IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/lawfam/v35y2021i1pebab016..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Daisy Cheung

Abstract

This 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Daisy Cheung, 2021. "Bringing the Adult Guardianship Regime in Line with the UNCRPD: The Chinese Experience," International Journal of Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-016..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:35:y:2021:i:1:p:ebab016.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/lawfam/ebab016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:35:y:2021:i:1:p:ebab016.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/lawfam .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.