introductory analysis of influence, disability sport & policy in the … · 2018-03-10 ·...

Running head: INTRODUCTORY ANALYSIS OF INFLUENCE DISABILITY SPORT & POLICY IN THE AMERICAS

Introductory Analysis of Influence, Disability Sport & Policy in the Americas:

United Nation Disability Policy & Foundation of National Paralympic Committees

Christine Maleske

German Sport University

Winter 2017/2018

DEV 10

INTRODUCTORY ANALYSIS OF INFLUENCE DISABILITY SPORT & POLICY 1

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2

Background of Stakeholders .................................................................................................. 4

International Paralympic Committee ................................................................................. 4

United Nations .................................................................................................................. 5

Relationship between the United Nations & Paralympic Movement .................................. 6

Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 7

Disability Sport Law ......................................................................................................... 7

United Nations, Convention on the Rights for People with Disabilities & Sport ................ 9

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................... 9

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 10

Results ................................................................................................................................ 12

Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 15

Future Implication & Limitations .................................................................................... 18

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 20

References .......................................................................................................................... 21

Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: United Nations and Disability ..................................................................... 29

Appendix B: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

(CRPD) ........................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix C: National Paralympic Committees of the Americas ...................................... 31

Appendix D: Analysis & Results ..................................................................................... 32


Abstract

This paper acts as an introduction to analyzing the correlation and influence of Para

sport and disability public policy in the Americas region. The examination and intersection of

sport and public policy is not new; there is an abundance of literature describing the

symbiosis between sport organizations and polity. Moreover, academics and historians have

addressed how sport can influence political agendas and policy. Notwithstanding, literature

addressing the influence of Para sport on policy, and vis-a-versa, is scarce, especially within

the context of the sub-regions of the Americas (i.e. Caribbean, Central and South America).

Thus, this paper provides a first step analysis into the intersection of Para sport and

international public policy in the Americas region. Specifically, the analysis seeks to provide

initial descriptive statistics associated with the founding of National Paralympic Committees

(NPCs) in the region, as well as United Nations (UN) affiliated countries’ statuses in signing,

and ratifying/accessing the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights for People with

Disabilities (UN CRPD). Through the review of the descriptive statistics, inceptive insights

are gained that are conceptualized through the theoretical application of theories and

concepts, such as discourse, neoliberalism, and influence. The paper concludes with

addressing future implications and limitations of the analysis that deliver a course of action

for supplementary prospective research.

Introduction

“The objective of creating an environment that fulfills the needs and

desires of people with disabilities is not a utopian vision. Perhaps the most

critical variable is the extent to which public policies reflect a commitment

to the realization of this goal.” – Harlan Hahn (p.278, 1985)

The Paralympic Games, in 2016, were inaugurally hosted in Latin America, in Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil. The narrative immediately prior to the start of the 2016 Rio Paralympic

Games (Rio2016) was one of financial crisis and criticism from the media, due to the

organizing committee’s and Brazilian government’s overtly positive portrayal of hosting the

Games. As of August 12th, 2016, less than one month before Rio2016, major problems were

addressed in media on how the organizing committee was thinking of reducing event

structures, due to financial issues (Owen, 2016). Evident in the narratives of several media

outlets, it was conveyed the bid and implementation of both of Olympic and Paralympic

Games were not equivalent; the media inferred that the organizing committee’s and Brazilian

government’s focus was mainly on hosting the Olympic Games. The lack of funds was


illustrated to be so severe that President of the International Paralympic of Committee (IPC),

at the time of hosting Rio2016, Sir Philip Craven, was quoted “Never before in the 56-year

history of the Paralympic Games have we faced circumstances like this” (Ruiz & Longman,

2016). Additional media attention was given to Brazil’s promotion of hosting Rio2016 and

how, in 2015, the country passed new national legislation promoting inclusion for persons

with disabilities. This promotion was analyzed and opposed by the media, as Brazilian

citizens made claims of insufficient inclusion and equality; it was described how localized

persons with disabilities were left invisible in the public eye and how the new national

legislation was not being enforced (Phillips, 2016).

As Hahn outlines, public policies illustrate commitment of polity to enable an

environment suitable for persons with disabilities (1985), but as seen from Rio2016, the

commitment is not equivalent to realization. This concept developed by Hahn, and the

example of Rio2016, paves the way in formulating questions associated with catalysts of

influence, commitment, and realization within the realm of public policy for persons with

disabilities.

Allard and Martinez outline how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are

considered promoters of social welfare and inclusion, while host governments are agents of

globalization, in turn creating global change (2008). With this criterion, the IPC can be

identified as an international NGO, working to promote social welfare and inclusion of

persons with disabilities through Para sport. Concurrently, an entity at the international level

of governments is the United Nations (UN) and its member countries. The UN’s

implementation of policy for persons with disabilities, such as the Convention on the Rights

for People with Disabilities (UN CRPD), can be viewed as a tool for globalizing political

change. Regardless, even with this establishment of defining roles of international entities,

comes the officiousness questions of correlation and influence between the Paralympic

Movement and the creation of international disability policy.

From this basic conceptualization, this paper provides a first step analysis into the

intersection of Para sport and international disability policy in the Americas. A background is

provided on the two stakeholders being investigated, the IPC and the UN. Secondly, a brief

literature review is introduced to illustrate the themes of research associated with disability

sport law, the inclusion policies of the IPC, and the UN CRPD. Precedingly, the theoretical

framework and methodology utilized in this paper, as well as the quantitative results are

presented. From the results, a discussion applying the theoretical framework is hosted, which


produces inceptive insights to allow the ability to address the limitations of the analysis and

providing future implications for potential forthcoming research.

Background of Stakeholders

The following is succinct description of two primary stakeholders associated with this

paper, the IPC and UN. The background is prevalent, as it provides generalize information on

the intersection of Paralympic Movement and international public policy. Moreover, it assists

in the identification of discourses, as well as provides insights into power relations and

influence between the two stakeholders.

International Paralympic Committee

The IPC links its founding to the Stoke Mandeville Games, which were coordinated

by Dr. Ludwig Guttman. Dr. Guttman was a doctor who utilized sport for the use of

rehabilitation. In 1948, the first Stoke Mandeville Games were hosted in the United Kingdom

(UK) with 16 injured UK servicemen. In 1952, the Stoke Mandeville Games grew to involve

other international servicemen, with the participation of Dutch servicemen.

The Stoke Mandeville Games continued their growth and transitioned in 1960 to be

hosted in Rome, Italy; it was during this time that the name of the Games transitioned to

became known as the Paralympic Games. In Rome, 400 athletes, representing 23 countries,

came to participate. Further, the Games continued its expansion, and in 1976 the first Winter

Paralympic Games were hosted in Sweden.

Nevertheless, the 1960 Rome Paralympic Games are considered the first attempt to

informally link itself to the Olympic Movement. Following Rome, the Paralympic Games

worked to orient itself to take place in the same host city as the Olympic Games. Withal, true

convergence of the two movements, Paralympic and Olympic, began after the founding of the

IPC in 1989 (Gold & Gold, 2007; International Paralympic Committeeb, n.d.). In 2001, the

two movements converged to formalize a partnership, with the signing of an agreement

which defined and coined the phrase of “one bid, one city” (Gérard & Zintz, 2017;

International Paralympic Committeec, n.d.). Through this partnership with the IOC, as well as

other sport stakeholders including the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and

International Sport Federations, the IPC gained legitimacy as a key actor in the international

sport movement (Gérard & Zintz, 2017).

Today, with over 200 members, the IPC works towards its vision: “To enable Para

athletes to achieve sporting excellence and inspire and excite the world”. Beyond this vision,


the IPC outlines its “aspiration” of creating an inclusive society through Para sport. Further,

as it is the sole authority of the Paralympic Movement, the IPC outlines the key Paralympic

values to be: courage, determination, inspiration, and equality. Upon reviewing the historical

and missionary background of the IPC, it is evident that the IPC’s creation and current

initiatives are founded upon the concepts of inclusion, equality, and promotion of social

welfare for persons with disabilities (International Paralympic Committeeb, n.d.).

United Nations

The UN was founded in 1945 in California, when representatives from 50 countries

met to draft the first UN Charter. This first Charter was ratified by countries such as China,

France, the Soviet Union, the UK, the United States, and 46 other countries (United Nationsa,

n.d.). Today, the UN is a world organization that has changed history through positive,

normative, and instrumental ideas (Weiss, 2010). Further, it has been identified as an

organization who is an “effective intellectual actor” that promotes democracy internationally

(Therein & Dumontier, 2009).

Since, the UN’s founding it has worked to recognize, define, develop, and support

persons with disabilities (See timeline in Appendix A). With major developments occurring

in the 1970s with the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and

Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (United Nations Enable , n.d.). Altogether, the

history of the UN addressing persons with disabilities lead to the creation and adoption of the

UN CRPD in 2006.

The UN CRPD outlines the protection and promotion of human rights, as well as the

fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities. It moves persons with disabilities away

from being commodities of charity, toward subjects who possess rights (United Nations

Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, n.d.). Moreover, it defines concepts such

as disability, discrimination based on disability, reasonable accommodation, universal design,

and awareness-raising against stereotypes. Additionally, specifically in Article 30 the UN

CRPD dictates the right for persons with disabilities to be able to participate in cultural life,

recreation, leisure, and sport (United Nations, 2006; United Nations Division for Social

Policy and Development Disability, 2006).

Overall, one can argue that the UN CRPD is soft law and not fully enforceable onto

UN member countries. This is further evident due to the fact as of 2016, 26 of the 193

members have not ratified the UN CRPD (United Nations Enable, 2016; See Appendix B).

Nonetheless, even with the UN CRPD potentially having soft law status, the UN has created


additional structures to address persons with disabilities. The primary UN Division associated

with the UN CRPD is the Division for Social Policy and Development of UN’s Department

of Economic and Social Affairs. Further, the UN created and added to the UN CRPD the

Optional Protocol (OP), which is a committee of experts that accepts and examines grave or

systematic human right complaints, or violations, filed against UN member countries related

to persons with disabilities. It should be noted though, that the OP is an optional addition to

the UN CRPD, and only 50.47% of members have ratified it (United Nations Human Rights

Office of the High Commissioner, n.d.). Beyond structures created to be complementary to

the UN CRPD, there are several other agencies and units of the UN involved with persons

with disabilities, for example: the Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

and the UN Human Rights Council (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High

Commissioner, n.d.).

Overall, from examining the UN’s role in establishing rights and fundamental

freedoms for persons with disabilities, it cannot be denied their role as an intellectual actor of

producing ideas and promoting democracy. However, caution should be expressed attempting

to identify the UN as an enforcer of international treaties and as an actor of accountability,

(i.e. holding UN member countries to treaties) through all levels of governments and society.

Relationship between the United Nations & Paralympic Movement

The UN and the IPC have an informal relationship. They collaborate and promote

each other; however, the IPC does not have any official status within the UN framework.

This differs in comparison to their counterpart and partner, the IOC, which has Observer

Status (International Olympic Committee, 2009). The UN promotes the Paralympic Games as

a driver for sustainable social inclusion and an avenue to promote the rights of persons with

disabilities. Beyond the Games, the UN recognizes Paralympic athletes and identifies them as

figures who embody the highest standard of humanity (United Nations Division for Social

Policy and Development Disability, 2008; UNDESA DSPD, 2016). Complementary to this

narrative, the IPC produced a document outlining the UN CRPD for the 2012 London

Paralympic Games (International Paralympic Committee, 2012)

Extending outside of verbal and documented promotion, in 2010 there was a forum to

promote a relationship between the IPC and UN. Within this forum, topics included youth

development, gender equality, healthy lifestyles, peace-building, humanitarian assistance,

future outlooks, and the Millennium Development Goals (International Paralympic

Committee, 2010). Additionally, the UN has host the 9th Session of the Conference of State


Parties (COSP9) in New York and discussed how the Paralympic Games can be a catalyst for

change (Craven, 2016). Lastly, the now closed UN Office for Sport Development and Peace

(UNOSDP), was considered a partner of the development division of the IPC, the Agitos

Foundation. In 2015, the UNOSDP provide financial support for Paralympic development

programs in Rwanda (Agitos Foundation, n.d.).

Withal, in applying the ideology of Allard and Martinez, the IPC as an NGO and the

UN as an agent of policy globalization, it is clear there is an informal relationship represent.

However, the IPC appears to be more public about promoting and engaging the UN, as

evident in their “Strategic Plan 2015 to 2018”; they outlined the UN as a strategic priority

(International Paralympic Committee, 2015). This priority is further supported by Beacom

and Brittain (2016), who acknowledge the need for the IPC to step into the role of advocating

and administering programs for rights of persons with disabilities. They state the need for the

IPC to involve themselves in international discourses, as well as utilize language and

techniques of diplomacy to gain additional legitimization as an international sport entity.

From this claim, it is prominent to acknowledge within the Code of Ethics of the IPC, the

promotion of political agendas associated with the betterment of sport for persons with a

disability, democracy, empowerment, equality, and protection of human rights is tolerated

(International Paralympic Committee, 2013) within the Paralympic Movement. Thus, it can

be further supported that the IPC is public about promoting and engaging with the UN, as

well as with other stakeholders within the political arena.

Plainly summarized, even with the cross-promotion and collaborative initiatives, the

relationship between the UN and the IPC remains to be informal, with the IPC being an

external stakeholder of the established UN framework.

Literature Review

The following literature review yields how academia has conducted and committed to

research within the fields of disability sport law, Paralympic Movement and Inclusion, as

well as the UN CRPD.

Disability Sport Law

The topic of disability law is not a contemporary topic. It is heavily described within

the North American context of the United States since the establishment of the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 (ADA National Network, n.d.). Many academics have

investigated disability law by referring generally to ADA, while others have referenced the


legislation in more targeted ways, such as emphasizing college students (Thomas, 2000) or to

persons with mental health conditions (Stefan, 2001). In all, within the United States context,

there is primary focus on the implementation of ADA regarding its future, its interpretation

and its development over time (Befort & Lindquist Thomas, 1999; Emens, 2012). Another

targeted example, involves ADA research within the realm of sport; specifically,

investigating sport in schools (Green, 2016), its history within the realm, and its capacity

within the legal sphere (Fay & Wolff, n.d.).

Nevertheless, within the context of Latin America, literature is scarce on addressing

disability law or rights. Majority of literature speaks of the present stigma within its culture

(De Ferranti, 2004), as well as the differences of contextualizing disability within Latin

America’s global south content (Meekosha , 2008). However, there is one “working paper” of

relevant to this paper, which examines the Latin America and Caribbean disability policies. It

focuses on the conceptualization, current knowledge, characteristics of inclusion, economic

and social costs, as well as the UN’s commitment and UN based ramifications on national

policies (Dudzik, Elwan, & Metts, n.d.). Withal, it is a “working paper” that has not

undergone academic review, hence careful consideration in application of this resource is

needed. Additionally, sport is missing from this “working paper”, as well as majority of all

other literature addressing the sub-regions of the Americas region and disability law.

Paralympic Movement & Inclusion

The word Paralympic was developed through taking the Greek proposition of “para”,

which means “beside or alongside” and combining it with “Olympics”; the IPC states how

the Paralympic Games are parallel to the Olympic Games (International Paralympic

Committeeb, n.d.). One of the key principles of the vision of the IPC is to “inspire and excite”

by creating a more equitable society for all people (International Paralympic Committeea,

n.d.). From this principle many academics have produced literature addressing how the

Paralympic Movement, and the IPC, work to fulfill and inspire others to undertake this

principle, through processes of inclusion of persons with disabilities (Blauwet & Wilick,

2012; Laudry, 1995). Some have analyzed the “reality” of the Paralympic Movement’s work

associated with this principle, including elements related to challenges, opportunities, and

strategies for advocacy (Mauerberg de Castro, Campbell, & Tavares, 2016; Bundon &

Clarke, 2014). In addition, literature has focused on the empowerment and disempowerment

of athletes within the Paralympic Movement (Peers, 2009; Purdue & Howe, 2012). Overall,

literature is primary focused on the NGO advocacy narrative of the IPC, but this narrative has


rarely been applied to describe any potential correlation to create and enact public policy; the

rarity increases when referring to international public policy. Withal the focus of literature is

on “Western” countries and the “Global North”. It is mainly associated with addressing

opportunities for public policy (Blauwet & Iezzonia, 2014) and missed opportunities from

host countries of formerly identified regions (Darcy, 2003;Weed & Dowse, 2009). Hence, the

correlation of public policy for persons with disabilities within the Americas region and the

Paralympic context is best described as sparse.

United Nations, Convention on the Rights for People with Disabilities & Sport

The UN CRPD has been sufficiently addressed within literature. Majority of which,

has focused on the general introduction and application of the UN CRPD. For example,

introductory papers have described the contents of the UN CRPD (Kayess & French, 2008),

while others have been more specific on its impact on certain governmental systems, for

example the European Community (Waddington, 2007). Regarding application, literature

undertakes realms of monitoring and measuring individuals with disabilities (Madans, Loeb,

& Altman, 2011); concerns of UN member countries obligations (Gooding, 2015); and flaws

associated with its enactment (Silecchia, 2013). However, in combining the topic of the UN

CRPD and sport, literature is scarce, even though Article 30 of the Convention calls for the

accessibility to recreational, leisure and sporting activities through inclusive and disability-

specific settings. In a promotional article by Rammer and Marques, they call on articles of the

UN CRPD to outline the importance of physical activity for persons with disabilities (2012).

Concurrently, Conroy outlines practical application of Articles within the UN CRPD toward

sport, as well as suggestions for implementation and development (2007). Nevertheless,

neither article relates to the promotion, nor does it provide suggestions, in the definite

direction of the Paralympic Movement. In summary, present literature provides critical

reflections on the UN CRPD application and implementation, but there are insufficiencies

related to multi-dimensional nature of the UN CRPD related to physical activity, sport and

addressing existing agents working within dimension, like the IPC.

Theoretical Framework

As previously stated, this initial analysis seeks to review the potential correlation

between the founding of NPCs and the status of UN member countries signing, as well as

ratification or accession, of the UN CRPD, within the Americas region. This analysis is

grounded in the principles of discourse and neoliberalism, inspired by the work of Hayhurst


(2009). In this paper, discourse refers to the technique of arranging knowledge that creates

social relations through aggregate understanding of logic and how it is a social reality

(Weedon, 1996). Secondly, neoliberalism is a model of society that is driven by the market

and opposes government intervention (Smith, 2018). However, this analysis differs from

Hayhurst as it focuses on dates of establishing policy and institutions, instead of the recorded

literacy of policy. The emphasis on dates supports the concept that discourses are maneuvers

of logic and represent the “community” (Gasper and Apthorpe, 1996). Where the

“community” is the international and cross-cutting realms of politics (UN) and sport (IPC), in

relation to persons with disabilities. Moreover, establishment dates of policy can be reflective

of conformity, which is defined as accommodating to group pressures (Crutchfield, 1955;

McLeod, 2007), and as a form of discourse from a poststructuralist narrative (Henry, 2007).

Further, it is important to identify the neoliberalist character within the interconnected

spheres of sport and politics; they are isolated/autonomous and cross-cutting with

intervention. Sport organizations, regardless of sector, can advocate for public policy and can

be advocates for human development. Such roles, and actions, can be categorized as sport for

development. Thus, it is important to understand within the sphere of sport for development,

a neoliberalist character is present (Hayhurst, 2009). This idea is also support in reflecting on

literature describing the IPC’s partnerships (i.e. IOC, UNOSDP), which was addressed in the

background. Additionally, this neoliberalist character is applicable to the UN as well. Not

only does it have independent and separate members, but within the context of the UN CRPD

there are separate internal entities (i.e. OP, Division for Social Policy and Development,

Office of Human Rights).

With this theoretical framework, a single cross-cutting relationship will be taken into

consideration, the UN and the IPC, to gain initial insight into the discourses of influence

related to establishment of policy.

Methodology

The methodology used for this analysis was the formulation of descriptive statistics

associated with factors associated with the founding of NPCs and the signing, as well as

ratification or accession, of the UN CRPD. The methodology for analysis was split into three

phases; first phase was assessing countries of the Americas region who are considered a part

of UN framework. Secondly, a participation assessment of countries of the Americas region

within the Paralympic Movement was performed. Lastly, descriptive statistics were

calculated based on the assessments related to phase one and two.


Within phase one, a list of countries within the sub-regions of the Caribbean, as well

as Central and South America was accumulated with the assistance of the Latin American

Network Information Center (LANIC), created by the Teresa Lozano Long Institute of The

University of Texas at Austin. They identified countries within these regions, and for this

analysis the United States, Canada were added (2015). LANIC was used for phase one, the

assessment of countries with UN membership status (United Nationsb, n.d.). Furthermore, the

accumulated list was reviewed to determine what member countries have signed the UN

CRPD, as well as performed ratification or accession.

Precedingly, in phase two, the LANIC was utilized to assist in assessing countries

within the Americas region who have NPCs. The LANIC was compare to the IPC’s webpage

associated with the Americas region (International Paralympic Committeea, n.d.; Appendix

C). Of the countries who were identified as having NPCs, two are considered United States

territories.

These territories were included in the analysis to determine and calculate results only

directly related to the Paralympic Movement. They were excluded from all forms of

examinations related to action status connected to the UN CRPD; this exclusion is supported

due their lack of identity of being a UN member country or UN CRPD signatory.

Furthermore, countries were identified as not having an established NPC. After,

formulating a proper list of countries who have an NPCs, an investigation of founding dates

was complete through reviewing individual NPC’s websites, or their webpages managed by

the IPC. Also, a supplementary establishment, foundation date document from the IPC was

utilized (2016). Still with accessible resources, some countries were excluded from the

analysis due to the lack of knowledge and disclosure of founding years.

From phases one and two, it was determined that five countries would be excluded

from analysis, as it was confirmed their lack of membership with the UN framework and

Paralympic Movement. Thus, from these initial phases of assessment the analysis was

performed based on countries which were identified as being a UN member country and who

had an established NPC. The analysis performed was the formulation of descriptive statistics

of dates associated with the signing and ratification, or accession, of the UN CRPD, as well

as each known founding year of NPCs from the Americas region. Additionally, differences

between signing and ratification, as well as signing and founding of the NPC were calculated.

From these differences several medians and averages were calculated to express the potential

correlations between signing, ratification/accession, and foundation of the NPCs. The method

is summarized in Figure 1 and the results are presented in the proceeding section and later


hosted discussion.

Figure 1: Methodology Steps of Analysis

Results

The following section provides a detailed account of the results and refers to data

summarized in Appendix D. The detailed account is grounded by the analysis of phase one,

steps #1 through #5 in Figure 1; the analysis started with the examination of 43 countries; 41

were identified through the LANIC and the United States and Canada were added, making

the cumulative total 43 countries (LANIC, 2015).

From this determination it was found that 35 of the countries were members of the

UN. From this initial determination, it was found that Aruba, French Guiana, Guadeloupe,

Martinique, Saint Barthélemy, as well as Turks and Caicos Islands are not considered UN

member countries (United Nationsb, n.d.). Regarding the UN CRPD, it was found that

91.42% of the UN member countries (n=32) signed the treaty. The range of signing the UN

CRPD was five years, with the earliest (minimum) year being 2007 and latest year

(maximum) being 2013. Majority of the countries signed in 2007, which is portrayed by the

calculation of the median ( =2007) and mean (μ=2008). Only one country signed in 2013,

which was the Bahamas. Withal, four countries have not signed the UN CRPD and of these

countries three have the status of accession with the treaty.

Concurrently, expanding on the status of ratification and accession, 91.42% (n=32) of

the identified UN member countries performed ratification or accession. Notwithstanding,

only 90.6% (n=29) of UN members have the status of signatory and ratification/accession, in

association with the UN CRPD. Inferred previously, the UN members Haiti, St. Vincent and

the Grenadines, and Venezuela have accession status, but do not have signatory status. Of

these countries Haiti was the earliest to gain accession status in 2010, while St. Vincent and

the Grenadines gained status in 2010, while Venezuela was not till 2013.

1. Use of LANIC to ID Countries within the Americas Region

2. Addition of United States and Canda to Country List

3. Comprehensive List Compared to UN Member List

4. ID Status and Cluster UN members Based on Signing, Ratification or

Acessed the UN CRPD

5. Determined Dates of ID'ed UN Members who Signed, Ratification or

Acessed the UN CRPD

6. Comprehensive List Compared to IPC America Regions NPC Websites &

Document

7. Determiniation of NPC Founding Years of ID'ed Countries

8. Comparison & Creation of (1) UN Members Only List, (2) NPC Only List,

and (3) Joint List

9. Calculation of Descriptive Statistics: Minimum, Maximum, Median, Average Years of Difference

Associated with the Three Lists and the UN CRPD


Referencing the other countries with the status of ratification or accession, the range

of gaining this status is ten years; with the earliest (minimum) year being 2007 and the latest

(maximum year) being 2017. Only one country gained this status in 2017, which was

Suriname. Complementary to this result, the median year of performing ratification or

accession was found to be 2008 ( ), while the mean was 2010 (μ). Furthermore, it is

important to identify two countries who have signed the UN CRPD but have not ratified or

accessed the treaty; these countries are St. Lucia, who signed in 2011, and the United States,

who signed in 2009.

In considering the signatory dates and performance of ratification/accession, the

average difference of years between signing and ratification/accession was 2.32 years.

Majority of countries ratified after signing the treaty, and as previously outlined, Haiti, St.

Vincent and the Grenadines, and Venezuela have accessed, but not signed the UN CRPD.

Additionally, this average difference of years was calculated without considering the

establishment of NPCs.

Proceeding into phase two (step #6 and #7), 31 NPCs can be found within the

Americas region; however, two are “territories” of the United States: Puerto Rico and the

United States (US) Virgin Islands. Heretofore, they were utilized in the analysis associated

with results only related to their founding and entry into the Paralympic Movement. Thus,

they were excluded from any correlations associating the NPC founding with actions related

to the UN CRPD, which are presented in a subsequent section of the results.

Nevertheless, the determination of the founding years of the 31 identified NPCs could

only be determined for 80.6% of them (n=25). The six NPCs has undefined founding years:

Grenada, Guyana, Peru, US Virgin Islands, and St. Vincent and Grenadines. The range of

NPCs with defined founding years can be described as disperse. The most frequent founding

year and the median ( ) was found to be 1989 (n= 15). However, the mean (μ) founding year

of countries within the Americas region was 1995.

Some of the results associated with phase three (steps #8 and #9), have already been

addressed in the previous sections. To advance though, the following section provides greater

detail in the results connected to the steps of this phase of methodology. These details relate

more to the potential correlation between the UN CRPD and founding of NPCs of the

Americas region. To start, it is important to outline which UN member countries are involved

in the Paralympic Movement (meaning having an NPC). As well as identify the countries

who have NPCs but lack membership status within the UN framework.


In total, countries considered to be UN members and with an established NPC was 28,

which is 80% of the identified UN member countries that reside in the Americas region

(n=35). Nonetheless, only 65% (n=28) of the initial countries (n= 43) have NPCs. At the time

of this analysis, five countries were considered to have UN membership status but did not

have an NPC. These countries are the Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Dominica, and Paraguay.

Nonetheless, it should be stated that Paraguay as of February 2018, which was during the

final phase of creating this paper, founded their NPC (International Paralympic Committee,

2018).

Jointly, there are five NPCs who do not hold UN membership status. Three are

countries, while the remaining two are formerly stated territories of the United States. The

five NPCs are Aruba, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico (territory) and US Virgin

Islands (territory).

The former sections outlined above, address countries included in the analysis, but it

is of importance to ensure that excluded countries from the initial comprehensive list are

indicated. From phases one and two (steps #1 through #8), and in reviewing the

comprehensive initial list, five countries were excluded from analysis. The exclusion of these

countries was due to their lack of membership with the UN framework and Paralympic

Movement, having an established NPC. There countries are French Guiana, Guadeloupe,

Martinique, Saint Barthélemy, and Turks and Caicos Islands.

Overall, in review of these results it was determined that 55.8% of countries (n=24)

from the initial comprehensive list (n=43) are UN members with an established NPC, and

have signed the UN CRPD. Additionally, 53.4% of countries (n=23) are a UN members with

an established NPC, are signatories of the UN CRPD, and have ratified/accessed it.

From these results, additional results were formulated which are interrelated to

symbolize correlation between UN CRPD and founding of NPCs. Firstly, it was found the

difference is 11.04 (+/-) years between of signing the UN CRPD and founding the NPC

(n=25). However, majority of the countries founded their NPC's before signing the UN

CRPD, while only Antigua and Barbuda, as well as Chile were founded after signing; both

NPCs were both founded in 2013. The second result showed on average, the difference of

years between signing and ratification/accession for a UN member with an established NPC

within their country, is 2.28.

A plethora of results have been presented within this report. From this presentation of

results, the subsequent passage reviews the product of the analysis and applies the theoretical


framework, which was grounded in the theories and concepts of discourse, neoliberalism, and

social influence.

Discussion

Upon reviewing the results, this initial analysis illustrates an indecisive correlation

between the founding of the NPCs and the signing, and ratification, or accession, of the UN

CRPD. The lack of correlation is seen primarily due to majority of NPCs being founded

before the signing, as well as potentially the conceptualizing or drafting of the UN CRPD.

Nevertheless, there is some evidence of a correlation and, though indecisive, there is much

that can be inferred and examined regarding the theoretical framework of this paper related to

discourse, neoliberalism, and influence. The following discussion reflects upon the

theoretical framework and expands the acumen on the IPC’s role as an NGO, the Paralympic

Movement’s influence, the UN-IPC relationship, and other facets related to the indecisive

correlation.

In relation to discourse, it is found the indecisive correlation portrays a neoliberalist

character. From reviewing the founding years of the NPCs in the Americas, it is evident that

the IPC and Paralympic Movement stepped in as agents within the market. They provided

opportunities for persons with disabilities to be active and engage in society through sport;

the Paralympic Movement fulfilled, per se, a “market need” within the Americas region. In

reviewing the results, majority of the NPCs were founded from the late 1980’s through the

mid-1990’s. In this timeframe, it is apparent the UN was not highly focused on “activation”

or “engagement”; they were not focused on implementation, like the IPC. The UN was

primarily creating “strategies” and “rules” for creating policy for persons with disabilities

(see Appendix A). One potential contradiction to this inferred statement, was the

establishment of the Special Rapporteur on Disability in 1993. Withal, this is still rather late

in comparison to the founding years of the NPCs.

Furthermore, the social relations between the Paralympic Movement and the UN

during this period can be inferred and described as distant; the informal relationship is not

visible. Jointly, the social relations related to persons with disabilities, in the Americas

region, and the Paralympic Movement appears to be more proactive. While, conversely the

social relations between persons with disabilities and the UN were gradual. Further, this

period can be considered a counterexample to Allard and Martinez defining governments as

agents of globalizations (2008). The results illustrate how the IPC and Paralympic

Movement, within the Americas region, acted as both agents of globalization, due to their


proactivity in creating discourses and structures associated with persons with disabilities and

sport. Likewise, the IPC still fulfilled their traditional role as an NGO as promoters of social

welfare and inclusion. In sum, the IPC was “on the ground” in the Americas Region, as an

agent and promoter of persons with disability, regarding sport, before the UN.

The Paralympic Movement is governed by the IPC, which has already been identified

as being a promoter of social welfare and inclusion. However, NGOs have also been

recognized as entities who influence governmental behavior regarding high politics (Price,

1998; Kim, 2011). It is hypothesized that the IPC’s status as an early, proactive, and

worldwide agent, specifically in the Americas region, influenced the UN to conform and

create policy. It can be, also, hypothesized that it influenced the actions of UN member states

relating to the UN CRPD. Nonetheless, these hypotheses cannot be accepted, nor can they be

fully denied, from the accumulated results. This is partly due to the difference in time

between the founding of NPCs and signing, as well as ratification/accession of the UN

CRPD. The span of time between each phase is too vase. Hence, it is cumbersome and

beyond the scope of this paper to ensure examination of all discourses between the UN and

each of the examined countries within the Americas, as well as their NPCs.

Yet, there is one result that can be interpreted as the IPC and Paralympic Movement,

in the Americas region, having influence on the UN CRPD. It was identified that countries

who are members of the UN and have an established NPC, had a lesser timespan between

signing and ratifying/accessing the UN CRPD (2.28 years), compared to countries who were

just has UN membership status (2.32 years). The difference in results is not immense, but it

does infer countries with established NPCs, potentially confirmed their social role as a

stakeholder and supporter of the Paralympic Movement; they conformed to align with the

IPC’s aspiration of inclusion and supporting rights for persons with disability. This inference

possibly demonstrates the concept of identification influence (Deutsch, & Gerard, 1955;

McLeod, 2007). Additionally, considering countries with established NPCs, countries may

have ratified or accessed to “fit in” within the Paralympic framework, as well as amongst

their peers within the Americas region. Thus, illustrating normative influence (Deutsch, &

Gerard, 1955; McLeod, 2007). Notwithstanding, results from the analysis lack the qualitative

details of the discourse and influence. In general, from the results it is unclear if the influence

was driven by the NPCs, IPC, UN, the countries’ own national governments, or national hoi

polloi of each country.

Consequently, this discussion has primarily focused on the early discourses of the IPC

and Paralympic Movement within the Americas region. It has been distinctly described how


discourses of the Paralympic Movement during the late 1980s and early 1990s were

neoliberalist and could have influenced UN members. Withal, it is essential to note how

neoliberalism is fading in the realm of sport and advocacy for persons with disabilities.

Originally, it was only the IPC advocating and lobbying for sport for persons with disabilities

within the Americas region. As previously identified in the background, the UN CRPD

addresses the right of persons with disabilities to have accessibility to sport and promotes

inclusion in the sphere of sport. Derived from this fact, it is conspicuous that the UN is a

stakeholder in the Paralympic Movement and an advocate for disability sport.

Despite this claim, it should still be upheld that the defined relationship status

between the UN and the IPC is informal. But, in reviewing the historical discourses of the

UN’s involvement in respects to the rights of persons with disabilities, a further descriptive

attribute can be added to describing the relationship: it is a relationship that is in a pubescent

or development phase.

Relating back to the Americas region, the UN through the drafting and

implementation of the UN CRPD may have been a latent promoter for countries to involve

themselves in Paralympic Movement. This is partially supported by the UN members of

Antigua and Barbuda, and Chile which established NPCs after signing the UN CRPD. It is

said to be partial due to further reviewing Antigua and Barbuda’s discourses associated with

the UN CRPD and Paralympic Movement. They signed the UN CRPD in 2007 and did not

ratify till 2016, however within that span of time they established an NPC in 2013. This result

endorses the claimed narrative of the results being an indecisive correlation.

In addition, within the Americas region it appears that discourses between countries

as member states of the Paralympic Movement, and as UN members differs. This is probable

through evaluating the UN members with established NPCs, who have signed and

ratified/accessed the UN CRPD. The results presented only a little over half of the countries

met this criterion (53.4%). A product of the analysis established Haiti, St. Vincent and

Grenadines, and Venezuela as countries who have accessed the UN CRPD, but have not

signed. Concurrently, there are countries like the St. Lucia, and the highly publicized

democratic power of the United States who have signed, but neither ratified or accessed the

UN CRPD.

Yet, all these countries have established NPCs and have accepted the policies of

inclusion set forth by the IPC. It is hypothesized that the United States may be an outlying

latent narrative, that is beyond the scope of this paper. However, for the other countries it

could be hypothesized that the demands of the UN CRPD maybe outside of their capacity as


a small island and/or developing country. A secondary hypothesis, is that these countries are

apprehensive in meeting the criteria of the treaty and fear the sanctions that the UN can

deliver for violating the UN CRPD. Complementary to this claim, it can be inferred that the

sanctions of the UN are far more detrimental to a country than the sanction set by the IPC,

which only affect sport participation. Lastly, it can be proposed that a neoliberalist character

is still present within these countries, where the Paralympic Movement is the main driver and

influencer for rights for persons with disabilities.

Overall, the discussion broaden acumen on many aspects of results, although the

product of the analysis was primarily described as being lacking or an indecisive correlation

between the founding of the NPCs and the signing, and ratification, or accession of the UN

CRPD. Still important insights were gained from the results through the application of the

theoretical framework and it raises awareness on the future implications of this paper and

some its own limitations.

Future Implication & Limitations

The discussion gave greater depth into the results through applying the proposed

theoretical framework. Some of the future implications and limitations have already been

suggested within the previous discussion. One of the preliminary limitations of this analysis

was the utilization of dates in describing the discourses. Dates were strong in providing

quantitative data, but there is an inability to gain explanatory power associated with each

discourse. Hence, it is suggested that future analysis is done from a qualitative perspective. A

hermeneutic approach could be an approach in gaining reasoning behind the results, as it

allows for the creation of understanding a subject through language and performing an

examination of textual resources (Gadamer, 1977; Gadamer, 2004, p. 390; Laverty, 2003).

Through the review of textual resources, interpretative results can be developed to illustrate

discourses related to the potential correlation between the Paralympic Movement and the UN

CRPD within the Americas region. Some example discourses include; between the IPC and

the UN; the IPC and the NPCs during the time of signing, ratification or accession of the UN

CRPD; and NPC discourses with their own national government and the UN.

Another limitation addressed was the span of time associated with this analysis. The

time span was close to three decades and the involvement of 43 countries within the analysis

limited the potential of gaining explanatory power. Nevertheless, this paper provides the

necessary information for researchers to conduct studies on specific countries, regional areas,

continental districts (i.e. North America and South America), or criteria-based clusters (i.e.


signatory status of the UN CRPD). The results can be considered a gateway to produce

literature with specificity based on time or geography.

Complementary, this the paper outlines the potential to conduct case studies regarding

countries who have non-signatory status but have accessed the UN CRPD (i.e. Haiti).

Additionally, there are countries like the United States who have signed the UN CRPD but

have neither ratified or accessed it. It could be a topic of interest to understand not only the

political narratives underpinning these facts, but to expand to include the Paralympic

Movement entities narratives and investigate their potential involvement and discourses.

Moreover, the resulting indecisive correlation is related to the discourses. From the

results there was an inability to fully establish who was the primary driver of influence when

signing and ratifying or accessing the UN CRPD. It is hypothesized that the IPC and

Paralympic Movement, may have had identification or normative influence. Hence, further

analysis should be completed. Again, it is recommended to use a hermeneutic approach to

better understand the discourses related to influence.

Another potential limitation factor of this study is the potential incoherency of the

NPC founding years (International Paralympic Committee, 2016). Majority of the NPCs

within the Americas do not have their own websites or informational platforms, instead they

utilize pages on the IPC’s main website. In cross-referencing founding years, a discrepancy

was found; Jamaica is outlined by the IPC as being founded in 1989, but the Jamaican NPC

(known as the Jamaican Paralympic Association) indicates they were founded in 2008

(Jamaica Paralympic Association, n.d). Accordingly, caution is expressed in examination of

dates associated with Paralympic Movement and it is suggested that the rationale behind this

discrepancy is explored.

This paper was an introductory in determining if there is a correlation and influence in

creating and enacting disability policy in the Americas region. The examination and

discussion focused on higher politics, at the international level of the UN. But, it is

imperative that researchers do not ignore the meso-levels of policy. This level is where

national governments reside, and it is at this level that there is greater potential that a

correlation and influence of Para sport and public policy is present. This is supported by the

illustration provided in the introduction related to Brazil. In 2015, Brazil created national

legislation of inclusion for persons with disabilities. In reviewing this fact, it appears that

Brazil created the legislation because they were hosting the Paralympic Games (NPC Brazil,

2015; Phillips, 2016). Thus, an investigation looking into countries with established NPC and

inspecting their national policy frameworks may be of some interest.


Furthermore, Brazil’s national legislation was not only legislation promoting the

rights for persons with disabilities, but it also outlined a funding plan to invest in the

Brazilian NPC. In turn, the recommendation is not only to inspect national policy frameworks

based on inclusion, but investigations should verify if sport is included as well.

Lastly, it is recommended that future research compares and examines the “calls” for

policy from the viewpoint of the IPC and governmental entities. This paper outlined some

background information into how the IPC and UN have worked within the sphere of

advocating for rights for persons with disabilities. However, as Hahn’s outlines “Disability is

defined by public policy. In other words, disability is whatever policy says it is.” (1985, p.

294). Policy outlines the beliefs of institutions, regardless of what sector they are allocated to

within the market. Also, policy sets the agenda which dictates how the market is to react to

persons of disabilities. It sets the framework associated with promoting inclusion and

engaging persons with disabilities in society. But, it additionally can be a framework based

on restrictive assumptions that impose indirect and latent limitations on what a person with

disabilities can do in society. In general, a comparison of advocacy messages from

stakeholders of the Paralympic Movement and governmental sector could provide a plethora

of information related to discourses and influence associated with disability policy.

Conclusion

Acting as an introductory analysis and conceptualization, this paper was pioneering in

analyzing the correlation and influence of Para sport and disability policy in the Americas

region. It focused on the intersection of the sole governing body of the Paralympic Movement

and an international governmental polity: the IPC and UN. The intersection was examined

through reviewing the founding years of the NPCs and UN member countries’ actions of

signing, ratification, or accession of the UN CRPD. A background and literature review were

provided, which illustrated the themes of research associated with the IPC, the UN, disability

sport law, inclusion policies of the Paralympic Movement, and the UN CRPD. This

subsequently lead to the creation of a theoretical framework grounded on the concepts of

discourse, neoliberalism, and influence. From this framework a quantifiable methodology,

related to dates, was utilized to accumulate results. Despite the methodology, the results

portrayed an indecisive correlation and narrative, which was found to be related to the

limitations and initial pioneering status of this paper. Although, results were indecisive and

partial, they provided a plethora of hypotheses and future implications for research related to

the Paralympic Movement, disability policy and the Americas Region.


References

ADA National Network. (n.d.). What is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

Retrieved from ADA National Network: https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

Agitos Foundation. (n.d.). Partners. Retrieved from Agitos Foundation:

https://www.paralympic.org/agitos-foundation/support-us/partners

Allard, G., & Martinez, C. (20058). The Influence of Government Policy and NGOs on

Capturing Private Investment. OCED Global Forum on International Investment,

(pp.1-22).

Beacom, A., & Brittain, I. (2016). Public Diplomacy and the International Paralympic

Committee: reconciling the roles of disability advocate and sports

regulator. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 27(2), 273-294.

DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2016.1169795

Befort, S., & Lindquist Thomas, H. (1999). The ADA in Turmoil: Judicial Dissonance, the

Supreme Court's Response, and the Future of Disability Discrimination Law.

Retrieved from HeinOnine:

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/orglr78&div=9&id=&

page=

Befort, S., & Lindquist Thomas, H. (1999). The ADA in Turmoil: Judicial Dissonance, the

Supreme Court's Response, and the Future of Disability Discrimination Law.

Retrieved from HeinOnine:

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/orglr78&div=9&id=&

page=

Blauwet, C., & Iezzonia, L. (2014). From the Paralympics to Public Health: Increasing

Physical Activity Through Legislative and Policy Initiatives. PM&R, 6(8), S4-S10.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.05.014

Blauwet, C., & Wilick, S. E. (2012). The Paralympic Movement: Using Sports to Promote

Health, Disability Rights, and Social Integration for Athletes With Disabilities.

PM&R, 4(11), 851-856. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.08.015

Bundon, A., & Clarke, L. (2014). Honey or Vinegar? Athletes With Disabilities Discuss

Strategies for Advocacy Within the Paralympic Movement. Journal of Sport and

Social Issues, 39(5), 351-370. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723514557823


Craven, P. (2016, August). The Paralympic Games and the Promotion of the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities. UN Chronicle, 53(2). Retrieved from

https://unchronicle.un.org/article/paralympic-games-and-promotion-rights-persons-

disabilities

Conroy, E. (2007). Aiming for Inclusive Sport: the Legal and Practical Implications of the

United Nation’s Disability Convention for Sport, Recreation and Leisure for People

with Disabilities. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, 5(1).

doi:http://doi.org/10.16997/eslj.75

Darcy, S. (2003). The politics of disability and access: the Sydney 2000 Games experience.

Disability & Society, 737-757. doi:10.1080/0968759032000119497

De Ferranti, D. (2004). Inequality in Latin America: Breaking with History? World Bank

Publications.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social

influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 51(3), 629-636. Retrieved from

http://web.comhem.se/u52239948/08/deutsch55.pdf

Dudzik, P., Elwan, A., & Metts, R. (n.d.). Working Paper - Disability Policies, Statistics, and

Strategies in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Review. 1-3. Retrieved from

http://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/public/docs/31863_statistics.pdf

Emens, E. (2012). Disabling Attitudes: U.S. Disability Law and the ADA Amendments Act.

The American Journal of Comparative Law, 205-234.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2011.0020

Fay, T., & Wolff, E. (n.d.). Disability in Sport in the Twenty-First Century: Creating a New

Sport Opportunity Spectrum. Retrieved from Boston University School of Law:

http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume27n2/documents/3fay-

wolff.pdf

Gadamer, H.-G. (1977). Philosophical Hermeneutics. Los Angeles : University of California

Press. Retrieved from

http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/documents/Gadamer%20Philosophical

%20Hermeneutics.pdf

Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and Method (2 (Revised Edition) ed.). New York: Continuum

Publishing Group.

Gasper, D., & Apthorpe, R. (1996). Introduction: Discourse analysis and policy discourse.

The European Journal of Development Research, 8(1), 1-15.


Gérard, S., & Zintz, T. (2017). The IPC as a change-maker? Insights from the institutional

theory. Diagoras: International Academic Journal on Olympic Studies, 1, 95-116.

Retrieved from http://diagorasjournal.com/index.php/diagoras/article/view/9

Gold, J. R., & Gold, M. M. (2007). Access for all: the rise of the Paralympic Games.

Perspectives in Public Health, 127(3), 133-141.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1466424007077348

Green, L. (2016). Disabilities Law and Reasonable Accommodations in Sports. Retrieved

from National Federation of State High School Associations:

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/disabilities-law-and-reasonable-accommodations-in-

sports/

Gooding, P. (2015). Navigating the ‘Flashing Amber Lights’ of the Right to Legal Capacity

in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

Responding to Major Concerns. Human Rights Law Review, 15(1), 45-71.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu045

Hayhurst, L. (2009). The power to shape policy: charting sport for development and peace

policy discourses. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(2), 203-227.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19406940902950739

Henry, I. A.-T.-C. (2007). Methodologies in comparative and transnational. In Transnational

and comparative research in sport: globalization, governance and sport policy. (pp.

22–35). London: Routledge,. Retrieved from

https://books.google.de/books?id=uoh7zgdTj0sC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=Metho

dologies+in+comparative+and+transnational+sports+policy+research.&source=bl&ot

s=xf7QIzWxFJ&sig=dDUaJaQktGOhP0IVmx-

y66CbLT0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnn-

TJ7aDZAhWIXBQKHWzyC3MQ6AEILjAA#v=on

International Olympic Committee. (2009, October 19). IOC Becomes UN Observer.

Retrieved from International Olympic Committee:

https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-becomes-un-observer

International Paralympic Committee. (2010, May 26). Media Centre: Forum Promotes UN

Relationship. Retrieved from International Paralympic Committee:

https://www.paralympic.org/news/forum-promotes-un-relationship


International Paralympic Committee. (2013). IPC Code of Ethics. Bonn: International

Paralympic Committee. Retrieved from

https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/130625114507663_IPC+Co

de+of+Ethics.pdf

International Paralympic Committee. (2012, August). The UN Convention on Rights of

Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from International Paralympic Committee:

https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/120818093927291_2012_08

+The+UN+Convention+on+Rights+of+Persons+with+Disabilities_ENG.pdf

International Paralympic Committee. (2015). Strategic Plan 2015 to 2018. International

Paralympic Committee. Retrieved from International Paralympic Committee:

https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/150619133600866_2015_06

+IPC+Strategic+Plan+2015-2018_Digital.pdf

International Paralympic Committee. (2016). NPC Recognition Years.

International Paralympic Committee. (2018, February 1). Paraguay joins Paralympic family.

Retrieved from International Paralympic Committee:

https://www.paralympic.org/news/paraguay-joins-paralympic-family

International Paralympic Committeea. (n.d.). International Paralympic Committee. Retrieved

from National Paralympic Committees: America:

https://www.paralympic.org/america

International Paralympic Committeeb. (n.d.). The IPC - Who we are: About us. Retrieved

from International Paralympic Committee: https://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/about-

us

International Paralympic Committeec. (n.d.). The IPC - Who we are: Paralympics - History of

the Movement. Retrieved from International Paralympic Committee:

https://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/history-of-the-movement

International Paralympic Committeed. (n.d.). The IPC - How we do it: Partnerships.

Retrieved from International Paralympic Committee: https://www.paralympic.org/the-

ipc/partnerships

JamaicaParalympic Association. (n.d.). Retrieved from Jamaica Paralympic Association:

http://jamaicaparalympic.com/

Kayess, R., & French, P. (2008). Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the Convention on

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Human Rights Law Review, 1-34.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngm044


Kim, Y. (2011). The Unveiled Power of NGOs: How NGOs Influence States' Foreign Policy

Behaviors. The University of Iowa. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d1f3/f5972d8b30407b15ce207c84bd9bac4ea131.pdf

Laudry, F. (1995). Paralympic Games and social integration. Miquel Botella, The Keys to

Success: the social, sporting, economic and communications impact of Barcelona’92.

Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la UAB.

Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparison of

Historical and. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21-35.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303

Lozano Long Institute. (2015). Latin American Network Information Center. Retrieved from

Country Directory:

http://www1.lanic.utexas.edu/subject/countries/index.htmlhttp://www1.lanic.utexas.e

du/subject/countries/index.html

Madans, J., Loeb, M., & Altman, B. (2011). Measuring disability and monitoring the UN

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: the work of the Washington

Group on Disability Statistics. BMC Public Health, 11(S4), 19-10. Retrieved from

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/S4/S4

McLeod, S. (2007). What is Conformity? Retrieved from Simply Psychology:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/conformity.html

Meekosha , H. (2008). Contextualizing disability: developing. 4th Biennial Disability Studies

Conference, (pp. 1-20). Lancaster. Retrieved from

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/6612820/meekosha2008.pdf?A

WSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1518015438&Signature

=Xi4WIfjwexfongvK5eteTMWdLK4%3D&response-content-

disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DContextualizing_disability_Develop

Mauerberg de Castro, E., Campbell, D., & Tavares, C. (2016). The global reality of the

Paralympic Movement: Challenges and opportunities in disability sports. Motriz:

Revista de Educação Física, 22(3), 111-123. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1980-

6574201600030001

NPC Brazil. (2015, July 8). Media Centre. New Law hailed as Landmark in brazil. Retrieved

from https://www.paralympic.org/news/new-law-hailed-landmark-brazil

Owen, D. (2016, August 12). Problems looming for Rio 2016 Paralympic Games. Inside the

Games. Retrieved from https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1040552/problems-

looming-for-rio-2016-paralympic-games


Peers, D. (2009). (Dis)empowering Paralympic histories: absent athletes and disabling

discourses. Disability & Society, 24(5), 653-665.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590903011113

Phillips, D. (2016, September 18). Outside Rio’s Paralympics, Brazil’s disabled battle to be

seen. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/outside-rios-paralympics-

brazils-disabled-battle-to-be-seen/2016/09/17/8b79012e-22bc-4329-97d1-

0352f35461b6_story.html?utm_term=.6177e7d9f57b

Price, R. (1998). Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines.

International Organization, 613-644. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601403?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Purdue, D., & Howe, P. (2012). Empower, inspire, achieve: (dis)empowerment and the

Paralympic Games. Disability & Society, 27(7), 1-14.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.695576

Rimmer, J., & Marques, A. (2012). Physical activity for people with disabilities. 380, 193-

195. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61028-9

Ruiz, R. R., & Longman, J. (2016, August 19). Brazil’s Economic Crisis Forces Cuts to

Paralympics in Rio. The New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/sports/olympics/paralympics-budget-cuts-

brazil-economic-crisis.html

Silecchia, L. A. (2013). The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

Reflections on Four Flaws that Tarnish its Promise. Journal of Contemporary Health

Law & Policy, 96-129. Retrieved from

http://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol30/iss1/10?utm_source=scholarship.law.edu%2Fjc

hlp%2Fvol30%2Fiss1%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Smith, N. (2018, January). Neoliberalism. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism

Stefan, S. (2001). The law and public policy: Psychology and the social sciences. Unequal

rights: Discrimination against people with mental disabilities and the Americans With

Disabilities Act. PsycINFO Database Record. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10386-

000

Thomas, S. (2000). College Students and Disability Law. The Journal of Special Education,

33(4), 248-257. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669000330040


Therein, J.-P., & Dumontier, M. (2009). The United Nations and Global Democracy From

Discourse to Deeds. Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, 44(4),

335-377. doi: 10.1177/0010836709344447

UNDESA DSPD. (2016, September 9). Paralympics Drive Social Inclusion. Retrieved from

United Nations Social Development Network:

http://unsdn.org/2016/09/09/paralympics-drive-social-inclusion/

United Nationsa. (n.d.). History of the United Nations. Retrieved from United Nations:

http://www.un.org/en/sections/history/history-united-nations/

United Nationsb. (n.d.). Member States. Retrieved from United Nations:

http://www.un.org/en/member-states/

United Nations. (2006, December). United Nations Human Rights Office of the High

Commissioner. Retrieved from COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS

WITH DISABILITIES: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDis

abilities.aspx#2

United Nations Enable . (n.d.). Division for Social Policy and Development Disability .

Retrieved from United Nations:

http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/historyinfographic.pdf

United Nations Enable. (2016). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities (CRPD). Retrieved from United Nations:

http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/COP/cosp9_infographic.pdf

United Nations Division for Social Policy and Development Disability. (2006). United

Nations Division for Social Policy and Development Disability. Retrieved from

Article 2 – Definitions: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-

on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-2-definitions.html

United Nations Division for Social Policy and Development Disability . (2008). United

Nations, Sports and the Paralympic Games: Promoting Human Rights, Development

and the Ideals of Humanity. Retrieved from United Nations Division for Social Policy

and Development Disability :

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/united-nations-sports-and-the-

paralympic-games-promoting-human-rights-development-and-the-ideals-of-

humanity.html


United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (n.d.). Human rights of

persons with disabilities. Retrieved from United Nations Human Rights Office of the

High Commissioner:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Disability/Pages/DisabilityIndex.aspx

Waddington, L. (2007). A New Era in Human Rights Protection in the European Community:

The Implications the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons With

Disabilities for the European Community. SSRN Electronic Journal.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1026581

Weed, M., & Dowse, S. (2009). A missed opportunity waiting to happen? The social legacy

potential of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Journal of Policy Research in

Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(2), 170-174.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19407960902992241

Weedon, C. (1996). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory (2 ed.). Oxford, UK:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Weiss, T. G. (2010). How United Nations ideas change history. Review of International

Studies, 36(S1), 3-23. doi:10.1017/S026021051100009X


Appendices

Appendix A: United Nations and Disability

Source: United Nations Enable , n.d.


Appendix B: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

(CRPD)

Source: United Nations Enable, n.d.


Appendix C: National Paralympic Committees of the Americas

Source: International Paralympic Committeea, n.d.


Appendix D: Analysis & Results

introductory analysis of influence, disability sport & policy in the … · 2018-03-10 ·...

Documents