Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T20:48:39.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ADA on the Road: Disability Rights in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Katharina C. Heyer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of a “disability rights model” on the emerging disability rights movement in Germany. Traditional German disability politics and activism are based on the expansion of welfare and special needs provisions rather than on equal rights and integration. Inspired by the 1990 Americans with Disability Act, German activists adopted a disability rights model and successfully worked toward the passage of a constitutional equality amendment in 1994 and ant-discrimination legislation in 2002. Using the literature on rights mobilization, this paper argues that German disability activists use rights talk to both support and contest culturally specific approaches to disability rights, equal treatment, and the role of the state in guaranteeing welfare rights. The globalization of disability rights should not be viewed as an imposition of American norms but as a more complex process of adaptation and cultural transformation that involves constructing locally legitimate approaches to disability rights with an American import.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2002 , pp. 723 - 762
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2002 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnade, Sigrid. 1998. Wer spinnt hier eigendlich Amis, ADA, und Alltagsfreuden (Who's crazy around here? Americans, the ADA, and the joys of everyday life). In Hermes 1998.Google Scholar
Arnade, Sigrid, et al. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Behinderer (The Society of Dis-Ablers). Reinbeck, Germany: Rohwold.Google Scholar
Behindertenbeauftragte 2000. Aktuelle Informationen zum Sachstand eines Bundesgleichstellungsgesetzes (Up-to-date information on the federal equalizing law, available at http://www.behindertenbeauftragte.de/bundesgleich.stm), Berlin: Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für die Belange der Behinderten.Google Scholar
Behindertenbeauftragte 2001. Dokumentation Gleichstellungsgeserze jetzt! (Documentation equalizing law now!). Berlin: Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für die Belange der Behinderten.Google Scholar
BMA. 1994. Dritter Bericht der Bundesregierung über die Lage der Behinderten und die Entwicklung der Rehabilitation (The federal government's third report on the situation of the disabled and the development of rehabilitation). Berlin: Bundesministerium für Arbeit (BMA, or German Labor Ministry).Google Scholar
BMA. 1998. Vierter Bericht der Bundesregierung über die Lage der Behinderten und die Entwicklung der Rehabilitation (The federal government's third report on the situation of the disabled and the development of rehabilitation). Berlin: German Labor Ministry.Google Scholar
BMA. 2000. Beschäftigungschancen Schwerbehinderter nachhaltig verbessert (Employment chances improved for the heavily disabled). Berlin: German Labor Ministry.Google Scholar
Bumiller, Kristin. 1988. The Civil Rights Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Colker, Ruth, 1999. The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 34: 99–162.Google Scholar
Colker, Ruth. (2001). The Americans with Disabilities Act: The First Decade of Enforcement. University Distinguished Lecture, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.Google Scholar
Degener, Theresia. 1996. Disabled Persons and Human Rights: The Legal Framework. In Degener 1996.Google Scholar
Degener, Theresia, and Koster Deese, Yolan, eds. 1996. Human Rights and Disabled Persons. Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
De Jong, Gerben. 1979. Independent Living: From Social Movement to Analytic Paradigm. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 60: 435–46.Google Scholar
Driedger, Diane. 1989. The Last Civil Rights Movement. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Fandrey, Walter, 1990. Krüppel, Idioten, Irre: Zur Sozialgeschichte behinderter Menschen in Deutschland (Crips, idiots, crazies: A social history of people with disabilities in Germany). Stuttgart: Silberburg.Google Scholar
Forum 2000. Entwurf eines Gleichstellungsgesetzes für Behinderte (Draft of an equalizing law for the disabled). Kassel: Forum behinderter Juristinnen und Juristen.Google Scholar
Friedlander, Henry. 1995. The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Hugh. 1990. By Trust Betrayed: Patients, Physicians, and the License to Kill in the Third Reich. Rev. ed. Arlington, Va.: Vandamere Press.Google Scholar
Heiden, Hans-Günther, ed. 1996a. Niemand Darf Wegen Seiner Behinderung Benachteiligt Werden (Nobody shall be discriminated against because of disability). Hamburg: Rororo.Google Scholar
Heiden, Hans-Günther, ed. 1996b. Die Fakten liegen auf dem Tisch: Benachteiligung und Diskriminierund behinderter Menschen in der BR Deutschland (The facts are clear: Disadvantages and discrimination against disabled people in Germany). In Heiden 1996a.Google Scholar
Hermes, Gisela, ed. 1998. Traumland USA: Zwischen Antidiskriminierung und Sozialer Armut (Dreamland USA: Between discrimination and social poverty). Kassel: Bifos.Google Scholar
Heyer, Katharina, 2000. From Welfare to Rights: Japanese Disability Law. Asia-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 20: 197–219.Google Scholar
Heyl, Barbara. 1998. Parents, Politics, and the Public Purse: Activists in the Special Education Arena in Germany. Disability and Society 13: 683–707.Google Scholar
Höck, M. 1977. Die Hilfsschule im Dritten Reich (The special education schools in the Third Reich). Berlin: Marhold.Google Scholar
ISL 1997. Breite Empörung gegen das Verfassungsgerichtsurteil zur schulischen Integration Behinderter (Constitutional court decision on educational integration met with widespread indignation). Behindertenverband Interessenvertretung “Selbstbestimmt Leben” Deutschland e. V. (German Independent Living Organization). Available at http://www.behinderte.de/bvg/bvg-isl.htm Available at http://www.behinderte.de/bvg/bvg-isl.htm.Google Scholar
Kolb, Stefan, and Seithe, Horst, eds. 1998. Medizin und Gewissen: 50 Jahre nach dem Nürnberger Aezteprozess (Medicine and conscience: Fifty years after the physicians' Trial of Nurnberg). Frankfurt: Mabuse.Google Scholar
Jackson, Christopher. 1993. Infirminitve Action: The Law of the Severely Disabled in Germany. Central European History 26: 417–55.Google Scholar
Robert, Lipton. 1986. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. H. 1952. Citizenship and Social Class. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miles-Paul, Ottmar. 1992. Wir sind nicht mehr Aufzuhalten (Nobody can stop us). München: AG SPAG.Google Scholar
Miles-Paul, Ottmar. 1998. Empowerment oder warum stärken wir uns nicht selbst? (Empowerment, Or why don't we just strengthen ourselves?). In Hermes 1998.Google Scholar
Minow, Martha. 1990. Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mittler, Karl-Josef, and Zierden, Heike. 1997. Eine Kampagne? Eine Kampagne! Warum es die Aktion Grundgesetz gibt. (A campaign? A campaign! Why the Operation Basic Law exists). In Arnade et al. 1997.Google Scholar
Murray-Seegert, Carola. 1989. Integration in Germany: Mainstreaming or Swimming Upstream Remedial and Special Education 13: 34–43.Google Scholar
Nowak, Klara. 1998. Verweigerte Anerkennung als NS-Verfolgte: Zwangssterelisierte und Euthanasie-Geschädigte (Victims of forced sterilization and euthanasia: Denied acknowledgment as persecuted under National Socialism). In Kolb and Seithe 1998.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Ruth. 2001. Crippled Justice: The History of Modern Disability Policy in the Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Oechsner, Andreas, and Hans-Günther, Heiden. 1996. Sie sind systemfremd! (You are a stranger to the system!). In Heiden 1996a.Google Scholar
Oliver, Michael. 1990. The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Oliver, Michael. 1996. Disability Politics: Understanding Our Past, Changing Our Future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, David, 1998. The ICIDH and the Needs for its Revision. Disability and Society 13: 503–23.Google Scholar
Prengel, Angela. 1993. Pädagogik der Vielfalt: Verschiedenheit und Gleichberechtigung in Interkultureller, Feministischer, und Integrativer Pädagogik (Pedagogy of difference: Difference and equality in intercultural, feminist, and integration pedagogy). Opladen, Germany: Leske and Budrich.Google Scholar
Roebke, C. 1988. Unser Weg (Our path). In Ratgeber gegen Aussonderung (How to avoid segregation), ed. Rosenberger, M. Heidelberg: Edition Schindele.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, Manfred. 1996. Gemeinsam Leben–Gemeinsam Lernen (Living together–Learning together). In Heiden 1996a.Google Scholar
Rudnick, Martin. 1985. Behinderte im Nationalsozialismus (The disabled under National Socialism). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Forschungsberichte.Google Scholar
Scotch, Richard. 2001. From Good Will to Civil Rights: Transforming Federal Disability Policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, Barett, ed. 1994. The Ragged Edge: The Disability Experience from the Pages of the First Fifteen Years of the Disability Rag. Louisville, Ky.: Advocado Press.Google Scholar
Silvers, Anita, Wasserman, David, and Mahowald, Mary B., eds. 1998. Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Theben, Bettina, 1998. Gleichstellungsgesetze für Behinderte Menschen in den Bundesländern (Equalizing laws for disabled people in the federal states). Kassel: Bifos.Google Scholar
Theben, Bettina, 1999. Bürgerrechte behinderter Menschen: das Urteil des OLG Köln und seine Implikation für die Gleichstellung (Civil rights of disabled people: The ruling of the state supreme court of Cologne and its implications for equalization). In Qualitätsicherung und Deinstitutionalisierung: Niemand darf wegen seiner Behinderung benachteiligt werden (Ensuring quality and deinstitutionalization: Nobody shall be discriminated against because of disability), ed. Jantzen, W. Berlin: Edition Marhold.Google Scholar
Waddington, Lisa. 1994. Legislating to Employ People with Disabilities: The European and the American Way. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 1(4): 367–367.Google Scholar
Watson, Alan. 1974. Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) 1980. International Classification of Impairments, Disability, and Handicap (ICIDH). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar