The background sources on evolution of disability protection under the African RHRS, showed features of the medical model. This model is evidenced in the manner the sources such as the ARI of 1985, the ACRWC of 1990 and Mauritius declaration, present the framing of disability related obligations. They give greater attention to rehabilitating impairments of Africans by making reasonable adjustment that increase accessibility. The 2003 Kigali Protocol, and the MPW, have similar approaches.
During situations of armed conflict, the MPW and the ACRWC, avail generalised protection to African women and children under this RHRS. However, those
generalised obligations are problematic since they symbolise a failure by both bodies to oblige African States to extend special protection to women and children with disabilities, during this second phase of the three-stage cycle. Although this weakness might be addressed by the proposed ADP.
Records on most recent resolutions from working groups of the African
Commission, tend to emulate the application of the same model of disability (social rights model) as UNHRTBs that have been previously examined in Chapters Three and Four of this thesis.
Therefore, the African Commission is still applying an individual model of disability, especially when addressing post-conflict disability concerns. It appears logical to initially rehabilitate the body of an individual amputated during the armed conflict, and afterwards undertake adjustment in their external environments to adapt it for the disability. It would be useful for the intended African Protocol on persons with disabilities to form a hybrid, with the social model and medical models of disability allowing for adaptations and modifications, and complementarity to be applied, especially in African States that have been affected by the three-stage cycle. In the last two decades, a considerable number of States in Sub-Saharan African, and MENA States, have experienced situations of war-related disabilities,
for the coordination of humanitarian affairs (OCHA) Regional Support Office for Central and East Africa and Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), UN OCHA and IRIN Publications (November 2004).
172 leading to questions regarding the appropriacy of the Protocol in strengthening the obligations of protecting persons with disabilities contained in Article 11 of the CRPD.
Given the scare resources in post-conflict States, there is a lesser likelihood of emphasising the progressive realisation of socioeconomic rights, especially in a jus post bellum context. However, even where socioeconomic rights are considered, the inward-looking approach seems more prominent given the role of rehabilitation in enhancing post-conflict mobility and eventual enjoyment of liberty among the increased number of persons with disabilities in regions such as Northern Uganda. This observation on progressive realisation and increased number of armed conflict disabilities, casts doubts on the practicability of applying the same model of disability, to frame socioeconomic rights, as well as civil and political rights, owed by peaceful States and post-conflict States, to persons with disabilities.
In terms of the emerging discourse on the possible models of disability for the African RHRS, to a small extent, this analysis concludes that there might be need for an amalgam of the medical and social model to create a multidimensional model. This research advances a divergent view from that of Abbay, Kamga, Combrink, Mute and Kalekye who condemn the application of an individual model in support of a social rights-based model. The views of these scholars are seen to be embracing the universalism of the social rights-based model that has gained considerable popularity from UNHRTBs. However, this research thinks complementarity and interconnectedness are vital. The chronological sequence for the application of models should start with the medical model, during and after armed conflict, before applying the social model for accessibility, adaptability and the mobility requirements of African with disabilities.
To that end, perhaps the aforementioned scholars are correct with respect to recommending that the ADP of this regional system must adopt aspects of the social model of disability. Nonetheless, the differing view of this thesis from the above protagonists originates in relation to the adoption of a social model to encompass post-armed conflict Member States, in which a social model seems insufficient due to the risk of misdirecting the priorities of State obligations in relation to thousands of
173 individuals under the category of ‘Mr/Miss/Mrs A’ in the tables above. In essence, it appears the above scholars have overlooked the implications and impacts of an armed conflict- disabling relationship that makes the medical and individual models essential in post-conflict settings.
Accordingly, this analysis agrees with the valuable observations of opposing scholars such as Habasch,742 Kabbara and Nagata,743 Priestly,744 and Businge,745 who are more inclined to support the medical and the individual model as a better benchmark for guiding the disability related obligations of State Parties in the aftermath of armed conflicts. This proposition is well supported by several human rights reports related to a number of post-armed conflict African States.746 The reports illustrate how the consequential problems from armed conflicts’ disabling environments are best suited for applying the individualised model of rehabilitation the affected individuals.747
By now, it should be evident how this research has noted that although African RHRSs have continued to apply the individual model of disability, they have lately succumbed to the global trend of prioritising the social rights model. Although the social model might have its merits, it is sometimes insufficient, and inappropriate, in instructing and guiding aspects upon which the obligations of post-armed conflict State Actors should be constructed. This issue is vital in the context of the African regional system, given the illustrated cases of the armed conflict’s disabling
environment which continue to manifest itself among several Member States to the ACHPR. That observation, is that the application of the medical and individual
742 R. Habasch, ‘Is the Rights Model of Disability Valid in Post-conflict Lebanon? A Participatory Pilot Survey’,
Journal of Palestine Studies (1997) 27 (1) pp. 126,135.
743 K. K. Nagata, ‘Disability and Development: Is the Rights Model of Disability Valid in the Arab Region? An
Evidence Based Field Survey in Lebanon and Jordan’, Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal (2008) 19 (1) pp. 60, 78. See also. M. Berghs and N. Kabbara, Disabled People in Conflicts and Wars. In Disability in the
Global South: The Critical Handbook, S. Grech and K. Soldatic, (eds.) (London, Springer, 2016) pp. 269-285. 744 M. Priestly, ‘Introduction the global context of disability’, Disability and the Life Course Discourse: Global perspective, M. Priestly (ed.) (Cambridge university Press, 2001) pg. 8.
745 P. Businge, ‘Disability and armed conflict: A quest for Africanising disability in Uganda Disability and the
Global South, (2016) 3(1) pp. 816-842.
746 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Making peace our own Victims’
Perceptions of Accountability, Reconciliation and Transitional Justice in Northern Uganda’, United Nations 2007, pg. 15. See also. United Nations OCHA and IRIN Report, ‘When the Sun Sets We Begin to Worry’, Office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs (OCHA) Regional Support Office for Central and East Africa and Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), United Nations OCHA and IRIN Publications (November 2004).
174 module, should be merited rather than discouraged by this RHRS, in order to
enhance a conducive atmosphere for the development of TWAIL specifically in the context of international disability law.
Perhaps contemporary problems and impacts of the armed conflicts’ disabling consequences are calling for the application of disability related duties, framed upon the medical or individual models of disability. Protecting persons with disabilities is strengthened if regional human rights systems consider models of disability that LOAC and the ICRC apply to disability related obligations of those States, during and after, situations of armed conflict. Such an understanding should be attentive to disabling problems, and impacts of an armed conflict’s environments, to develop a prototype of TWAIL which would benefit indicators of disablement that are
175