View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Illinois State University Illinois State University
ISU ReD: Research and eData ISU ReD: Research and eData
Capstone Projects – Politics and Government Politics and Government
Winter 12-4-2016
Policy Dissemination: Public Administration Theory and Policy Dissemination: Public Administration Theory and
International Organizations | A Case Study on the Convention on International Organizations | A Case Study on the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the Kingdom of Morocco the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the Kingdom of Morocco
Rachelle Ann Wilson Illinois State University, my.dear.rachelle@gmail.com
Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cppg
Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, International Relations Commons, Other
Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons,
Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Public
Administration Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Wilson, Rachelle Ann, "Policy Dissemination: Public Administration Theory and International Organizations | A Case Study on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the Kingdom of Morocco" (2016). Capstone Projects – Politics and Government. 31. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cppg/31
This Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Politics and Government at ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has been accepted for inclusion in Capstone Projects – Politics and Government by an authorized administrator of ISU ReD: Research and eData. For more information, please contact ISUReD@ilstu.edu.
1
PolicyDissemination:PublicAdministrationTheoryandInternationalOrganizations
ACaseStudyontheConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilitiesintheKingdomofMorocco
RachelleA.Wilson
Introduction
Withtheadventofinternationalorganizationscomesinternationallaw.
Unprecedentedatsuchaglobalandinfluentiallevel,thereisnotheoreticalframework
withinpublicadministrationexplicitlyfocusedonadministrativestructureandstrategies
fortheimplementationofinternationallaw(GÜNEYSU,2013).Consequently,thecurrent
administrativeliteratureandtheoreticalframeworkmustbelookedtoandtransposed,as
muchaspossible,totheinternationalstage.Byexploringvariousframeworkswithin
publicadministration,acomparisontothemethodofimplementationforinternational
lawcanbedrawn.Thekeyquestiontoexploreiswhetherthestructuresandexpectations
ofInternationalOrganizations(liketheUnitedNations)mirrortheOrthodoxapproachto
PublicAdministration.Similarly,thispaperseekstoprobethecurrentwayinwhich
internationallawtranslatesintolocalaction.
ConceptualFrameworkandLiteratureReview
TopdownandBottomup
Thoughinternationallawhasbeenlargelyconsideredapolitical,currentliterature
hasbeguntochallengethatnotionandexploreitspoliticalimplications.(GÜNEYSU,2013;
Charlesworth,1992;Charlesworth,1999;Kennedy,1991)Thenatureofthisdiscussionis
onethatisreminiscentofWoodrowWilson’sgroundbreakingessay,TheStudyof
2
Administration.Hisessayexploresthepracticeofpublicadministrationasitrelatesto
politicization.Hearguesthatpublicadministrationis“removedfromthehurryandstrife
ofpolitics.”Sincepublication,manytheoristshavefurtheredthisnotionofseparation
(White,Gulick,Weber,Taylor)whileothershavechallengedit(Follett,Dahl,Long).
Thepromotionofpublicadministration’sapoliticalviewhascometobeknownas
Orthodoxywithinthediscipline.Orthodoxyalsocontainsthetop‐downapproachto
administration(Stillman,2010).Thedescriptorstop‐downandbottom‐uprefertothe
directionfromwhichdecisionsaremade.Anadministrationoperatingastop‐downisone
wherethemanagerorexecutiveissueadecisionwhichisthendisseminatedthroughout
thelowerlevels,whilebottom‐upworksfromthegrassrootsleveltoformulatechanges
whicharethenpassedupwardstomanagement.
WritingwithintheOrthodoxyframework,LutherGulickemphasizesthe
importanceofcontroltoremaincentralized.HechallengesTaylor'snotionofmultiple
supervisorsandsuggestsinsteadthatallindividualsreporttoonlyonesupervisor,
maintainingthatsupervisorsshouldmanageonlyasmallnumber(3‐12)ofsubordinates
tosustainefficiency.ThoughGulickentertainsbothtop‐downandbottom‐up(andeven
sometypeofforgingofthetwo)supervisionstrategies,heultimatelypromotestop‐down
asthemosteffectiveformofmanagement.Hesuggeststhatthisispossiblebythe
adoptionofassistantsandthepracticeofdelegation.Thechiefexecutive,then,ismainly
responsibleforPOSDCORB(Planning,Organizing,Staffing,Directing,Coordinating,
Reporting,andBudgeting)(Gulick,1937).
SinceOrthodoxy’sinitialfameandsubsequentdecline,thinkershavepromoted
alternativeapproaches,someofwhichfocusonabottom‐upframework.Implementation
literaturetraditionallytendstofallclosertoonecamporanother.Asadministrationhas
3
becomemorecomplex,sohavethemodelsofimplementationtheory.Asisthecasein
manyfields,thevariouscampsaremostoftenfoundtalkingpasteachotherandnotto
eachother,resultinginmuchresearchthatisdifficulttoamalgamateforthepurposesof
thistypeofanalysis.
Synthesizing
Amidstthisdichotomy,RichardMatlandattemptstosynthesizethetwoextremes
intoaworkablematrix.Hehighlightsthewayinwhichorganizationshaveutilizedboth
top‐downandbottom‐upapproaches,dependingonthetypeofinstitutionorsituation.
Hismatrix,then,isawaytoclassifyvaryingtypesoforganizationsintermsofpolicy
implementationpractices.Usinghighorlowlevelsofthetwovariables,ambiguityand
conflict,Matlandcreatesfourimplementationclassifications:Administrative
Implementation,PoliticalImplementation,ExperimentalImplementation,andSymbolic
Implementation.Matland’smatrixiswellsupportedbytherelevantresearchand
extremelydetailed.(Matland,1995)
TohelpdeterminethenatureofInternationalOrganizations’implementation
strategies,internationallawwillbeviewedintermsofMatland’sConflict‐Ambiguity
matrix(Exhibit1).Inthisway,internationallawwillbeheldtothesamestandardas
manypublicpoliciesandjudgedalongthesamelines.Thisstudywillspecificallylookat
theUnitedNations’treaties,resolutions,andchartersastheyrelatetoothergovernment
actors.ThoughthereasonsforfocusingonmaterialproducedbytheUnitedNationsare
manifold,theprimaryfactoristhattheUnitedNations(UN)isthelargestinternational
organization.Allrecognizedcountriesareinvolvedasmemberstates,whichallowsfor
4
accessible,relevantanalysisofthatparticularorganization.
Whendiscussingsuccessfulimplementationwithinpublicadministration,top‐
downersandbottom‐upperswouldhavedifferentcriteria.AccordingtoMatland,“Top‐
downtheoristsdesiretomeasuresuccessintermsofspecificoutcomestieddirectlyto
thestatutesthatarethesourceofaprogram.Bottom‐uptheoristspreferamuchbroader
evaluation,inwhichaprogramleadingto‘positiveeffects’canbelabeledasuccess
(Palumbo,Maynard‐Moody,andWright1984).”Thevaryingoperationaldefinitionsof
successfulimplementationcauseconfusionandmakeitdifficulttomeasure.Though
adherencetogoalscanbeusedasameasurewhenthegoalsareclear,incasesof
ambiguity,societalnormsandvaluesmustbereviewed(Matland,1995).
Policyconflictisoftenlookedtoastheamountofgoalcongruenceatthevarious
levelswithintheimplementationprocess.OosterwaalandTorenvliedexplorehowthe
factorscontributingtopolicydiversionindicatecasesofimplementationfailure.They
specificallylookathowpoliticalconflictmayaffectpolicydisseminationinthefieldof
publicadministration.Theyincorporateresearchfromboththebureaucracyliterature
andthepublicadministrationliteraturetoexplorethestruggleforcontrol,identifyingthe
typesofconflictandmeasurestowhichconflicthaveanimpactonimplementation
decisions.(OosterwaalandTorenvlied,2012)
Matlandhighlightstwomaintypesofconflictidentifiedintheliteratureamong
rationalandbureaucraticpoliticsmodels.Theformersuggeststhereareagreedupon
goalsbutdissensionregardinghowbesttomeetthem.Thelatterarguesthatthereareno
agreedupongoalsandcoercionisusedtostreamlineactions.Bothtypesofconflictare
incorporatedwithinMatland’smatrix.
5
Policyambiguityprimarilymanifestsintwoways,“ambiguityofgoalsand
ambiguityofmeans.”Top‐downadministrationfocusesonminimizingambiguityasmuch
aspossible.Thosefocusingonbottom‐upadministration,however,realizetheimportance
ambiguityplaysinpromotingcreativityandinnovation.Ambiguitycanrelatetogoal
implementationstrategies,policymeans,ortoolutilizationmethods.(Matland,2010)
*AmbiguityConflictMatrixoriginallypublishedin“SynthesizingTheImplementationLiterature:TheAmbiguityConflictModelOfPolicyImplementation”byRichardMatland.
InviewofMatland’smatrix,fourpotentialcategoriesforpublicorganizationsare
emphasized.Topdownadministrationsthatfocuslargelyonminimizingconflictand
6
minimizingambiguity(whicharetwoheavyfocuseswithintop‐downliterature)willfall
undertheadministrativeimplementationcategory.Gulick’snotionofadministration
wouldfitintothiscategory.Gulickfocusedondirectcommunicationandinteractionswith
one’ssupervisor.HisidealworkplacewouldbeonethatiswithinMatland’sideaof
administrativeimplementation.Inthiscategory,goalsareclearandunified,meansare
clearandunified,andthereisnotmuchroomfordeviation,creativity,orinnovation.
Anadministrativeorganizationthathaslowpolicyambiguityyethighpolicy
conflictwouldbeclassifiedunderpoliticalimplementation.Poweriswhatdeterminesthe
outcome.Thoughtheremaybeagreed‐upongoals,proposedimplementationmethods
maydiffer.Muchofwhatdeterminestheoutcomeinthiscategoryhastodowithwho
controlstheresources.Thismodelfitsmostappropriatelywithmoremoderntop‐down
models.Moderntop‐downmodelsincorporatevariouspoliticalfactorsthatinfluence
resourcesandapproachesofimplementingcertaingoals.
Whenanorganizationhashighpolicyambiguityandlowpolicyconflict,the
contextistypicallywhatdeterminestheoutcome.Participants’levelofactivityand
interestwillinfluencewhichpathanorganizationmighttake.Forthisclassification,
entitledexperimentalimplementation,thereisnostandardoutcomebutvarying
manifestationsofthesamegoalsfromsitetosite.Beingmoreintunewithcontext,this
approachisapparentlyecological.Bottom‐uptheoristswouldpromotethistypeof
approach.Inthismodel,innovationandcreativityareencouragedandfacilitated.
Thecombinationofhighpolicyambiguityandpolicyconflictisconsidered
symbolicimplementation.Someseesymbolicpoliciesasplayingapoliticalroleingoal
movement(Olsen,1970).Thoughthesetypesofpolicieswillbepolitical,localactorswill
7
mainlydeterminetheoutcome.Thismodeldoesnoteasilyfitintoeitheratop‐downora
bottom‐upframework.
Application:ExploringCurrentLiterature
Byadoptingapublicadministrativelenstotherealmofinternationallaw,the
questionarisesregardingwhereandhowtheUNfitsintosuchaframework.Itseemsthe
firststepwouldbetodeterminethelevelsofambiguityandconflictthathavebeen
displayedinUNinteractionsontheglobalstage.Byexploringthesetwofactors,theUN
canbeplacedinacategorythathelpsdeterminewhichtypeofimplementationstrategy
theorganizationiseitherattemptingortraditionallyexecutes.Usingthetwofactorsof
ambiguityandconflictthisstudywilltrytoidentifythelevelsexhibitedbytheUnited
Nationsaccordingtowhatdataarecurrentlyavailable.
ExploringinteractionsontheglobalstagebetweentheUNandotherlocaland
regionalbodiesprovidesinsighttothehistoricallevelofconflictregardinginternational
lawsingeneral.Matland’sdefinitionofconflictaddressesvaryingandincongruent
implementationstrategiesforthesamegoals.Inviewofthisdefinition,thisstudylooksat
literaturethatprobesthisquestion.
InthepaperTheGlobalandTheRegionalInTheResponsibilityToProtect:Where
DoesAuthorityLie?,BernardNtahirajafocusesonaconflictbetweentheUnitedNations
andtheAfricanUnion.Inthiscasestudy,hecoversaspecificeventinwhichtheAfrican
UnionwasdeniedpermissiontointerveneinTunisiabytheUnitedNations.This
restrictionwascitedasanimplementationofthepowersgrantedtotheUNthroughthe
UNcharter.Chapters7and8ofthecharterissuepreferencetotheSecurityCouncilover
8
othergoverningbodiesinthewayofenhancingorpromotingpeaceandsecurityinnon‐
domesticaffairs.Bothorganizationsaimedtoworktowardstheexpressedgoalof
peacekeeping,buttheissuecamedowntowhowasresponsibleforsuchinvolvement.
Thiscaseisaclearexampleofhighconflictregardingwhichinternationalentityis
allowedtointerveneonthenationallevel.
SomeauthorssuggestthattoviolatetheSecurityCouncilistounderminethe
UnitedNationsasawhole(Hakimi,2007).Ntahirajaexploresothercasesinwhich
organizationsengageininterventionorpeacekeepingeffortswhentheUNdoesnot
condemnnorprevent.Thedifferencebetweenthosecasesandthisparticulareventhasto
dowithconsultationwithorincorporationoftheSecurityCouncil.Theauthorsuggests
thatthemaindifferenceisthatinothercasestheorganizationswereincludingthe
SecurityCouncil‐‐theactionstepsandpostureoftheorganizationswerealignedwiththe
willoftheSecurityCouncil.Butforthecaseinquestion,theAUdidnotseekoutapproval
bytheSecurityCouncilbeforeacting,leadingtothesubsequenthindrance.
Thelargerquestionathandregardswhoseresponsibilityitwastointerveneinthe
firstplace.Manybottom‐uptheoristswouldarguethattheAfricanUnionisclosertothe
conflictandthereforebetterequippedtoknowwhichactionstepswouldbemost
beneficialfortheissueathand.TheinterventionandblockageoftheSecurityCouncilto
theresponseinitiatedbytheAfricanUnioncanbeleveragedtoarguethattheSecurity
CouncildoesnotseetheUNasabottom‐uporganization.Thiscasestudyhighlightsthe
typeofvisibleandpublicconflictthatcanhappenwhenorganizationsareinvolvedinthe
sameregionwithsimilargoalsofpromotingpeaceandprotection.Notonlywasthe
AfricanUnionhinderedintheiractionplanofresponsebutalsotheywereembarrassed
ontheworldstage.ActionsofthisnaturebytheSecurityCouncilmightalsoleadto
9
weakeningofthelegitimacyofregionalorganizations,liketheAfricanUnion,intimesof
globalinsecurity.
Casestudiesregardingconflictbetweeninternationallaw,regionalorganizations,
andlocalgovernmentsareinnoshortsupply.Casesrangingfromrefugeetreatment
(Freedman,2010)tolandrightsforNomadicpeoples(Gilbert,2012)topost‐conflict
peacebuildingstrategies(Bruch,Boulicault,Talati,andJensen,2012)andmanyin
betweendiscusstheconflictinvolvedwithimplementinginternationallaw.Some,
however,addressbothconflictandambiguity.
JohannaKalbturnstotheUnitedStatestoexplorethewayinwhichspecificstates
incorporateinternationalhumanrightslawintotheirstatelegislatures.Aquestionrising
fromthearticleiswhetherstatestakingtheseactionsarecircumventingthefederal
government.However,forinternationallawtocometofruition,stateandlocalactionis
required.Whenstatesimplementandincorporateinternationalhumanrightswithoutthe
directiveofthefederalgovernmenttheyarestillactinginlinewiththefederal
government’sexpressedgoals.
KalbexplorescasesintheUnitedStatesinwhichstateshavefailedtoimplement
internationallaw.Intheexploredcases,therewasalackoffederaldirectivetodoso,
however,stateswerestillheldaccountablefortheviolation.Theauthordemonstrates
howthefederalgovernmenthasbeenhesitanttoimposeinternationallawwithinstates,
whileatthesametimestateshavebeenpassiveintermsof"fillingthegap."Sheidentifies
twomainreasonsforthestate'sinabilitytofillthegap,“lackofknowledge,andthelackof
capacity.(1052)”FortheUnitedStatesparticularly,federalismhasnegativelyaffectedthe
judicialsystem’sprocessofdisseminatinginternationallawonthestateandlocallevel.
Someresearcherssuggestthatthisistheresultoftheresistancetonationallawwhile
10
otherssimplyseeitasa"missedopportunity.”Byincreasingstate’sengagement,states
wouldbebroughtintotheimplementationdialogueandthusbegintominimize
federalismasabarriertomorenationalengagement.Somearguethatdoingthiswould
weakentheUnitedStates’federalimagebydetractingfromaunifiedvoice.However,the
authorsuggeststhattheUnitedStatesisalreadyspeakingwithapluralityofvoicesatthe
internationallevel,byactionandinteraction.
Kalbpositsaconflictingconclusion,however,regardingtheoptimalfuturesteps
thefederalandlocalgovernmentsshouldtake:
Thetaskoftreatyimplementationthusdemonstratesawiderangeofpossiblepartnershipsandshowsbothhowambiguitycanstymieinitiativeandhowstructurecanenableit.ThecasesthatIhaverevieweddemonstratethatgreaterstateparticipationwillrequireamoreexplicitreframingofthequestionofresponsibilityforratifiedhumanrightstreaties.Themodelofjurisdictionalauthorityshouldshiftawayfromthecurrentdichotomy(thateitherthefederalorthestategovernmentisresponsible)towardanongoingcollaboration(wherethestateandfederalgovernmentshaveasharedandoverlappingresponsibilityforensuringthattheUnitedStates'commitmentsarekept).Moreover,greatersubnationalengagementwilldemandaprocessbywhichtherequirementsofthesetreatiesaregivenmoreexplicitdefinition.Theroleofthefederalgovernmentinthisprocessshouldthereforebetostimulate,enable,andmoderateanongoing"diagonal"dialogueabouthowtoevaluateandimplementthesetreatyrights.Thefederalrolewouldthuslookdifferentthanitdidinthecasesexamined[here]inthatitwouldbelessabouteducatingstatesastotheirpartinapredesignedimplementationprogram,andmoreaboutencouragingandharnessingstateandlocalinnovation.(Kalb,112113)
HerpaperprovidesaplethoraofevidencethatthecurrentconditionintheUnitedStates
isoneofconflictonallpossiblelevels.Ontheonehand,shepromotesgreaterclarification
forthestatesandontheother;shesuggestsmoreroomforinnovation.Sheisalsounclear
astowhetherherdiagnosisfortherootissueisoneofambiguityorconflictorboth.She
seemstojumpbetweenthetwowithoutclearoperationaldefinitions.
11
FromthecasesexploredinKalb’sarticleitisdifficulttodetermineiftheissueat
handisambiguityorconflict.OnecouldsaythattheUnitedStates’goalsarenotclearon
thestatelevel.Ifinternationallaw,federalgovernment,andprovincialactorsare
operatingunderdifferentgoalssets,thedisconnectwouldbeoneofambiguity.However,
theissuecouldbeseenasconflict,inwhichthegoalsareclearbutthewaytoimplement
themiswhatisunclear.
LeslieWexlerexploresthesebigquestionsinanarticleentitled,ThePromiseAnd
LimitsOfLocalHumanRightsInternationalism.Sheaddressesquestionssuchashowto
choosepolicies,whichpoliciestoassess,whichgovernmentalentityshouldconductthem,
andwhatconsequencesoutflowfromahumanrightsassessmentorimpactstatement.
Thefocusishowinternationallawissubmittedonthelocallevel.
Asevidencedbythecaseshighlightedhere,conflictcanbeseenasprevalent
throughouttheinternationallawsystem.Whatislessclear,however,istheextentto
whichambiguityisfound.Inmanyexampleswhereitseemsambiguityispresent,the
casecouldbemadethattheissueregardsresponsibilityforimplementinginternational
law(whichputsthesituationbackintotherealmofconflict.)Ultimately,thequestionsat
handare:HowambiguousistheUnitedNationsregardingtheinternationallaw
disseminationprocessandisconflictinevitablewheninvolvingsomanyactorsatso
manylevels?
Toexplorethesequestions,thisstudywillresearchthecongruencybetweenthe
expressedgoalsandmeansoftheUNandthoseoftheir
regional/national/provincial/localcounterparts.Sinceinternationalpolicygoesfromthe
UNdownthroughthelocaldisseminationimplementationprocess,thispathwillbe
evaluated.Byexploringtheperceivedgoalsandperceivedmeansofimplementation,
12
ambiguityandconflictcanbehighlighted.
Tosufficientlyexploreandmeasurethisprocess,theUnitedNationscontinuesto
betheinternationalorganizationofanalysis.Morespecifically,thisstudyexaminesthe
UnitedNations’ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(CRPD)andhowit
hasbeenimplementedintheKingdomofMorocco.Thereasonsforthisaremanifold.
First,theUnitedNations(UN)isthelargestinternationalorganizationwithallrecognized
countriesinvolvedasmemberstates.Second,thoughnotallUNresolutionsareadopted
byallmemberstates,thisconventionis.Third,thedataforMoroccoregardingthistopic
areaccessibleinEnglishandwelldocumented.Thesefactorsallowforaccessibleanalysis
ofthatparticularconventioninthisparticularcountry.
Delimitations
Aswithanystudy,severaldelimitationswillpresentthemselves.Whileitwouldbe
highlyrobusttogatherinformationforallnations,thatisnotpracticalconsideringthe
magnitude.Amorerealisticapproachwouldbetofocusthestudytooneinternationallaw
andoneparticularnation.ThisstudyfocusesontheKingdomofMoroccoandexploresits
particularrelationshiptotheConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities.The
findingsbasedononecountrymaynotbegloballyapplicable,butaswithanycasestudy,
thefindingswillprovidesomeinsighttothequestionandhelpdirectfurtherresearch.
CollectionofData
TheConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(CRPD)mustbeexamined
first.ThemostimportantpiecesoftheCRPDasitpertainstothisresearchare:1)the
13
definitionofdisability,2)thegoalsandobjectivesfortheratifyingparties,3)howthe
expressedgoalsaretobeimplemented,and4)thepartiesresponsibleformonitoringand
reporting.BygatheringinformationputforthbytheCRPDregardingthesefourfactors
andcomparingittothenationalandregionalinformationavailable,aninitialanalysisof
conflictandambiguityispossible.
InviewofMoroccohavingratifiedtheConventionontheRightsofPersonswith
DisabilitiesandOptionalProtocolin2009,theconditionsinMoroccoprecedingthis
ratificationseembestsuitedtoformacomparisonregardingitseffectiveness.Andwhile
allchangescannotbedirectlyattributedtotheratificationoftheCRPD,abasicanalysis
canatleastprovideastartingpointastowhetherprogressisoccurringornot.
ItisalsoimportanttoreviewthestatusofdisabilitieswithintheKingdomof
Morocco.TheNationalCensuses,beingconductedinboth2004and2014,willbetwo
primarysourcesofdataregardingthenumberofreportedpersonswithdisabilities
withinthenation,whoisaffected(age,gender,rural/urban),andwhattypeofdisabilities
aremostprevalent.The2004censusservesasthepre‐CRPDmeasureandthe2014
censusservesasthepost‐CRPDmeasure.Additionally,NationalSurveyspublishedbythe
KingdomofMoroccoin2006andagainin2014willservetohelpanalyzeconditionsin
Moroccopre‐andpost‐CRPDratification,alongwithanyadditionalresearchtohelppaint
themostaccuratepicturepossible.Bygatheringandcomparingthisdata,the
effectivenessoftheCRPDandtheUnitedNations’implementationstrategyregardingin
canalsobeanalyzed.
UNProtocol:AttheNationalLevelintheKingdomofMorocco
14
TheUnitedNations’ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilitiesand
OptionalProtocol(CRPD)wasratifiedbytherequired20memberstatesbyMayof2008.
Specifically,MoroccoratifiedtheCRPDinAprilof2009.ThoughtheCRPDcoversmany
topicsrelatingtopersonswithdisabilities,thispaperwillparticularlylookattheCRPD’s
operationaldefinitionofdisability,goalsandobjectives,implementationstrategy,and
monitoringandreportingprocedure.
DefinitionofDisability
Despitebeinganextensivedocumentwith50Articles,theCRPDpresentsavery
short,straightforwarddefinitionofwhatdefinesapersonwithadisability.Accordingto
theCRPD,“personswithdisabilitiesincludedthosewhohavelong‐termphysical,mental,
intellectualorsensoryimpairmentswhichininteractionwithvariousbarriersmay
hindertheirfullandeffectiveparticipationinsocietyonanequalbasiswithothers.”(4)
ThisbriefdefinitionopensthedocumentinArticle1buthasacaveatfoundinthe
Preamblenoting,“Disabilityisanevolvingconcept.”(1)Asidefromthesetwoinstances,
thesubjectofwhothisconventionisdesignedtoreachisnotagaindiscussedexplicitly.
GoalsandObjectives
TheprinciplesoftheconventionareclearlylistedinArticle3:
(a)Respectforinherentdignity,individualautonomyincludingthefreedomtomakeone’sownchoices,andindependenceofpersons;(b)Nondiscrimination;(c)Fullandeffectiveparticipationandinclusioninsociety;(d)Respectfordifferenceandacceptanceofpersonswithdisabilitiesaspartofhumandiversityandhumanity;(e)Equalityofopportunity;(f)Accessibility;
15
(g)Equalitybetweenmenandwomen;(h)Respectfortheevolvingcapacitiesofchildrenwithdisabilitiesandrespectfortherightofchildrenwithdisabilitiestopreservetheiridentities.
The37pagedocumentthenproceedstooutlineveryspecificallyhowtheprinciples
shouldbehonoredinvariouscases,includingbutnotlimitedtohumanitarian
emergencies,education,employment,andcommunityparticipation.Alargepartofthe
Conventionfocusesonaffordingpersonswithdisabilitiesthesamerightsastheirpeersas
setforthinotherUNConventions,liketheConventionontheRightsoftheChildorthe
ConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationagainstWomen.Forthese
areas,theConventionfocusesonminimizingdiscriminationforrightsthathavealready
beenestablishedthroughinternationallaw.
TheareaswheretheConventionintroducestopicsnotexplicitlyaddressedorfully
capturedinotherconventionsareasfollows:Article8:Awareness‐raising,Article9:
Accessibility,Article11:Situationsofriskandhumanitarianemergencies,Article15:
Freedomfromtortureor,inhumaneordegradingtreatmentorpunishment(specifically
onthetopicofscientificexperimentationwithoutconsent),Article18:Libertyof
movementandnationality,Article19:Livingindependentlyandbeingincludedinthe
community,Article20:personalmobility,Article21:Freedomofexpressionandopinion,
andaccesstoinformation(specificallyonthetopicofalternateformsofcommunication
likesignlanguageorBraille),andArticle26:Habilitationandrehabilitation.
Thoughtheconventionaddressesawidearrayofareastheratifyingnationsare
committingtocomplywith,theprinciplesstatedinArticle3sufficientlycapturethegoals
oftheConvention.Theseprinciplesareintegratedthroughoutthedocumentandare
madeclearforeachareaoffocus.
16
Wherethedocumentfallsshort,however,pertainstoissuingclearobjectives.The
goalsarenottranslatedintoameasurableformatconducivetoanactionplan.For
instance,inArticle24:Education,paragraph3states,“StatesPartiesshallenablepersons
withdisabilitiestolearnlifeandsocialdevelopmentskillstofacilitatetheirfullandequal
participationineducationandasmembersofthecommunity.”(17)TheConvention
advocates“fullandequalparticipation”andyetoffersnomeasureforequalparticipation,
processthroughwhichthisshouldbeattempted,noratimelinebywhichthisshouldbe
achieved.
ImplementationandMonitoringandReporting
Articles31through40vacillatebetweenthetopicsofreporting,implementation,
andmonitoringthegoalssetforthintheConvention.Theconventionfirstcommissions
StatesPartiesastheentityresponsibleforcollectingdatafromwithintheircountry.They
suggestthattheinformationgatheredshouldbeusedtodirectanystepstakenwithinthe
countrytomeetthestandardssetforthbytheConvention.
Next,theconventioncondonestheinvolvementofoutsideorganizations.It
specificallymentions“internationalandregionalorganizationsandcivilsociety”asbeing
importanttothesuccessoftheconvention.(24)Ultimately,though,theStatePartiesare
theactorsresponsibleforitsimplementation.Theconventionstatesthattodothis,each
StatePartymustidentifyanentitywithinthegovernmentthatisresponsibleforthe
oversightoftheimplementationoftheConventioninalignmentwiththenational
governmentstructure.Thisgovernmententityisadditionallyresponsibleformonitoring
suchactionsteps.
17
Finally,theConventioncallsforaCommitteeofelectedmemberswhoseroleitis
tooverseereportssubmittedbyStateParties.Thereportsaretobesubmittedata
minimumfrequencyofeveryfouryearscontaininginformationregardingtheadherence
tothestandardssetforthbytheconvention.TheCommittee,uponreceivingthereport,
mayrespondtotheStatePartywithrecommendationsregardingtheimplementationof
theConvention.ByratifyingtheConvention,theStatePartiesareagreeingtoadhereto
anysuggestionsofferedbytheCommittee.TheCommitteeisadditionallyresponsiblefor
reportingitsactivityeverytwoyearstotheGeneralAssemblyandtotheEconomicand
SocialCouncil.
PreCRPDData:20032009
Pioneeringresearchconductedin2003aboutthedisabledpopulationinMorocco
gatheredthatthethreeprimaryconditionscontributingtopreventativedisabilities
withinthecountryarelackofeducationregardingdisability‐causingdiseases(suchas
diabetes),roadaccidents,andlackofqualitymedicalcareforinfantsandchildren.
AuthorsBoutayebandChetouanicontrolforthesethreefactorswithinMoroccoand,
consideringfactorssuchasdeathrate,fertility,andhandicappingrateoverageandtime
forbothdisabledandhealthypopulations,areabletopredicthowadecreaseinroad
accidents,forinstance,wouldaffectthepercentageofthepopulationconsidereddisabled
annuallyfordifferentagegroups.Thedatatheyprovidedisplaysthedynamicsof
disabilityineachagecategoryatdifferenttimes.
TheyconcludethatalargeportionofdisabilitiesfoundinMoroccoare
preventable,recommendingthecountryfocusonincreasingeducation,increasingroad
18
safety,andincreasingqualitymedicalcareforinfantsandchildren.Theirtrajectory
regardinghowquicklythehandicappingratecanbereducedvariesdependingonage
group,buttheirdatashowsaunanimousimprovementamongallageswhenthesethree
factorsareimproved.
AccordingtotheMoroccanCensusin2004,680,537peoplereportedhavinga
disability,amountingto2.3%ofthetotalpopulation.Ofthosereportingadisability,
18.8%werecategorizedasMental,24.9%werecategorizedasSensorial,and56.2%were
categorizedasPhysical.Ofthosereportingadisability,56.3%weremaleand43.7%were
female.
InFebruary2006theKingdomofMoroccoissuedaNationalSurveyonDisability,
whichwasconductedbytheSecretariatofStateinChargeofFamily,Childhood,and
DisabledPersons(SSFCDP).Thissurveydeclaresitselftobebothqualitativeand
quantitativestatingthefollowing:
• AqualitativesurveyconductedonahundredPersonswithDisabilities(PWDs).
• Aquantitativesurveyconductedon9,674householdsgatheringmorethan54,000personswithadetailedanalysisofthelivingconditionsof2,777PWDsidentifiedwithintheirmilieu
• Aqualitativesurveyledonahundredactorsfromministries,Statedepartments,associationsetc.
• Abibliographicalstudyoftheaggregateofstatisticalstudies,andtheavailableanalysesonthedeficiencies’causes.(2006NationalSurvey,4.)
TheNationalSurveypullsfromTheInternationalClassificationofImpairments,
Disabilities,andHandicaps(ICH)asdidtheNationalCensusforit’sapproachtodefining
disability,butalsoincorporatesothersources.
19
Insteadofbeingviewedfromanexclusivelymedicalangle,thedisabilitysituationshallbeconsideredinthelightofallthePWDs’environmentalandpersonalfactorswhichcaneitherpositivelyornegativelyinfluencethesepersons’conditions.ThemainreferencesusedfortheelaborationofthisframeworkrelyonthedisabilityCreationProcess,elaboratedbytheQuebecCommitteeontheInternationalClassificationofImpairment,Disabilities,andDisabilitySituationsandthenewInternationalClassificationofDisabilitySituationandHealthFunctioningpublishedbytheWorldHealthOrganizationin2001.Inlightofthemultidisciplinaryapproachadopted,adisabilitysituationisnotperceivedasthesoleconsequenceofaparticularhealthproblembutasaninteractionbetweenfunctionallimitationscausedbythishealthproblemandotherfactorswhichmaybepersonal(identity,socialstatus,etc.),environmental(livingenvironment,entourage,etc.)andpropertothePWDs.(2006NationalSurvey,7)
Accordingtothissurvey,5.12%ofthetotalhouseholdsamplereportedoneor
severalmemberslivingwith“longlastinghealthproblemswhichpreventedthemfrom
fulfillinganumberofimportantdailylifeactivitiesandbeingintegratedinthesocio‐
economiclevel.”(2006NationalSurvey,13)Thisnumberissurprisinglyhigherthanthe
2.3%reportedontheNationalCensusonlytwoyearsprior.Thoughthecensushadmore
broadaccesstothegeneralpopulation,theNationalSurveywasusinganoperational
definitionofwhatqualifiedanindividualasapersonwithadisabilitythatwould
ultimatelyalignmorecloselywiththeonesetforthinthefuturebytheUnitedNations.
ThenumbersontheNationalSurveycouldbehigherinpartbecauseittakesmore
deficienciesintoconsiderationtobeclassifiedasdisabling.
WhenconsideringthedatacollectedfromtheNationalSurvey,thepercentages
werereportedlyhigherinruralareascomparedtourban(5.62%versus4.81%)aswellas
amongmalescomparedtofemales(5.49%versus4.75%).Thesurveyalsomeasuredthe
distributionofdisabilitiesbyagegroup.(Tables1,2,and3)Disabilitiesincreasedsteadily
20
overtimeandweresignificantlyhigherforthoseover70yearsofage;thesurvey
explicitlysuggests,likeBoutayebandChetouani,thatthisislargelyinpartdueto
preventativeissues.Andalthoughhalfofthepopulationreportsonlyhavingone
deficiency,asignificantpercentageofthosereportingdisabilitieslivewithtwoormore
deficiencies.
Thetypesofdisabilitiesreportedwerebrokendownintoeightlargercategories.
Thecategoriesareasfollows:MobilityDisability,MultifoldDisability,PsychicandMental
Disability,VisualDisability,VisceralandMetabolicDisability,HearingDisability,Speech
andLanguageDisability,andAestheticDisability.Theyarelistedinorderfromhighestto
lowest,rangingfrom26.46%to.37%ofthetotalpersonsreportingadisability.(Table4)
Thesurveythenreportsonthecausesofthosedisabilitiesandcategorizesthedata
basedonlivingenvironment(urban/rural)andgender(Table5).Thefourcategories
listedforcausalityare:1)Problemsofhereditary/congenital/perinatalorigins,2)
Acquireddiseases,3)Accidentalorigin,or4)Healthproblemslinkedtoaging.Menrank
higherthanwomeninthefirstandthirdcategories;consequentlytheinverseistruefor
thesecondandfourthcategories.Onaverage,acquireddiseasesranksthehighestat
38.4%forthemostcommonlyreportedcauseofdisability,followedbyaccidentalorigin
at24.4%.
Whenreviewingdisabilitiescausedbyaccidents,24.4%ofthosesurveyed
reportedanaccidentalorigin,28.6%malesand19.2%females.Whenreviewingthe
breakdownofthetypesofaccidents(Table6)theleadingtypeofaccidentsreportedwere
trafficaccidentsat19.5%,harkeningbacktotherecommendationofBoutayeband
Chetouanithreeyearsearlierlinkingissuesregardingroadsafetytothehighnumberof
preventabledisabilitieswithinMorocco.
21
Thesurveyreviewsmanymorecomponentsregardingdailylifeandhealthof
personswithdisabilities,includingbutnotlimitedtoemployment,divorceandcelibacy,
victimization,andhealthcare.Anothermajorareaoffocusregardsthebasicneedsofthe
populationinquestion.Acloselookatthebasicneedsandtheirchangeovertime,as
reportedinthepost‐CRPDdata,isnecessarytodeterminewhetherornotaction‐steps
takenbythegovernmentaremakingapositivedifference.Responsesrangefromneeds
regardingmedicalcare,toeducation,totransportation,tocounseling.Thesurvey
providesbothagenerallookatreportedneedsaswellasabreakdownofthisinformation
bycategoryofdisabilitytype(Tables7and8).
Thedatacollectedbythe2006NationalSurveynotonlycapturesmuchmore
detailthanthe2004Census,butaremorerobust.Thedataregardingthetypesof
disabilitiesgoesbeyondthreegeneralcategoriesandprobesintolimitations,
demographics,origins,andspecificcausality.Thoughthesamplesetissmaller,itisstill
significant;theresultsprovideaclearerpictureofthedisabledpopulationwithinthe
KingdomofMorocco.
PostCRPDData:2009PresentDay
ThemostrecentcensusintheKingdomofMoroccotookplacein2014.1,353,766
peopleidentifiedasdisabled,amountingto4.1%ofthetotalpopulation.Ofthose
reportingadisability,10.9%wereundertheageof15,38.3%wereaged15‐59,and
50.6%were60andup.Contrarytothepreviousreports,womenreportedahigher
numberofdisabilitiesthanmen.Ofthosereportingadisability,52.5%werewomenand
47.5%weremen.Thiscensusalsoreportedahighernumberofpeoplewithdisabilitiesin
22
urbanenvironmentsthanrural,56%to44%respectively.
Regardingeducation,avastmajorityofthosereportingdisabilitiesalsoreport
neverhavingreceivedanyformalschooling,73%.Fifteenpercentoftheaffected
populationreporthavingattendingprimaryschool,8.5%,secondary,and1.5%higher
level.Consistentwiththepre‐CRPDdata,thecorrelationbetweennoformaleducation
andwomenwithdisabilitieswasreportedlyveryhigh.Over80%ofwomenreporting
disabilitiesalsoreportedhavingnoformaleducation,asopposedto58.2%ofmen.
AsecondNationalSurveywasconductedin2014.Thissurveywaswiderreachingthanits
predecessor,capturingresponsesfrom2,264,672personsreportingadisability,6.8%of
thegeneralpopulation.Unlikethesurveyfrom2006themicrodataforthissurveyisnot
yetpublicallyavailable.
AnalyzingData
First,acomparisonwillbedrawnregardingtheprevalenceandimpactof
disabilitiesamongthepeopleofMoroccobetweenthepreandpost‐CRPDdata.The
comparisonwillbeusedtodeterminewhetherconditionsregardingpersonswith
disabilitieswithintheKingdomofMoroccohavebeenimproving,stagnant,ordeclining
sincetheratificationontheCRPDin2009.Understandingthestatusofpersonswith
disabilitieswithinthecountrywillprovideacontextfromwhichdeterminingthe
implementationstrategyaccordingtoMatland’smatrixcanbeviewed.Byanalyzingpre‐
andpost‐CRPDdata,thelaterdiscussionofimplementationstrategycanbejudgedon
effectiveness.
Second,theavailabledataaswellasinternational,national,andregionalinitiatives
23
willbeanalyzedintermsofAmbiguityandConflict.Matland’smatrixwillthenbeusedto
initiallyevaluatewhattypeoforganizationstrategytheUnitedNationshasemployed
whendisseminatingtheCRPD,specificallyasevidencedinthecaseoftheKingdomof
Morocco,aswellashoweffectivethisstrategyseemstobe.
ComparingpreandpostCRPDdata
Whenlookinganalyticallyatthedata,therearediscrepanciesbetweenthestudies
regardingtheoperationaldefinitionofwhatconstitutesadisability,renderingadirect
comparisonproblematic.EvenaftertheCRPDwasratifiedin2009andastandardized
definitionadoptedbytheKingdomofMorocco,themostrecentcensusandNational
Survey,bothconductedin2014,produceddifferentdataregardingwhatpercentageof
thepopulationhaveadisability.The2014censusreported4.1%ofthepopulationqualify
asdisabled,whilethenationalsurveyreported6.8%,resultinginadifferenceof2.7%.
Despitetheinconsistencyoftheavailabledata,thetrendofallaveragesfromall
thesourcespointtoanincreasewithinthegeneralpopulationofpeoplewhoreportliving
withadisability.Onaverage,theKingdomofMoroccohasseena1.74%increasebetween
thepre‐CRPDandpost‐CRPDdata.
Percentageoftotalpopulationreportingdisability
Pre‐CRPD Post‐CRPD Difference
Census 2.3% 4.1% +1.8%
NationalSurvey 5.12% 6.8% +1.68%
Average 3.71% 5.45% +1.74%
24
Theincreaseinpeoplereportingdisabilitiescouldbearesultofseveralthings:1)
moretypesofailmentsarebeingconsideredasdisabling,2)thepotentialstigmaattached
toclaimingadisabilityislessofadeterrent,and/or3)morepeoplehavecontracted
disablinginjuriesorconditions.Whilethereareotherpossiblereasonsthepercentageof
thepopulationreportingdisabilitiescouldhaveincreased,noneofthempointtoan
effectiveimplementationoftheCRPD.TheCRPDpromotespeople’srightto“services
designedtominimizeandpreventfurtherdisabilities,”whichareeithernotbeingoffered
ornotofferedeffectively.(CRPD,18)Thisincreaseinreportedpersonswithdisabilities
withintheKingdomofMoroccoraisesmorequestionsthananswerswhenconsidering
theCRPDanditsimplementation.TakingacloserlookatthedataandtheCRPDinterms
ofambiguityandconflictcanperhapsprovidesomeinsightintothereasonsforthis
increase.
ThroughtheLensofMatland’sMatrix
TheprocessthroughwhichaninternationallawmustpassbeginswiththeUnited
Nations.Fromthereonemustlookatregionalorganizations,nationalgovernment,state
orprovinces,andfinally,city,town,orvillage.Whenlookingatthisprocessthrough
Matland’sMatrixthetwofactors,ambiguityandconflict,mustbecapturedasbestas
possible.
AccordingtoMatland,thedefinitionofambiguityassesseswhethergoalsand
meansofimplementationareunclearleadingtouncertaintyofresponsibility.Thetwo
independentvariables,then,willbe(1)expressedgoalsand(2)meansofimplementation.
Thedependentvariableisthecertaintyoruncertaintyofresponsibility,whichdetermines
25
theintensityofambiguity.OnemajorissueisthatMatlanddoesnotdelineatewhat
denoteshighorlowambiguity.Additionally,asevidencedinthepreviousreviewof
currentliteratureasitrelatestotheimplementationofinternationallawbytheUnited
Nations,assessingwhenanissueisrootedinconflictorrootedinambiguityisnotalways
aneasydistinctiontomake.Bothfactorsuseclarityofgoalsandimplementationaskey
variables.
Forthesakeofaclearerunderstandingofthesetwodeterminingfactors,this
paperwillfurtherdistilltheseparationofthetwoconceptsusedasthebackboneofthe
analysis.Ambiguitywillbedeterminedby1)thecongruencyofthedefinitionsof
disabilityand2)thealignmentofgoalsbetweentheinvolvedactors.Conflictinturnwill
bedeterminedbyaunifiedandclearunderstandingofwhoisresponsiblefor1)the
meansofimplementationand2)monitoringandreporting.
EvaluatingAmbiguity
Aspreviouslynotedwhengatheringandcomparingthedatafromthecensuses
andNationalSurveyswithintheKingdomofMorocco,theoperationaldefinitionsused
whencollectingdatawerenotstandardized.Usingdifferentdefinitionstodefineand
measurewhoqualifiesasapersonwithadisabilitywillaffect1)thenumberofcitizens
considereddisabled,2)thetypesofdisabilitiesthoughtprevalent,3)theareasinwhich
theKingdomofMoroccomustfocusitspoliciesandactivitiestobetteralignwiththe
CRPD,and4)whatchangesqualifyasprogress.Toanalyzethelevelofcoherency,the
definitionsusedbythefourdatasetswillbereviewedintermsofthedefinitionputforth
bytheCRPD.
26
Aspreviouslystated,thedefinitionprovidedbytheCRPDisrather
straightforward.TheintentionoftheConventiondoesnotseemtobeonefocusedon
standardizingthedefinitionofwhatqualifiesanindividualasapersonwithadisability,
butratherfocusesonstatingandprotectingtherightsofsuchpersons.Thedocument
doeshoweverprovidethereaderswithabasicdefinitionforthepurposesofbetter
understandingthedocument.Itstates,“personswithdisabilitiesincludedthosewhohave
long‐termphysical,mental,intellectualorsensoryimpairmentsthatininteractionwith
variousbarriersmayhindertheirfullandeffectiveparticipationinsocietyonanequal
basiswithothers(CRPD,4).”
Boththe2004NationalCensusandthe2006NationalSurveystatethattheir
definitionofdisabilitywasbasedonthedefinitioninitiallypublishedin1980bythe
WorldHealthOrganization’sInternationalClassificationofImpairments,Disabilities,and
Handicaps(ICD)andupdatedin2001.This207pagesdocumentisdevotedinitsentirety
todefiningimpairments,disabilities,andhandicaps.Concerningdisabilityspecifically,the
documentdefinesandcharacterizesitassuch:
Inthecontextofhealthexperience,adisabilityisanyrestrictionorlack(resultingfromanimpairment)ofabilitytoperformanactivityinthemannerorwithintherangeconsiderednormalforahumanbeing.Disabilityischaracterizedby,Excessofdeficienciesofcustomarilyexpectedactivityperformanceandbehavior,andthesemaybetemporaryorpermanent,reversibleorirreversible,andprogressiveorregressive.Disabilitiesmayariseasadirectconsequenceofimpairmentorasaresponsebytheindividual,particularlypsychologically,toaphysical,sensoryorotherimpairment,andassuchitreflectsdisturbancesattheleveloftheperson.Disabilityisconcernedwithabilities,intheformofcompositeactivitiesandbehaviors,thataregenerallyacceptedasessentialcomponentsofeverydaylife.Examplesincludedisturbancesinbehavinginanappropriatemanner,inpersonalcare(suchasexcretorycontrolandtheabilitytowashandfeedoneself),intheperformance
27
ofotheractivitiesofdailyliving,andinlocomotoractivities(suchastheabilitytowalk.)(ICD,142)
Thesubsequentpagesproceedtocategorizeimpairedsituationsas1)behavior,2)
communication,3)personalcare,4)locomotor,5)bodydisposition,6)dexterityor7)
situationaldisabilities.Devoting21pagestodefiningandcharacterizingdisabilityalone,
thedocumenttakespainstobethoroughandclear.Additionally,thepublication
acknowledgesthatdisabilitiesfallonaspectrumofseverityanddescribesindetailhow
anindividualreportingadisabilityshouldbeassessed.Itprovidesascalethatmeasures
severityofdisabilitybaseduponpotentialrecovery,improvement,orassistance,stability,
potentialamelioration,ordeterioration.
The2014NationalSurveyandNationalCensus,however,basedtheirdefinitions
ontheInternationalClassificationofFunctioning,Disability,andHealth(ICF)releasedby
theWorldHealthOrganizationin2001.This303pagedocumentnotonlyoffersadetailed
analysisofeachcontributingfactor(likebodyfunction)tounderstandingdisabilityand
functioning,italsoprovidesasynthesizationofcurrentapproachestowardsdisabilityas
wellascaseexamples.Thedefinitionofdisabilityisalittlemoredifficulttopinpointasso
manypagesaredevotedtothoroughlydiscussinghowitcanbedefinedand
characterized.Thoughthedocumentdoesnotofferaneatlittlefewsentencesummaryof
theoperationaldefinitionforthereader,thefollowingpassagebestdepictshowthe
conceptisregardedthroughoutthedocument.
Avarietyofconceptualmodelshavebeenproposedtounderstandandexplaindisabilityandfunctioning.Thesemaybeexpressedindialecticof“medicalmodel”versus“socialmodel”.Themedicalmodelviewsdisabilityasaproblemoftheperson,directlycausedbydisease,traumaorotherhealthcondition,whichrequiresmedicalcareprovidedintheformofindividualtreatmentbyprofessionals.Managementofthedisabilityisaimedatcureortheindividual’s
28
adjustmentandbehaviorchange.Medicalcareisviewedasthemainissue,andatthepoliticalleveltheprincipalresponseisthatofmodifyingorreforminghealthcarepolicy.Thesocialmodelofdisability,ontheotherhand,seestheissuemainlyasasociallycreatedproblem,andbasicallyasamatterofthefullintegrationofindividualsintosociety.Disabilityisnotanattributeofanindividual,butratheracomplexcollectionofconditions,manyofwhicharecreatedbythesocialenvironment.Hencethemanagementoftheproblemrequiressocialaction,anditisthecollectiveresponsibilityofsocietyatlargetomaketheenvironmentalmodificationsnecessaryforthefullparticipationofpeoplewithdisabilitiesinallareasofsociallife.Theissueisthereforeanattitudinalorideologicalonerequiringsocialchange,whichatthepoliticallevelbecomesaquestionofhumanrights.Forthismodeldisabilityisapoliticalissue.ICFisbasedonanintegrationofthesetwoopposingmodels.Inordertocapturetheintegrationofthevariousperspectivesoffunctioning,a“biopsychosocial”approachisused.Thus,ICFattemptstoachieveasynthesis,inordertoprovideacoherentviewofdifferentperspectivesofhealthfromabiological,individualandsocialperspective.(ICF,20)Whencomparingthesedefinitionsforthesakeofdeterminingambiguity,thereisa
surprisinglackofwordsthatthetwoselectedpassagesshare.Thefirstonereleasedby
theICDheavilyfocusesonperformanceofexpectedactivities.Ituseswordssuchasperson
andindividualinreferencetothesubjectofsuchdiscussion,butalsowhenconsidering
theresponsiblepartyforanypsychologicaldisturbancesthatmayhinderintegration.
Contrastingly,theICF,whilealsousingindividualtodescribethepartywiththelimitation,
itmakesuseofwordslikesocial,collection,andenvironmentwhenconsidering
integration.Thispassagedoesnotusethewordactivitywhendiscussingthefunctioning
levelofthoseinquestion,butratherparticipation.
Fromtheseselectedpassagesalone,itisclearthattheperspectivesguidingthe
operationaldefinitionsusedpre‐andpost‐CRPDarenotaligned.TheICDdefinition,
whichguidedboththe2004NationalCensusandthe2006NationalSurvey,isprimarily
focusedonability,behavior,andperformanceofindividuals.Thisperspectiveisonly
29
furtherevidencedbythevocabularyandlanguageusedthroughouttheentiretyofthe
document.TheICDgoesontocategorizeanindividualasdisabledbasedupontheirlevel
offunctioningintaskssuchaslifting,kneeling,communication,washing,gripping,etc.,all
measurableinaverypersonalway.
WhenconsideringthevocabularyusedtoshapetheperspectiveoftheICF
however,thedocumentguidingthe2014NationalCensusandNationalSurvey,thescope
seemstobroadenbeyondmeasuringtheindividualleveltoincludesocialintegration
moreheavilythanitspredecessor.Stating,“everycategorycanbeinterpretedas
individualfunctioning(activity)aswellassocietalfunctioning(participation),(ICF,236).”
Thewordparticipationappears181timesthroughoutthe303pages.Comparedtothe8
occurrencesofthatsamewordfoundintheICD,theconceptseemssignificantlymore
formativetounderstandingdisabilityfortheICF.Thoughbothdocumentsseekto
measureindividuals’abilitylevel,theICFstatesthatbyincorporatingtheconceptof
participationtheyarebetterabletocapturetheenvironmentallyadjustedabilityofthe
individual.
Consequently,thedefinitionguidingthemostrecentdataregardingindividuals
withdisabilitieswithintheKingdomofMoroccoseemstocastawidernetthantheone
usedpreviously.Thismayexplaininpartthe1.74%increaseinpersonscategorizedas
disabledwithinthecountrybetweenthetwotimeframes.Thoughthevaryingdefinitions
mighthavecontributedtotheincrease,theremostlikelyaremanyotherinfluencesas
well.Thoughthepurposeofthispaperisnottoanalyzeeverypossiblefactor,the
discrepancyinoperationaldefinitionscertainlyaddsalevelofambiguityandrestricts
accuratecomparisonsbetweenthetwodatasets.
30
Aspreviouslymentioned,theConvention’spurposewasnottodefinedisabilitybut
toproclaimtherightsofthedisabled.Thedocumentdoesmakeanefforttoreference
otherUNconventionsandbillsregardingbasichumansrights,soitiscuriousthenthatit
doesnotexplicitlyreferthereadertoadocumentliketheICDortheICFfora
comprehensiveoperationaldefinitionofdisability.ThedefinitionoftheCRPD,whilenot
directlycitingtheICF,harkensbacktothedocumentbypointedlyincludingparticipation
insocietywithinitsbriefdefinition.Thedefinitionofferedhoweverisnotextensive
enoughtodeterminewhichofthetwodefinitionsalignsmostcloselytothatputforthby
theConvention.
ThescopeoftheConventionisverywide‐reachingyetextremelyspecific.Itis
abundantlyclearsothatthereishardlyroomformisinterpretation.TheStateParties
committingtotheCRPDarepledgingtoincludeallmemberswithdisabilitiesintosociety,
completeaccessibility,equalopportunitiestopursueeducationandwork,andrespectfor
theirwillandautonomy.Whatislesscleariswhenthesegoalsareexpectedtoberealized
andwhatarethemilestonessignifyingprogress.
WhenfocusingupontheKingdomofMoroccospecifically,manyoftheentities
workingtowardstheimprovementofconditionsforthosewithdisabilitieswithinthe
countrycitetheCRPDasthesourcethatguidestheiractivity.Thegoalsofthecountryare
pronouncedtobethegoalsoftheConvention,buttoavoidambiguity,thegovernment
agenciesneedtoprovideclearerobjectives.
Whenconsideringbothcomponentsofambiguity‐operationaldefinitionsand
goals‐thisparticularcasefailstopresentitselfasoneofstrongsolidarity.Thedefinitions
citedbytheKingdomofMoroccoasguidingtheirresearchpre‐andpost‐CRPDusewildly
differentlanguage,nottomentionthelackoftheCRPDitselftociteacomprehensive
31
sourceforitsoperationaldefinition.Andwhilethegoalsareclearandmostlyuniform,the
mannerinwhichthesegoalsaretobemeasuredarenon‐existent.DespiteMatland’slack
ofcriteria,theCRPDingeneral,butspecificallyasitpertainstotheKingdomofMorocco,
canbeclassifiedasHighAmbiguity.
EvaluatingConflict
WhilethegoalsoftheCRPDmaybeabundantlyclear,theconventionitselfteeters
intoambiguity,however,whenexaminingimplementation.Understandably,the
conventionsayslittleofhowitsresolutionsoughttobemadeareality.Seeingashowthis
conventionisdesignedtobeapplicabletoover160nations,thehowofthematterisleft
tothecountriesthemselves;it’sthewhattheconventionisconcernedwith.
ThebreadthoftheCRPDissuchthatvariousgovernmentaldepartmentswillmost
likelybecalledupontoimplementchangestoadheretothestandardssetforthbyit.
Departmentsfocusingoneducation,health,buildingandmanymorewillneedto
incorporatetheprinciplesoftheconventionmoredirectlyintotheirexistingpolicies.
Countriesinevitablyvarywhenitcomestowhatthescopeofeachdepartmentis
responsibleforandcapableofimplementingaswellaswhatentityisresponsiblefor
monitoringsuchpolicychanges.
InthecaseofMorocco,responsibilityforoverseeingimplementationandthe
responsibilityformonitoringandreportingdonotbelongtothesamegovernment
entities.WhiletheNationalHumanRightsCounciloftheKingdomofMoroccois
“responsibleformonitoring,inspecting,andfollowinguponthehumanrightssituationat
thenationalandregionallevels,”anothergovernmententityhasbeenreferencedasthe
responsiblepartyforimplementation(MoroccoInitialReport,62).Accordingtotheinitial
32
reportsubmittedtotheCommitteeoftheCRPD,theMinistryofSolidarity,Women,Family
andSocialDevelopmentisthe“sectorresponsibleforthecoordinationofgovernmental
actionondisability‐relatedissues”and“assignedthetaskofcoordinatinggovernmental
actioninallaspectsoftheimplementationoftheConvention.”(MoroccoInitialReport11,
62)
DespitetheMinistryofSolidarity,Women,FamilyandSocialDevelopmentbeing
listedastheresponsiblepartyforimplementation,therearenopublicationsorreports
madepublicbythispartyregardingtheireffortstowardsimplementingtheCRPD.The
onlyplacewherethisroleismadepublicisonthereporttotheCommitteefortheCRPD,
raisingsuspicionconcerningtransparencyandactivity.
Aspreviouslyreviewed,theCRPDcreatedacommitteeresponsibleforreceiving
reportsattheInternationallevel.Theinitialreportistobesubmittedwithinthefirsttwo
yearsofratificationandeveryfouryearssubsequentlyoratthecommittee’srequest.
Whoisresponsibleforcreatingsuchreportwithinthecountryisatthediscretionofthe
respectiveStateParties.
HavingratifiedtheCRPDin2009,theKingdomofMorocco’sinitialreportwasdue
in2011.However,Morocco’sonlyreportsofarwassubmittedin2014.Thisdelaywas
attributedtotheadoptionofanationalconstitutionin2011andMorocco’sdesireensure
thattheconstitutionitselfaddressedtherightsputforthintheCRPD(MoroccoInitial
Report,4‐5).Thecommitteehasnotyetpublishedtheirresponsetothisreport.
ThedefinitionanddataMoroccousesinthisreporttotheCommitteearefromthe
2004NationalCensus,bothofwhichthispaperhasalreadyreviewedatlength.
Structurally,thereportaddressesthearticlesfromtheCRPD,eitherindividuallyorin
smallgroupings,andprovidesanaccountofwhatvariousministrieshavedoneto
33
promotethatarticlewithinthecountry.ManyoftheactionstakenwithintheKingdomof
MoroccopertainingtotheCRPDinvolvelegislation.Forexample,Moroccohasrecently
criminalizeddiscrimination,ensuringthatthedefinitionofsuchactionsiscomprehensive
enoughtoincludecrimesagainstpersonswithdisabilities(MoroccoInitialReport,10).
MoroccohasalsoissuedanumberofroyaldecreestoaddresstheTrafficCode,
orphans,establishanationalOmbudsman,regulatevarioushealthconcerns(physicaland
psychological),andaidvictimsofindustrialaccidentswhichtheypositalignswiththe
CRPD(MoroccoInitialReport,16‐17,19,24,37,39,52).However,thelegislationlistedon
thereportallappearstobeaddressingthegeneralissueandnotpersonswithdisabilities
directly.TheKingdomofMoroccoliststheseinitiativesbecausetheycanincludepersons
withdisabilities,yetnoneareexplicitlydesignedtofurthertherightsoftheconcerned
persons.
Asidefromlistinglegislativeaction,thereportlistsnationalinitiativesbutinsome
sectionsdoesnotprovidesufficientsupportingdata.Forinstance,regardingarticles1‐4
thereportnotesarenovationofpublicbuildingstorenderthemmoreaccessible.
Howeveritfailstoprovideanadequatepicture;itdoesnotlisthowmanybuildingsor
whatkindsofrenovations.(MoroccoInitialReport,10)OrunderArticle8:Awareness‐
raising,thereportstates“asignificantnumberofradioprogramsareproducedand
broadcast…TomakethepublicmoreawareoftheneedtorespecttheTrafficCodeand
avoidroadaccidentswhichareamongtheprincipalcausesofdisability.”(MoroccoInitial
Report,12)Itliststhetypeofactionbeingpursued,butdoesnotprovidetheinformation
neededtoaccessthescopeofsuchactionsortheeffectiveness.
Contrastingly,however,therearesectionsofthereportthatgivespecific
informationregardingimplementation.Detailsareprovidedontheamountofmoneythe
34
MinistryofSolidarity,Women,Family,andSocialDevelopmenthasinvestedtowards
promotingthewellbeingofthetargetgroup.(Table11)Additionally,thereportprovides
alistingofcentersthatworktowardsimprovingtheconditionsofpersonswith
disabilities.(Table12)Butevenwiththespecificsregardingthenumberofactivecenters,
thereportdoesnotcapturehowmanypersonswithdisabilitiesthecentersarereaching
andwhatsortofprogressisbeingmade.Asidefromthesefewinstancesthereportdoes
notincludemuchmicro‐datatojustifytheimplementationeffortslisted.
SinceMorocco’sinitialreportwassubmittedtothecommittee,reportshave
circulatedregardinganationallawspecificallydesignedtoprotecttherightsofpersons
withdisabilities.Thenewdraftlawisconsideredbysometobeaninferiorreincarnation
ofadraftlawthatwasbegunin2008.Thisoriginallawissaidtohaveincludedinputfrom
associationsofpersonswithdisabilities.YetwhenanewministertotheMinistryof
Solidarity,Women,Family,andSocialDevelopmentwasappointedin2008,thelawwas
reportedlythrownout.ThepresidentforMorocco’sCollectivefortheRightsofPersons
withDisabilitiesclaimsthatthecurrentdraftlawhasnotincludedtheinputorfeedback
fromassociationsforpersonswithspecialneeds.Thisexclusionwouldbeablatant
violationofMorocco’scommitmenttotheCRPD,whichpromotesinclusionofpersons
withdisabilitiesatalllevelsofimplementation.In2015acritiqueofthedraftlawwas
releasedbytheHumanRightsWatch,claimingthedraftdidlittletoprotecttherightsof
personswithdisabilities,especiallyinregardtoeducationforchildrenwithdisabilities.
TheHumanRightsWatchwentsofarastoproclaimthattheshortcomingsofthisdraft
lawweresosevereitrendersthedraftlaw“inconflict”withtheCRPD.(TheGuardian,
2015)
35
InOctober2015theHumanRightsWatchsubmittedanopenletterofconcernto
Morocco’sParliament.ThisletterverydirectlyexaminesMorocco’sdraftlawin
comparisontotheCRPD.Thelettersuggeststhatthedraftlawfallsshortinthefollowing
areas:1)explicitlyprotectingtherightsofpersonswithdisabilitiesbyinsistingMoroccan
communitiesadjusttoincludetheminsociety,2)overturningexistinglawswhichgive
presidentoflegalrightstoguardiansasopposedtotheindividualsthemselves,3)
expandingtheunderstandingofdiscriminationtoincludearefusaltoaccommodate
disabledstudentsintheclassroomassuch,4)shiftingtheburdenofprovidingeducation
fordisabledstudentsfromfamiliesandoutsideentitiestothestate,and5)directly
incorporatingdisabledpersonsintoallstagesofdraftlawdevelopment.(HumanRights
Watch,2015)
SincetheHumanRightsWatchsubmittedthiscritique,thedraftbillseemstohave
beenhaltedattheParliamentarylevel.DespiteinformalreportsthattheNationalHuman
RightsCouncilofMoroccowork‐shoppedthedraftlawwithgroupsofpersonswith
specialneedsacrossthecountryandbroughttheircritiquesbacktoParliament,nothing
confirmingthisactionofficiallyhasbeenpublished.Additionally,nostatusreportshave
beenreleasedtothepublicregardingthedraftbill’scurrentsituation.
Inviewoftheconflictindicators,implementationandmonitoringandreporting,
unlikeotherUnitedNationsresolutionsthispaperhasreviewed,thereseemstobean
agreementconcerningwhichpartyisresponsibleforwhichtask.AttheUNlevel,
implementationresponsibilityisfullyshiftedtotheStatePartiesandtheyhavecreateda
committeethatoverseesmonitoringandreporting.AtthenationallevelinMoroccothese
responsibilitiestechnicallyliewiththeMinistryofSolidarity,Women,Family,andSocial
DevelopmentandtheNationalHumanRightsCounciloftheKingdomofMorocco
36
respectively.Thoughhowactivetheseentitiesaremightbedebatable,thattheyclaim
responsibilityforthesedutiesisnot.
However,bothassociationsforpersonswithdisabilitiesandactorsonthe
internationalstagehavedecriedtheonemajoractionsteptakenbythecountryto
implementtheCRPD.TheonlydirectreformthathasbeenattemptedbytheKingdomof
MoroccohasbeencontroversialandconsideredinconflicttheCRPD.Itseemsthatdespite
theclarityofgoalsandimplementationresponsibility,thereisstillalevelofconflict
associatedwiththisparticularinternationallaw.Whetherthistypeofconflictis
significantenoughtoclassifyanorganizationasoneofhighconflictisnotmadeclearby
Matland.
Thefactthatallpartiesconcernedcriticizethisdraftlawraisessuspicion
regardingthegoals;ifthegoalsoftheKingdomofMoroccoarealignedwiththeCRPD,
howcanthisdraftlawbesoproblematic?Whenconsideringthegoalsintermsof
ambiguity,thispaperaddressedthelackofclearobjectivesonthepartoftheCRPD.In
ordertomeasureanddefineprogress,quantifiableobjectivesandanexpectedtimeframe
isnecessaryandwouldmitigatethecurrentconflictsurroundingthedraftlaw.
Itseemsthehighlevelofambiguityofhowthegoalswouldlookwhenrealizedhas
contributedtothecontroversial,attemptedimplementationoftheCRPDwithinthe
KingdomofMorocco.Thoughresponsibilityisclear,whatproperimplementationshould
looklikeisnot.InviewoftheconflictsurroundingMorocco’sonlysignificantactionstep
towardsrealizingtheCRPD,thispaperclassifiestheCRPDintheKingdomofMoroccois
oneofHighConflict.
ApplyingtheMatrix
37
HavingconsideredtheConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilitiesand
OptionalProtocolanditsstatusintheKingdomofMorocco,thecasecanbelookedat
throughthelensofMatland’smatrixtohelpprovideinsightintothemodernglobal
practiceofInternationallawdissemination.Afterreviewing1)theoperationaldefinitions
usedbytheCRPDandtheKingdomofMoroccoregardingclassifyingpersonswith
disabilitiesand2)thegoalsoftheCRPDandtheKingdomofMoroccoastheypertainto
improvingtheconditionsforsaidpersons,therelationshipbetweentheCRPDandthe
KingdomofMoroccoisoneofhighambiguity.Furthermore,uponcloselyevaluating1)
theimplementationstrategiesemployedbytheKingdomofMoroccotorealizeits
commitmenttotheCRPDand2)thesystemsinplaceformonitoringandreportingthe
nation’sprogress,theCRPD’sstatuswithintheKingdomofMoroccoisoneofhighconflict.
Therefore,accordingtothematrixsuggestedbyMatlandforcategorizingan
organization’simplementationapproach,inthisparticularcasetheUnitedNationswould
beclassifiedasanorganizationofsymbolicimplementation.Thecombinationofhigh
ambiguityandhighconflictisonethatneitherfitsintotop‐downorbottom‐up
framework.Withthisclassification,theeffectivenessofaresolutionliketheCRPDis
contingentuponthestrengthoflocalcoalitionsandavailableresources.This
implementationstrategycansometimesmirrorpoliticalimplementationinthatpolitical
actorsmighttrytousepowerorcoerciontoswayaconflict.Despitethissimilarity,
Matlandsuggeststhatasthepolicymovesdown,theirpoweroverimplementation
decreases.(Matland,1995)
Symbolicimplementationisuniqueandyetsharescharacteristicswithother
implementationstrategies.Forapolicyinthecategory,Matlandexploresitsstructureand
policydisseminationprocess,
38
Whendealingwithcasesofsymbolicimplementation,identifyingthecompetingfactionsatthelocallevel,alongwiththemicrolevelcontextualfactorsthataffectthestrengthsofthecompetingfactions,iscentraltoaccurateexplanationsofpolicyoutcomes.Neitherthetopdownnorbottomupmodelsappearentirelyappropriateindescribingtheimplementationprocesswhenthereissubstantialconflictandanambiguouspolicy.Themacroimplementerswhoaresoprominentinthetopdownmodelsseetheirpowersdiminish.Policyambiguitymakesitdifficultforthemacroimplementerstomonitoractivities,anditismuchmoredifficulttostructureactionsatthelocallevel.Nevertheless,centrallylocatedactorsdoconstituteandimportantinfluencethroughprovisionofresourcesandincentivesandthroughfocusingattentiononanissuearea.Becauseofthehigherlevelofconflict,theprocessislikelytobehighlypolitical,butiswillbedominatedbylocalactors.Thebottomuppersarecorrectinthatthelocalactorsareparamount,buttheirmodelsdonotemphasizethestronglypoliticalnatureoftheinteractions.(Matland,170)
Hedoesnotseehighambiguityasanegative,butratherviewsitasacharacteristic
thatallowsforcreativityandinnovation.Whenimplementationvaries,hesuggestsit
organicallyencouragesatypeofexperimentationthatallowsforthebeststrategiesto
comeforth.AccordingtoMatland,inorderforthisapproachtobeeffectivethoseatthe
topshouldavoidtryingtofitthepolicyinto“anartificiallyconstrainedform.”Hefears
thiswouldresultin“superficialcompliance”aswellaslimittheresourceoflocal
implementers’knowledge.(Matland,1995)
However,anaverageincreaseofpersonswithdisabilitiesof1.74%betweenthe
pre‐andpost‐CRPDdatacallstheeffectivenessofthisapproachintoquestion.Withthis
strategy,effectivenessiscontingentuponthoseatthegrassrootslevel.Thereisanimplied
prerequisiteofresourcesandcommitmentoflocalactorsforthistobesuccessful.
WhileitwouldbeunfairtostatethatnothingwasbeingdonewithintheKingdomof
Morocco,itdoesappearthatlittleisbeingdonebythegovernment’sinitiative.However,
39
internationalorganizationslikeUNICEF,theUnitedStatesPeaceCorps,theSpecial
Olympics,andDisabilityCouncilInternationaltonameafewarecurrentlyactivewithin
thecountry.Additionally,countlesslocalandregionalassociationsclaimtobeactive
withintownsandvillages.
Limitations
Onekeylimitationisaccesstoinformation.Communitieswillhavetohavekept
recordsofpreviousprogressaswellasbeengagedinsomeformofimplementationto
acutelymeasureprogressandalignment.Thereisalsotheconcernthatlocal
governmentsmaynotbetransparent.Thisconcerncanarisefromthenatureofthe
regimeandpoliticalclimatesinMorocco.Alackoftransparencycouldalsocomefroma
communityhopingtoappearmorealignedwiththeUNorthenationalgoalsthanis
actuallythecase.
Additionally,sincethedatagatheredfromacensusorsurveyarebasedonthe
individualsself‐identifying,theremaybeanissueofapersonnotfullydisclosingtheir
condition,theextentoftheirdisability,ortheirdisability’sorigin.WhenlookingatTable6
fromthe2006NationalSurvey,forinstance,intra‐familialviolenceislistedasapossible
cause.Though2%ofmenand3%ofwomencitedthisreasontobethecauseoftheir
disability,itispossiblethatinahouseholdwherethefamilymembersareallpresent
duringthesurveyorquestioning,individualsmaynotbetransparentduetothe
perpetrator'spresence,causingthenumberstobeskewed.
Furthermore,consideringthestrengthofsocialandreligiousnormsinthe
KingdomofMorocco,anydisabilitiescausedfromactionsthatmightbereligiously
40
prohibitedorsociallyfrowneduponmightgounreportedorreportedinaninappropriate
category.Poisonsconsumedaccidentallyfrompurchasingalcoholontheblackmarketor
diseasescontractedthroughreligiouslyprohibitedsexualactsaresomeexamplesof
causesthatmightgounreportedormisreported.
Similarly,thisstudywillalsofacetheissueofcontrollingforoutsideeffectsthat
maybehelpingprogresstowardstheCRPD(likeNGOs).Methodswillhavetobeexplored
inanefforttoisolatethedatacollectedfromlocalgovernmentsfromothereffortsafootin
thecommunitiesorregions.Nationalorinternationaleffortsmightalsointerminglewith
localefforts,makingtheactionstepsdifficulttoattributetooneparticularactor.
Additionally,locatinginformationdetailingpotentialconflictswithinthe
governmentareunlikelytobepublicallyavailable.WhiletheCRPDisgenerally
consideredhighlycontestedregardingresponsibilityforimplementationwithinMorocco,
allgovernmentpublicationsconsistentlypointtotheMinistryofSolidarity,Family,
Women,andSocialDevelopment.Theperceptionofcivilsocietyisnotquantifiedor
published.Soallresearchregardingtheresponsibilityofimplementationseemstobeone
ofsolidarity,despiteinformalreportsclaimingtheoppositeistrue.
Lastly,Matlandhadnotprovidedameasurebywhichtojudgeanorganization
highorlowintermsofconflictandambiguity.Hispaperdoesprovidecharacteristicsof
suchclassification,whichalignedwiththesituationinMorocco.However,retroactive
confirmationofclassifyinganorganizationisnotideal.
41
Contributions
Thoughmuchresearchhasbeendoneregardingbothpublicadministrativetheory
andinternationallawimplementation,Ihavefoundnonethatlooksatthosetwo
literaturesalongsideoneanother.Thisstudyhopestoallowgovernmentstheabilityto
drawsomeconnectionsbetweenimplementationtheoryandthepracticesemployedona
globalscale.Byaligningthesetwoareas,internationallawcanbeapproachedwith
decadesofimplementationtheoryinview.
Muchoftheliteratureexploredherehighlightsthebreakdownthatoccurs
betweentheinternationallevelandthelocallevel.Utilizingexistingpracticesmightallow
thisprocesstobecarriedoutmoreeffectively.Thisstudycanalsohelpidentifythepoint
withinimplementationofhighestbreakdown.Aninternationalinitiativegoesthrough
manylayersofgovernmentbeforereachingthosewhomthelawisintendedtoaffect.By
lookingateachstepinthismovementindividually,theareaofmostneedcanbetargeted.
FutureResearch
ThoughitisnotyetapparentwheretheCRPDonaninternationallevelwillfallon
Matland’sspectrum,fromthecurrentliterature,itisevidentthattheprocessisnot
currentlyapurelyecologicalone.Trouwborstexploressomerarecasesinwhich
ecologicalapproacheshavebeenemployed.Thoughhefindsnofirmholdofthisapproach
onabroadscale,heisabletoidentifyseveralcharacteristicthatmaketheecological
approachsuccessful.Hefindsthattheecologicalapproachismarkedby“(1)theholistic
managementofhumanactivities,(2)basedonthebestavailableknowledgeonthe
components,structureanddynamicsofecosystems,(3)andaimedatsatisfyinghuman
42
needsinawaythatdoesnotcompromisetheintegrity,orhealth,ofecosystems.(28)”
Futureresearchcouldexploretheecologicalapproachtointernationallawasit
relatestoMatland’sConflict‐Ambiguitymatrix.Thiscouldserveoneexampleofa
classificationwithinhismatrix.Asresearchexpands,communitiesoperatingwithinthe
variouslevelsofconflictandambiguitycouldbeidentifiedtoexemplifyeachofthefour
categories.Fromhere,acomparativestudycouldbedonetodisplaywhichapproachis
themosteffectiveconcerninginternationallaw.Thiswouldofcourseneedsubstantial
examplesofeachcategorytoberobust.Byconductingresearchregarding
implementationstudiesfromwithinpublicadministrationliterature,anidealamountof
casesforeachcategorycouldbeidentified.
Forthistobepossible,thisparticularstudycouldbereplicatedwithinvarious
communitiesinadiversenumberofnationsandregimetypes.Bysamplingawidevariety
ofculturesandgovernmentstructures,aholisticpicturecanbedrawnregardingcurrent
practicesandfuturepotentialforinternationallawdissemination.Thegoalofthisstudyis
tohelpfurtherthewayinwhichinternationaleffortsareapproachedbyassistinginan
assessmentofmethodsandpracticestomovetowardsidentifyingwhichapproachisbest
suitedforwhichcommunities.Thehopeofthisstudyisthatitcanhelpmergepublic
administrativetheorywiththeglobalinitiativesandmoveresearchtoexplorethistopic
further.
43
GraphsandCharts*
*Tables110originallypublishedinMorocco’s2006NationalSurvey*Tables1112originallypublishedinMorocco’sinitialreporttotheCommitteefortheCRPD
Tables1,2,and3(clockwisefromtopleft)
50
WorksCited
Ahdieh,RobertB.ForeignAffairs,InternationalLaw,andtheNewFederalism:LessonsfiomCoordination,yiMo.L.REV.1185,1192(2008).
Angelescu,Ramona,andLynSquire."LocalResearch,GlobalGovernance:AChallengeFor
InstitutionalDesign."GlobalGovernance12.1(2006):21‐29.Boutayeb,AbdesslamandAbdelazizChetouani.“DynamicsofaDisabledPopulationin
Morocco.”BioMedicalEngineeringOnLine.(2003).ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilitiesandOptionalProtocol.United
Nations.(2008).Charlesworth,Hilary.“FeministMethodsinInternationalLaw.”AmericanJournalof
InternationalLaw.93.(1999):30‐45.Charlesworth,Hilary.“SubversiveTrendsintheJurisprudenceofInternationalLaw.”
AmericanSocietyofInternationalLawProceedings.86.(1992):126‐167.deLeon,Peter,andLindadeLeon."WhatEverHappenedToPolicyImplementation?An
AlternativeApproach."JournalOfPublicAdministrationResearchAndTheory:JPART4(2002):467.
Evans,Carolyn,AnnaHood,andJessicaMoir."FromLocalToGlobalAndBackAgain:
ReligiousFreedomAndWomen'sRights."LawInContext25.1(2007):112‐130.ElOuazzaniTouahami,Zineb.“MoroccanExperienceonDisabilityStatistics.”Paper
presentedattheWashingtonGroupMeeting,Copenhagen,Denmark,27‐29October,2015.
Gilbert,Jérémie."LandRightsAndNomadicPeoples:UsingInternationalLawAtTheLocal
Level."NomadicPeoples16.2(2012):78‐83.GÜNEYSU,Gökhan."OnTheApoliticalCharacterOfInternationalLaw(OrLackThereof)."
AnkaraBarReview6.2(2013):35‐47.Hakimi,M.“ToCondoneorCondemn‐RegionalEnforcementActionintheAbsenceofthe
SecurityCouncilAuthorization,”VandJournalofTransnationalandInternationalLaw(2007).
Hicks,Celeste.“Morocco:activistsclaimdrafttightslawfailstotreatdisabilitiespeopleas
equals.”TheGuardian(December2015),AccessedNovember15,2016,https://www.theguardian.com/global‐development/2015/dec/03/morocco‐disabled‐people‐draft‐law‐97‐13‐human‐rights‐equal.
51
HumanRightsWatch.“LettertoMoroccanParliamentonDraftDisabilityLaw.”(October2015).AccessedNovember15,2016.https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/26/letter‐moroccan‐parliament‐draft‐disability‐law
HumanRightsWatch.“Morocco:FlawedDraftDisabilityRightsLaw,ShouldPromote
Rights,NotCharity.”(October2015).AccessedNovember15,2016https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/26/morocco‐flawed‐draft‐disability‐rights‐law
Kalb,Johanna."ThePersistenceOfDualismInHumanRightsTreatyImplementation."
YaleLaw&PolicyReview30.1(2011):71‐121.InternationalClassificationofFunctioning,Disability,andHealth.WorldHealth
Organization.WHOPublications(2001).InternationalClassificationofImpairments,Disabilities,andHandicaps.WorldHealth
Organization.WHOPublications(1980).Kaczmarek,SarahC.,andAbrahamL.Newman."TheLongArmOfTheLaw:
ExtraterritorialityAndTheNationalImplementationOfForeignBriberyLegislation."InternationalOrganization65.4(2011):745‐770.
Kennedy,David.“ANewStreamofInternationalScholarship”,WisconsinInternational
LawJournal.Vol.7.1.(1988):1‐49.KingdomofMoroccoHigherPlanningCommission.“PeoplewithSpecialNeedsin
MoroccoAccordingtotheDataofGeneralCensusofPopulationandHousingof2014.”
KingdomofMoroccoSecretariatofStateinChareofFamily,Childhood,andDisabled
Persons.NationalSurveyonDisability.February2006.Matland,RichardE."SynthesizingTheImplementationLiterature:TheAmbiguity‐Conflict
ModelOfPolicyImplementation."JournalOfPublicAdministrationResearchAndTheory:JPART2(1995):145.
Muchlinski,Peter."ImplementingTheNewUNCorporateHumanRightsFramework:
ImplicationsForCorporateLaw,Governance,AndRegulation."BusinessEthicsQuarterly22.1(2012):145‐177.
Ntahiraja,Bernard."TheGlobalAndTheRegionalInTheResponsibilityToProtect:
WhereDoesAuthorityLie?."JournalJurisprudence15.(2012):419‐442.Olsen,JohanP..LOCALBUDGETING,DECISON‐MAKINGORARITUALACT?Scandinavian
PoliticalStudies,5.A5.(1970):85‐118.
52
Oosterwaal,Annemarije,andRenéTorenvlied."PolicyDivergenceInImplementation:HowConflictAmongDecisiveLegislatorsReinforcesTheEffectOfAgencyPreferences."JournalOfPublicAdministrationResearch&Theory22.2(2012):195‐217.
Ormaza,MariaVictoriaCabrera."Re‐ThinkingTheRoleOfIndigenousPeoplesIn
InternationalLaw:NewDevelopmentsInInternationalEnvironmentalLawAndDevelopmentCooperation."GoettingenJournalOfInternationalLaw4.1(2012):263‐290.
Palumbo,DennisJ.;Maynard‐Moody,Steven;andWright,Paula.1984"MeasuringDegrees
ofSuccess‐fulImplementation.”EvaluationReview.8:1:45‐74.Purvis,Nigel.“CriticalLegalStudiesinPublicInternationalLaw”,HarvardInternational
LawJournal.32.1(1991):81‐128.Trouwborst,Arie."ThePrecautionaryPrincipleAndTheEcosystemApproachIn
InternationalLaw:Differences,SimilaritiesAndLinkages."ReviewOfEuropeanCommunity&InternationalEnvironmentalLaw18.1(2009):26‐37.
UnitedNationsCommitteeontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities.MoroccoInitial
Report,(2015).Waage,J,etal."TheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals:ACross‐SectoralAnalysisAnd
PrinciplesForGoalSettingAfter2015LancetAndLondonInternationalDevelopmentCentreCommission."Lancet376.9745(2010):991‐1023.
Wexler,Lesley."ThePromiseAndLimitsOfLocalHumanRightsInternationalism."
FordhamUrbanLawJournal37.2(2010):599‐635.VanMeter,DonaldS.,andCarlE.VanHorn."ThePolicyImplementationProcess."
Administration&Society6.4(1975):445.VanRensburg,LindaJansen,andWimNaudé."HumanRightsAndDevelopment:TheCase
OfLocalGovernmentTransformationInSouthAfrica."PublicAdministration&Development27.5(2007):393‐412.
VanMeter,DonaldS.,andCarlE.VanHorn."ThePolicyImplementationProcess."
Administration&Society6.4(1975):445.Yacob‐Haliso,Olajumoke."InvestigatingTheRoleOfGovernmentLegislationAndIts
ImplementationInAddressingGender‐BasedViolenceAmongReturneeRefugeeWomenInLiberia."Wagadu:AJournalOfTransnationalWomen's&GenderStudies10.(2012):132‐149.
Young,IrishMarion."TheLogicOfMasculinistProtection:ReflectionsOnTheCurrent
SecurityState."1.(2003).
Recommended