_00_00_TRA_AC_en.doc

  • Englund, H. (2013). Cutting human rights down to size. In M. Goodale (Ed.), Human rights at the crossroads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUD. (2013). European economic and social committee hearing: Accessibility as a human right (European Union of the Deaf). Accessed April 24, 2015, from http://www.eud.eu/videos.php?action=view&news_id=260

  • EUD. (2014). EUD feedback on the draft General Comment of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Article 9 ‘Accessibility’ UNCRPD (European Union of the Deaf). Accessed January 26, 2015, from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/EUD-EuropeanUnionoftheDeaf-DGCArt9.doc

  • Fagan, A. (2009). Human rights: Confronting myths and misunderstandings. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. A. (2008). Foreword. In R. Normand & S. Zaidi (Eds.), Human rights at the UN. The Political History of Universal Justice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flora, G. (2003). Improving media access for the population with disabled hearing in Romania and Hungary. In M. Sukosd & P. Bajomi-Lazar (Eds.), Reinventing media: Media policy reform in East Central Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, R. (2013). “Third Generation” Rights: Is there room for hybrid constructs within International Human Rights Law? Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2(4), 935–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. A. (2002). Human rights: An interdisciplinary approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, M. W., & Cordonier Segger, M.-C. (Eds.). (2005). Sustainable development in World Trade Law. London: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gewirth, A. (1981). Are there any absolute rights? The Philosophical Quarterly, 31(122), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gewirth, A. (2001). Are all rights positive? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 30(3), 321–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhart, M. (2009). Introduction: Human rights in politics and practice. In M. Goodhart (Ed.), Human rights: Politics and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, G. M. (2014). Accessibility: Human right or instrumental principle? Some critical remarks on a divide within the Human Rights Framework. MA Thesis, University of Macerata, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, G. M. (2015a). A critical analysis of UN General Comment on Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, G. M. (2015b). Accessibility, human rights, and the ghetto effect (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, G. M. (2015c). The need for accessibility studies (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammarberg, T. (2011). Human rights in Europe: No grounds for complacency. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, S., & Sunstein, C. R. (1999). The cost of rights. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • HRW. (2015). World Report 2015. New York: Human Rights Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudelson, R. (1999). Modern political philosophy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO and ACHPR. (2009). The constitutional and legislative protection of the rights of indigenous peoples: South Africa. Geneva: International Labour Organization and African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. (1999). Human rights, group rights, and peoples’ rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 21(1), 80–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J.-L. (2012). Ideology and subtitling: South African soap operas. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs/Meta: Translator’s Journal, 57(2), 496–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J.-L., Kruger, H., & Verhoef, M. (2007). Subtitling and the promotion of multilingualism: The case of marginalised languages in South Africa. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 6, 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, A. J. (2009). Normative and theoretical foundations of human rights. In M. Goodhart (Ed.), Human rights: Politics and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. (1987). A Sand County Almanac, and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippke, R. L. (1995). The elusive distinction between negative and positive rights. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 33(3), 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, C. (2006). Toleration: A critical introduction. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Minas, H. (2007). Culture and human rights. In J. D. White & A. J. Marsella (Eds.), Fear of persecution: Global human rights, international law, and human well-being. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. (Ed.). (1999). Companies in a world of conflict. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs and Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeckli, D., Shah, S., & Sivakumaran, S. (Eds.). (2010). International Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray, A. R. (2004). The development of positive obligations under the European convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyn, S. (2010). The last Utopia. Human Rights in history. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyo, T. (2009). Linguistic diversity and development: The language question and social justice in Southern Africa, Forum on Public Policy. Accessed March 23, 2014, from http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/spring09papers/archivespr09/moyo.pdf

  • Msimang, V. B. (2006). Subtitling practices in South Africa. A case study of the soap opera generations. MA Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockham, W. (1979). Scriptum in Librum Primum Sententiarum (Ordinatio), Distinctiones 19–48, Volume IV of Opera Theologica. In: G. J. Etzkorn and F. E. Kelley (eds.) (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohana, Y. (Ed.). (2005). ‘How big is your world?’ The Europe, youth and globalisation event. An Anthology. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivier, J. (2011). Acknowledging and protecting language rights on SABC TV through the use of subtitles. Communicatio, 37(2), 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orend, B. (2002). Human rights: Concept and context. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orero, P. (2005). Audio description: Professional recognition, practice and standards in Spain’. Translation Watch Quarterly, 1, 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiatyński, W. (2009). Human rights and their limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, J. R. (1981). Rights, natural rights, and human rights. A general view. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Human rights. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prah, K. K. (2007). Challenges to the promotion of indigenous languages in South Africa. Cape Town: The Centre for the Advanced Studies of African Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • RI. (1999). Law No. 39 Year 1999—Concerning Human Rights, Republic of Indonesia.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAARF. (2014). AMPS 2014B presentation, South African audience research foundation. Accessed May 25, 2015, from http://www.saarf.co.za/amps-presentations/2015/AMPS2014BSAARF(Industry).zip

  • SABC. (2005). Editorial policies, South African Broadcasting Corporation. Accessed May 24, 2015, from www.sabc.co.za/editorialpolicy

  • SABC. (2014a). Disability. Subtitled/Signed Programming. Section of the Annual Report at the 2014 Meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Communications, South African Broadcasting Corporation. Accessed February 23, 2014, from, http://pmg.org.za/files/131010subtitling.pdf

  • SABC. (2014b). Request for proposals. Book 9, South African Broadcasting Corporation. Accessed May 24, 2015, from http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/wcm/connect/157cdf0045f01375bacbfb6c1fa77d05/SABC+TV+-+OCT+14+RFP+BOOK.pdf

  • Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? In S. Barnarrt & B. M. Altman (Eds.), Exploring theories and expanding methodologies: Where are we and where do we need to go? Research in social science and disability (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (1996). Basic rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, H. (1998). AIDS, not hearing aids: Exploring the link between the deaf community and HIV/AIDS. Health and Human Rights, 2(4), 98–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szarkowska, A., Krejtz, I., Krejtz, K., & Duchowski, A. (2013). Harnessing the Potential of Eyetracking for Media Accessibility. In S. Grucza, M. Płużyczka, & J. Zając (Eds.), Translation studies and eye-tracking analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, C. (2003). Human rights: Between idealism and realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCRPD. (2014). General comment No. 2. Article 9: Accessibility. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD/C/GC/2: UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC. (2009). Promotion and protection of all Human Rights: Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. Human Rights and International Solidarity, A./HRC/12/27: UN Human Rights Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varney, E. (2013). Disability and information technology: A comparative study in media regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Varney, E. (2015). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Ensuring full and equal access to information. In T. McGonagle & Y. Donders (Eds.), The United Nations and freedom of expression and information. Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasak, K. (1984). Pour une troisième génération des droits de l’homme’. In C. Swinarski (Ed.), Études et Essais sur le Droit International Humanitaire et sur les Principes de la Croix-Rouge en l’Honneur de Jean Pictet. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, R. J. (1988). Human rights and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, K. P. (2014). Statement by the delegation of the United States of America. UN Human Rights Council. 26th Session. Geneva, June 16. Accessed June 23, 2015, from https://geneva.usmission.gov/2014/06/16/dialogue-on-discrimination-against-women-in-law-and-practice-and-on-the-right-to-education/

  • WHO and WB. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization and World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xingwana, L. (2011). Statement by minister for women, children and people with disabilities of the Republic of South Africa at the Fourth session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations General Assembly, New York. Accessed February 12, 2015, from http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/COP/cosp4_statement_south_africa.pdf

  • Zausmer, R. (2011). Pretending the people come first. Human rights, media and digital communications in post-apartheid South Africa. In A. Puddephatt, D. Hawtin, L. Zommer, J. Brant, L. Attalah, N. Rizk, R. Bhat, M. Lim, G. Gibrrthaiga, & R. Zausmer (Eds.), A new frontier. An old landscape. A report for the Ford Foundation about the impact of digital communications on media and communications, and on human rights. London: Global Partners and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A first version of this chapter was presented as the keynote lecture at the Fifth Advanced Research Seminar on Audio Description (ARSAD) Conference organized by the TransMedia research group and the Centre d’Accessibilitat i Intel·ligència Ambiental de Catalunya (CAiAC), held at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, 19–20 March 2015. I am deeply grateful to Anna Matamala and Pilar Orero for their invitation and insightful comments. I am also grateful to the participants for helpful feedback during and after the meeting. In addition, I would like to thank Floriane Bardini, Elena Di Giovanni, Louise Fryer, Antonio Negro, Pablo Romero-Fresco, Christopher Taylor and Vera Vaglio Massa Stampacchia for discussions and comments on previous versions of the paper. Thanks to Jan-Louis Kruger for comments on a previous draft of section 6. Teressa Canosa skillfully copy-edited the final version of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Gian Maria Greco

  2. POIESIS, Lecce, Italy

    Gian Maria Greco

Authors
  1. Gian Maria Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Edifici B, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

    Anna Matamala

  2. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, UNIVERSITAT AUTÓNOMA DE BARCELONA, Barcelona, Spain

    Pilar Orero

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Greco, G.M. (2016). On Accessibility as a Human Right, with an Application to Media Accessibility. In: Matamala, A., Orero, P. (eds) Researching Audio Description. Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56917-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56917-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-56916-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-56917-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation