Delia Ferri

In October this year, the Group of Seven (G7) countries – i.e. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States (US), with the European Union (EU) as additional member – convened in Assisi under the lead of the Italian Presidency in the ‘G7 Inclusion and Disability’ meeting. Originating from an ad hoc meeting of finance ministers in 1973, the G7 – a key international forum of the world’s leading advanced economies which is not based on an international treaty – is primarily geared to discuss economic issues and address financial contingencies. While macroeconomic issues remain at the core of the G7, since the 1980s, issues related to social rights, climate change, culture or human rights broadly conceived of have fallen within the scope of the discussions held. However, it is the first time that the G7 dedicates a meeting entirely and specifically to disability rights.
At the end of the meeting, Italian Minister for Disability, Alessandra Locatelli, and the Ministers dealing with disability from all the participating countries adopted the ‘Solfagnano Charter’ (hereafter ‘the Charter’), a programmatic document that reaffirms the rights of persons with disabilities to full and effective participation in civil, social, economic, cultural and political life. Albeit arguably devoid of legal effects, the Charter highlights political commitments undertaken by the G7 States to foster inclusion of persons with disabilities in all ambits of life. As emphatically noted by Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif, when participating in the meeting in Solfagnano, ‘[i]nclusion is the right thing to do, because together with diversity and respect for the other, these are a strength for any society’.
While the Charter has not attracted much interest in legal scholarship, it arguably presents noteworthy facets and exhibits a significant symbolic value. This short blog post outlines the core tenets of the Charter and reflects on its programmatic nature as well as on its role in the global trajectory of emergence of disability rights.
The Charter was drafted by the G7 following a relatively participatory process that included not only ministries of the G7, but also ministers from some ‘Global South’ countries (particularly the relevant Ministers of Kenya, South Africa, Tunisia, and Vietnam) as well as representatives of organization of persons with disabilities (OPDs) such as the International Disability Alliance (IDA) and the European Disability Forum (EDF). Such participatory approach is deemed to be in line with the motto of the disability movement ‘Nothing About Us, Without Us’, cited at the outset of the Charter. Further, the participatory approach that characterized the elaboration of the Charter is reflected in the commitment to engage in ‘a cultural shift in policy-making to ensure the disability community is actively and meaningfully engaged in decision-making processes’ – a commitment that traverses the full text.
Notably, the Charter recognizes that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or the ‘Convention’) – ratified by all G7 countries bar the US – represents the global standard on disability rights. By referring at various junctures to its key tenets and principles (dignity, equality, accessibility and participation), the Charter ‘requires that individuals be placed at the centre of policies and interventions with a view to develop the autonomy, independence, talents, skills and empowerment of each person in the entire community, taking into account the many different types and degrees of disability’. It identifies eight priority areas: 1. Inclusion as a priority issue in the political agenda of all countries; 2. Access and accessibility; 3. Autonomous and independent life; 4. Enhancement of talents and work inclusion; 5. Promotion of new technologies; 6. Sports, recreational and cultural dimensions of life; 7. Dignity of life and appropriate community-based services; 8. Prevention and management of emergency preparedness and post-emergency management situations, including climate crises, armed conflicts and humanitarian crises. Those areas broadly overlap with CRPD provisions, confirming that the Convention is a norm-setting instrument.
Within the first priority area, the G7 countries commit to promote discussion and prioritization of disability issues in other international fora, for example the G20, and to involve OPDs in policy-making in compliance with the CRPD obligation of participatory policy-making laid out in Article 4(3). Notably, the Charter highlights collaboration between G7 countries and the EU, in that way signaling the current role of the Union as global leader when it comes to disability. Notably, the US, with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), have for long been considered the spearhead in the field of disability, with the EU, as Flynn and Quinn contended, ‘borrowing’ from the ADA to build European disability anti-discrimination law. However, the EU now seems to be a step ahead. It has not only ratified the CRPD, alongside its Member States, while the US still have not, but also adopted a multifaceted and comprehensive disability legislation and policy, which mainstream disability rights across all its ambits of action.
In its second priority area, the Charter further makes a strong pivot on accessibility, which, as the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) in its General Comment No. 2 put it, is a ‘precondition’ for the enjoyment of all human rights. In doing so, the Charter aligns with Article 19 CRPD and recognizes the right of people with disabilities to live independently and being included in the community. To that end it acknowledges that social protection and support services need to adopt a person-centered approach. Such point is further developed under the eighth priority area, which emphasizes a commitment ‘to making community-based services – starting with health, social, and support services, but not only limited to – accessible through a universal design approach, the removal of barriers and the provision of reasonable accommodations’. The Charter also recognizes that ‘wills and preferences’ of people with disabilities should be at the center of any support tool.
By virtue of the fifth priority area, the Charter recognizes the importance of technology and Artificial Intelligence and their emancipatory value. In this respect, G7 States commit ‘to fostering dialogue with business, representative [OPDs], civil society and academic stakeholders in the world of technology and innovation, as well as with those concerned with ethical issues to ensure that safe, secure, and trustworthy systems are developed, deployed and used in an ethical, responsible and non-discriminatory manner and requiring that digital professionals are aware and trained on accessibility’. Somewhat echoing Article 32(1)(d) CRPD, which obliges States Parties to provide ‘technical and economic assistance, including by facilitating access to and sharing of accessible and assistive technologies, and through the transfer of technologies’, the Charter envisages a pledge to ‘foster the widest possible dissemination of [new] technologies domestically and internationally’.
Of note is the emphasis of the Charter on ‘sports, recreational and cultural dimensions of life’ which are included as the sixth priority area. In that the Charter seems to acknowledge that cultural participation is an essential element of social life, and, as noted by the former UN Special Rapporteur on cultural rights, is intrinsic to being human. The Charter recalls the importance of culture for wellbeing, which has also become a core area of attention for the EU. It further refers to the need to ensure that people with disabilities have access to ‘cultural and creative professions on an equal basis with others’. However, compared to Article 30 CRPD, which requires States Parties inter alia to guarantee that people with disabilities can professionally engage as artists and cultural workers, the Charter seems to lean towards viewing cultural participation of people with disabilities as a social or therapeutic issue. This approach confirms findings of previous research showing how, often, due to attitudinal barriers and discriminatory assumptions, art created by people with disabilities is considered as having merely health, leisure or inclusion aims.
Finally, it is not surprising that the Charter includes a dedicated part on prevention and management of emergency preparedness and post-emergency management situations, including climate crises, armed conflicts and humanitarian crises. The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and in the Gaza strip, as well as the recent extreme weather events show how people with disabilities are constantly left behind and are those who suffer the most. The commitments expounded in the Charter echo the obligations laid out in Article 11 CRPD to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk.
On the whole, the G7 countries reaffirmed their ‘commitment to show leadership and ambition, in line with the [CRPD]’, and translate the priorities of the Charter into concrete actions. Nonetheless, the Charter is rather programmatic, and general in its approach. Its pledges (and the overall priority areas) are set out in a declaratory rather than prescriptive form, confirming the Charter’s inherent nature of political statement. In fact, EDF, while welcoming the Charter, highlighted that it ‘should have presented more concrete actions’. Yet, the Charter identifies and singles out specific issues on which there is agreement, identifying common objectives. Further, while its effects are dependent on follow-through by G7 and other endorsing countries, in conjunction with OPDs, the Charter is significant in three main respects.
First, the Charter fully embraces the social-contextual view of disability which permeates the CRPD, i.e. the view that disability stems from the interaction between the individual’s impairment and external barriers. Such view is crucial to making strides towards redressing the historical marginalization experienced by persons with disabilities. Back in 2009, Hill and Blanck noted that the importance of the CRPD was not merely linked to ‘the technical legal changes it requires’ in domestic law, but rather lied in its ‘ability to create a new type of disability politics worldwide’. The Charter does confirm the long-lasting impact of the CRPD and its ‘Copernican revolution’ towards viewing disability as a social construct and shifting the focus on barriers. Notably, consistent with this approach, the Charter adopts the semantic of the CRPD itself. While the debate on the language of disability is so lively in Anglo-Saxon disability studies and advocacy, global disability law and policy have gone further ahead consistently adopting ‘person first language’. As recently noted by Blanck, person-first language best emphasises the importance of the individual as a person ‘who has accompanying rights and responsibilities in law’.
Secondly, and linked to this, the Charter is the latest (but evidently not the last) evidence of the consolidation of ‘disability rights’ as autonomous category of human rights on foot of the CRPD. In that regard, it confirms that, as Harpur suggests, the CRPD has in fact created ‘a new disability rights paradigm’ on which there is an undisputed consensus.
Thirdly, the lack of intersectional approach that the Charter exhibits is a worrying signal that, in a time of populism and with the surge of far-right governments, there is a consensus on disability rights, but LGBTIQ+, women or ethnic groups’ rights remain somewhat uneasy and contested. While the renewed attention to disability rights is to be welcomed and cherished, it cannot become a smokescreen to neglect and undermine other rights. In fact, as the CRPD Committee highlighted, disability is only one facet of our multilayered identity.

This post has been written within the remit of the research project ‘Protecting the Right to Culture of Persons with Disabilities and Enhancing Cultural Diversity through European Union Law: Exploring New Paths – DANCING’. DANCING has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No 864182).

In June 2024, Spain enacted a new Law on Higher Arts Education (Ley 1/2024, de 7 de junio, por la que se regulan las enseñanzas artísticas superiores y se establece la organización y equivalencias de las enseñanzas artísticas profesionales) (LHAE). Besides significantly reshaping Spain’s educational landscape in the artistic field, this piece of legislation is groundbreaking from a disability perspective. While the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is not explicitly mentioned in the text, this brief blog post contends that the LHAE is vital to implement Article 30(2) CRPD which requires States Parties to the Convention to “take appropriate measures to enable persons with disabilities to have the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, not only for their own benefit, but also for the enrichment of society”. It also concurs to implement Article 24 CRPD on the right to education. In fact, recent research has shown that policies and practices excluding people with disabilities from arts colleges or academies entail a significant barrier that prevents people with disabilities from becoming professional artists and hampers their development as performers. In that regard, the LHAE holds vital importance to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to artistic education and can then play a part in the artistic sector of the country. Notably, the LHAE follows (and further supports) the recent landmark constitutional amendment of Article 49 of the Spanish Constitution (SC), commented on this blog by Maribel González Pascual. As discussed by González Pascual, the new wording of Article 49 SC incorporates a human rights approach to disability and enshrines the principle of accessibility, which both seem to be at the core of this new Law on Higher Arts Education.

Before zooming in on the disability facets of the LHAE, it is worth noting that it is generally premised on the recognition that “all people have the right to culture and to enjoy of the arts and cultural heritage, as established by the Spanish Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. It further embeds the acknowledgement that it is the responsibility of the State and the autonomous communities to ensure access to artistic education “under conditions of equal opportunities” (Article 4(2) LHAE -emphasis added). Further, the LHAE is said to “[integrate] higher artistic education into the broader European university framework” and align with European standards. In recognizing professional artistic education and different modes of education (see in particular Article 15 LHAE), it values practical experience that supports transition into the professional artistic workforce.

Notably, the LHAE places great emphasis on substantive equality, which is not only mentioned in Article 4 but is enshrined in a series of provisions. Article 42 LHAE establishes that “[a]ccess to higher artistic education will be governed by the constitutional principle of equality”. The same provision also provides that “[i]t is up to the competent administrations to guarantee equality of opportunities and conditions in the exercise of the right of access to these teachings, removing any barrier that prevents those who meet the requirements established in this law to pursue the different studies they include”. The reference to barriers is particularly relevant in the context of disability, given that disability itself, according to the CRPD, is to be conceived as the result of interactions between the individual’s impairment and external barriers. Notably, Article 43 (on the rights concerned the academic education) establishes inter alia that students will have the right to participate “in mobility programs, national or international, within the framework of current legislation, under conditions that guarantee equal opportunities, paying special attention to inequalities due to socioeconomic reasons and disability”. This provision acknowledges the difficulties experienced by students with disabilities when exercising their free movement rights and the hurdles they face, denounced multiple times by disability umbrella organizations, such as the European Disability Forum.

The principle of equality finds further expression in Article 48 LHAE specifically titled “Equality and Non-Discrimination”. Notably paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this provision are specifically focused on persons with disabilities. Article 48(2) requires that educational settings are fully accessible, in that they ensure “accessibility of spaces and structures” as well as of curricula, “in order to guarantee equality of opportunities for students with disabilities, making curricular and methodological adjustments to the teaching materials, the teaching methods and the teaching system”. This paragraph fully aligns with Article 24 of the CRPD, but also with the general principle of accessibility enshrined in article 9 CRPD. It embeds a conception of accessibility as “pragmatic” translation of equality. Further, while this provision does not specifically mention “reasonable accommodation”, the reference to “adjustments” hints directly to the concept of reasonable accommodation defined in Article 2 CRPD and the right to be reasonably accommodated of students with disabilities provided for Article 24 CRPD. Even more notably, Article 48(3) LHAE provides for a disability quota, by establishing that “educational administrations will facilitate access” to people with disabilities and that “at least 5 percent of the places offered in the degrees must be reserved for students with disabilities”. While quotas are a very widespread mechanism in relation to employment of people with disabilities, they have not been used often in relation to educational settings. Hence, Article 48(3) LHAE is quite significant and somewhat novel. The purpose of this provision is rather clear, and is that of overcoming the lack of artistic educational opportunities faced by persons with disabilities, and ingraining a virtuous circle. Yet, quota schemes in labour law, which have been the most rooted tool to ensure equality, have often been criticized because ineffective and deemed to reinforce negative stereotypes and prejudices. As noted by Waddington, quotas tend to be shaped by ‘a welfare (or charity) model of people with disabilities’, rather than a non-discrimination approach. In this respect the main criticism of quota systems is that that they hamper (instead of enhancing) awareness of abilities and capabilities of persons with disabilities. Article 48(3) hence leverages on a well-known (but heavily debated) tool, and it remains to be seen whether it will be effective in redressing the disadvantage faced by persons with disabilities in artistic education or it will end up being another ineffective and perfunctory choice of the legislator. Finally Article 48(4) specifically address Deaf people by establishing that educational administrations will ensure the use of Spanish sign languages ​​“where necessary”.

The LHAE also provides for financial support to reduce final barriers, with provisions for scholarships for talented students in higher artistic education. These general provisions are also relevant to students with disabilities who generally face higher cost and are at higher risk of social exclusion.

On the whole, besides its general merit in redesigning higher artistic education in Spain, the LHAE has the great value of recognising the vital role that persons with disabilities can play in the artistic sector if allowed to develop their creative potential, as required by the CRPD. In that connection, the LHAE can be seen as an important step in effecting the CRPD’s transformative vision of persons with disabilities as fully-fledged members of society. The LHAE provision on accessibility reflects the Spanish government's commitment to strengthening a human rights approach to disability which aligns with the CRPD ethos. The introduction of a disability quota system in artistic education is somewhat novel and can be considered consistent with the CRPD obligation to enact positive actions. Even if quotas are often criticized, future will tell whether this provision will enhance participation of persons with disabilities in higher education. All in all, by addressing long-standing gaps in the protection and promotion of the right of persons with disabilities to partake in cultural life as artists and creators, the LHAE is an important step forward and an example for that other States might decide to follow.

* This post has been written within the remit of the research project ‘Protecting the Right to Culture of Persons with Disabilities and Enhancing Cultural Diversity through European Union Law: Exploring New Paths – DANCING’. DANCING has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No 864182).