File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Bringing the Adult Guardianship Regime in Line with the UNCRPD: The Chinese Experience

TitleBringing the Adult Guardianship Regime in Line with the UNCRPD: The Chinese Experience
Authors
Issue Date2021
PublisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/
Citation
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 2021, v. 35 n. 1, p. article no. ebab016 How to Cite?
AbstractThis article examines the Chinese experience with adult guardianship, focusing in particular on the regimes in Hong Kong and China. As jurisdictions in which the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘UNCRPD’) applies, a key question is whether the adult guardianship regimes in these jurisdictions can be considered compliant with the principles of the UNCRPD, specifically those in Article 12. The adult guardianship regimes in both jurisdictions are in essence substitute decision-making regimes and are therefore not consistent with the interpretation of Article 12 by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or what is described as the ‘strong interpretation’ in this article. The question remains, however, as to whether they might be nonetheless considered compliant with what is described in this article as the ‘weak interpretation’. This article explores supported decision-making, the concept of capacity and the existence and sufficiency of safeguards in each of the two regimes, concluding that neither regime can be considered compliant even using the weak interpretation of Article 12. Reflections on the way forward are discussed.
DescriptionHybrid open access
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/301386
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 0.9
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.297
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCheung, D-
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-27T08:10:17Z-
dc.date.available2021-07-27T08:10:17Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 2021, v. 35 n. 1, p. article no. ebab016-
dc.identifier.issn1360-9939-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/301386-
dc.descriptionHybrid open access-
dc.description.abstractThis article examines the Chinese experience with adult guardianship, focusing in particular on the regimes in Hong Kong and China. As jurisdictions in which the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘UNCRPD’) applies, a key question is whether the adult guardianship regimes in these jurisdictions can be considered compliant with the principles of the UNCRPD, specifically those in Article 12. The adult guardianship regimes in both jurisdictions are in essence substitute decision-making regimes and are therefore not consistent with the interpretation of Article 12 by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or what is described as the ‘strong interpretation’ in this article. The question remains, however, as to whether they might be nonetheless considered compliant with what is described in this article as the ‘weak interpretation’. This article explores supported decision-making, the concept of capacity and the existence and sufficiency of safeguards in each of the two regimes, concluding that neither regime can be considered compliant even using the weak interpretation of Article 12. Reflections on the way forward are discussed.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/-
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Law, Policy and the Family-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.titleBringing the Adult Guardianship Regime in Line with the UNCRPD: The Chinese Experience-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailCheung, D: dtcheung@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, D=rp02092-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/lawfam/ebab016-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85112143636-
dc.identifier.hkuros323612-
dc.identifier.volume35-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. ebab016-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. ebab016-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000754657300022-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats