چکیده : 

This paper explores the United Nations Convention on the rights

of persons with disabilities (CRPD) from a phenomenological perspective.

It argues for complementing the predominant juridical

approach to the CRPD with attention to the extra-juridical dimension

of the constitution of its meaning. The core argument is that

disabled people’s collectives should be recognised and admitted

as important stakeholders and contributors in the community

of interpretation that gives the CRPD its meaning. After briefly

introducing the CRPD, the first part of the paper highlights the

ubiquity of interpretation and the limits of its juridical regulation.

The second part explores some extra-juridical factors that influence

the interpretation of the CRPD. Two cases are considered:

the socially embedded materiality of the interpretive work of the

CRPD Committee; and the politics of interpretation inherent in

the CRPD’s translation between languages. The latter is backed up

by comparing the English, French, Russian and Bulgarian versions

of several CRPD provisions. In conclusion, some methodological

and programmatic inferences are drawn from the analysis. In

particular, it is argued that disabled people’s civic self-organising

is indispensable for sustaining the interpretation of the CRPD along

transformative and emancipatory lines.

?>

چکیده : 

This paper explores the United Nations Convention on the rights

of persons with disabilities (CRPD) from a phenomenological perspective.

It argues for complementing the predominant juridical

approach to the CRPD with attention to the extra-juridical dimension

of the constitution of its meaning. The core argument is that

disabled people’s collectives should be recognised and admitted

as important stakeholders and contributors in the community

of interpretation that gives the CRPD its meaning. After briefly

introducing the CRPD, the first part of the paper highlights the

ubiquity of interpretation and the limits of its juridical regulation.

The second part explores some extra-juridical factors that influence

the interpretation of the CRPD. Two cases are considered:

the socially embedded materiality of the interpretive work of the

CRPD Committee; and the politics of interpretation inherent in

the CRPD’s translation between languages. The latter is backed up

by comparing the English, French, Russian and Bulgarian versions

of several CRPD provisions. In conclusion, some methodological

and programmatic inferences are drawn from the analysis. In

particular, it is argued that disabled people’s civic self-organising

is indispensable for sustaining the interpretation of the CRPD along

transformative and emancipatory lines.

?>