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)

44

Table4

45

Table5

Table6

46

Table7

47

Table8

48

Table9

Table10

49

Table11

Table12

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).