September 12, 2022 Global Indicators Briefs No. 11 The Importance of Designing Gender and Disability Inclusive Laws: A Survey of Legislation in 190 Economies Julia Constanze Braunmiller and Marie Dry W omen with disabilities face additional barriers to their participation in the economy and society compared to men, with and without disabilities, and relative to nondisabled women, resulting in unequal parental rights, discrimination in their private life and the workplace, reduced employment opportunities, lower earnings, and high exposure to gender-based violence. ˜e legal recognition of multiple forms of discrimination is a vital ÿrst step to address and, ultimately, enforce the human rights of women with disabilities and protect them from discriminatory practices. ˜e law is thus one key element to achieve their full inclusion and enable societies to thrive in the long run. ˜is Brief presents data collected by the World Bank’s Women, Business and the Law project on the legal barriers that women with disabilities face when accessing economic opportunities in 190 economies. ˜e new data suggest that only one-quarter of economies worldwide explicitly protect and promote the rights of women with disabilities. The crucial need for law to address multiple presume—among others—that the woman in question is dimensions of discrimination against women nondisabled. To ÿll the gap left by this assumption, a new data set of 11 questions was developed to investigate how laws include with disabilities or exclude women with disabilities from accessing economic Women with disabilities face particular barriers, including job opportunities (Box 1). ˜is data collection e˛ort updates the discrimination and gender-related violence, compared to pilot project from 2020, which assessed the overarching nondisabled women and to men, with and without disabilities. ˜e constitutional and legal frameworks on the protection of women Second Global Disability Summit, held in February 2022, ended with disabilities in 176 economies. ˜e 11 new research with a call for participants to commit to a human rights-based questions were designed in collaboration with disability rights approach to development that is inclusive of people with experts and data was collected with the help of Women, Business disabilities and places a particular focus on gender equality. Such an and the Law’s more than two thousand experts in local law in the 190 economies. intersectional and holistic approach is necessary to mitigate the continued exclusion of persons with disabilities from ˜is Brief presents ÿndings from the ÿrst three questions of socioeconomic life. Four years earlier, at the ÿrst Global Disability the new data set, which assess the overarching legal framework by Summit held in London in 2018, the World Bank Group made 10 analyzing the presence of nondiscrimination provisions in gender Commitments on Disability-Inclusive Development to set the and disability legislation. ˜e data are based on laws passed stage for global action toward full inclusion of persons with before October 1, 2021. A second Brief in this series will explore disabilities (World Bank Group 2018a, 2018b). ˜e fourth of these the remaining eight questions, focusing more speciÿcally on the 10 commitments called for the “introduction of questions on rights to family life, labor inclusion, and a life free from violence disability into the Women, Business and the Law survey to better for women with disabilities. understand the economic empowerment of women with disabilities.” It is estimated that more than a billion persons globally, about 15 percent of the total world population, experience some ˜is Brief is a result of the e˛orts undertaken by the Women, form of a disability and 2 percent to 4 percent experience severe Business and the Law (WBL) project to assess the rights of women disabilities (World Bank and WHO 2011). Disability is a diverse with disabilities in 190 economies. It builds on the existing WBL and evolving concept that results from the interaction of one or index, which, to ensure comparability of the data across this large multiple impairments, that can be of di˛erent types (physical, set of economies, posits standardized assumptions that mental, intellectual, or sensory) and degrees, with a set Affiliations: World Bank, Development Economics, Women, Business and the Law. For correspondence: jbraunmiller@worldbank.org; mdry@worldbank.org. Acknowledgements: This Brief is a part of a research effort on women with disabilities documented by the Women, Business and the Law (WBL) team. Support for this research is provided by the Human Rights, Inclusion and Empowerment (HRIE) Umbrella Trust Fund. This Brief would not be possible without the research work of Nelsy Affoum, Mila Cantar, Claudia Lenny Corminales, Diana Guevara Duque, Rebecca Ego, Mahmoud Elsaman, Aida Hammoud Watson, Amanie Issa, Jessica Maeda Jeri, Viktoria Khaitina, Jungwon Kim, Pedro Magariño, Oneall Marcy Massamba, Perrine Monnet, Olena Mykhalchenko, Isabel Santagostino Recavarren, Katrin Schulz, Liang Shen, Yulia Borisovna Valerio, Nayantara Vohra, and Siyi Wang. The authors would also like to thank Charlotte McClain-Nhlapo and Sabina Anne Espinoza for helpful peer review, and Norman Loayza, Tea Trumbic, and David Francis for comments and for guiding the publication process. Objective and disclaimer: This series of Global Indicators Briefs synthesizes existing research and data to shed light on a useful and interesting question for policy debate. Data for this Brief are extracted from the WBL database. These Briefs carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. This Brief contains figcaptions and is designed to be accessible including for the visually impaired. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank Group, its Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. All Briefs in the series can be accessed via: https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/brief/global-indicators-briefs-series. https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/brief/global-indicators-briefs-series. DECIG – Global Indicators Briefs No. 11 Box 1 Women, Business and the Law 2022 research questions on the rights of women with disabilities °e data collection e˝ort poses 11 new questions. °is Brief analyzes data from the ÿrst 3 questions. 1. Is there a gender equality or nondiscrimination law that speciÿcally recognizes and protects the rights of women with disabilities? 2. Is there a law on persons with disabilities that speciÿcally protects and promotes the rights of women with disabilities? 3. Does the disability rights law follow the social model? 4. Does the law provide support to women with disabilities in the exercise of their parental rights and responsibilities (e. g., extension of maternity leave, ÿnancial aid, legal protection to keep custody for children, etc.)? 5. Is there a law or policy that mandates reasonable accommodation for workers with disabilities? 6. If the answer is “Yes,” does the reasonable accommodation law or policy mention women with disabilities? 7. Are there incentives in law or policy for businesses to employ persons with disabilities (e. g., quotas, tax breaks, wage replacement)? 8. If the answer is “Yes,” does the employment incentive law or policy mention women with disabilities? 9. Does the domestic violence law explicitly address women with disabilities? 10. Does the domestic violence law establish accessibility to services for women with disabilities survivors of violence? 11. Is there legislation on sexual harassment against women with disabilities? environment. According to the World Health Organization’s parent, or a legal guardian, is one example (Special Rapporteur on World Health Survey, most persons with disabilities (80 percent) the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2017). °is practice live in developing countries, and the prevalence of disability for continues to this day across the globe: for example, in the United women is signiÿcantly higher than for men. °ese rates are also States, in 31 states and Washington, DC, persons with disabilities higher in lower-income countries: 22.1 percent of women in can be forced to be sterilized in certain cases (National Women’s lower-income countries have a disability compared to 14.4 percent Law Center 2022); and it was only in 2020 that Spain removed a in higher-income countries (WHO 2002–2004). Penal Code provision allowing forced sterilization (Government of Spain 2020). °e experience of women with disabilities is thus not °e socioeconomic inclusion of persons with disabilities is not simply an aggregate or an ampliÿcation of the experience of persons only the right thing to do from a human rights standpoint; it is also with disabilities but rather a unique experience informed by the the right economic decision. Studies have shown that the social intersection of gender and disability (Box 2). Disability sets the exclusion of those with disabilities is positively (and statistically experiences of women with disabilities apart from those of signiÿcantly) associated with economic poverty: inclusion can lead nondisabled women by converging two statuses that interact with to substantial gains through increased earnings at the individual one another: the type, severity, and visibility of one’s disability and household level and reduced government spending on social in˛uences the degree to which she is subjected to societal protection programs (Banks and Polack 2014; Banks, Kuper, and expectations about her gender (Gerschick 2000). Such multiple Polack 2017). °e exclusion of persons with disabilities is costly to and complex barriers, including negative bias and misconceptions economies at large, as it results in lost tax revenue for governments about their capacity, have been found to deprive women with (Muntz and Meier 2013) and lost productivity for businesses disabilities of access to education, employment, health care, and (Houtenville and Kalargyrou 2012). One of the most family life (Quinn et al. 2016). Available data show that the comprehensive studies on low- and middle-income countries employment rates of women with disabilities are lowest compared projected that the exclusion of persons with disabilities from the to men with disabilities and nondisabled men and women labor market led to income losses ranging from 3 percent to 7 (ILOSTAT 2010–2021). Additionally, women with disabilities percent of the 2006 or 2007 national GDP of the 10 countries face higher rates of gender-based violence and harassment, studied (Buckup 2010). A more recent estimate similarly found including at the hands of their caregivers (World Bank Group that the exclusion of persons with disabilities from the workforce in 2019). °e limited data available suggest that women with Spain amounted to 4 percent of GDP in 2020 (Cámara, Martínez, disabilities are up to ten times more likely than nondisabled women and Santero-Sánchez 2020). to experience violence (Dunkle et al. 2018; Ozemela, Ortiz, and Urban 2019). National laws and policies shape how persons with disabilities can participate in social and economic activities. While Traditionally, laws and policies have neglected the speciÿc international law provides the framework to protect and empower needs of women with disabilities by focusing predominantly on persons with disabilities, domestic laws and policies hold the gender or disability issues (CRPD Committee 2016). Similarly, potential to fully realize their socioeconomic inclusion. A 2016 while there are currently e˝orts to collect more data disaggregated global study of disability and labor legislation illustrated how by disability status using an internationally agreed upon domestic laws can pose structural barriers to the participation of instrument—the Washington Group Short Set on persons with mental disabilities in competitive employment Functioning—the intersection of disability and gender remains (Nardodkar et al. 2016). Empowering and inclusive laws and understudied (Mitra and Yap 2021). Very few global data sets allow policies are particularly needed for women with disabilities who for cross-country comparisons of data disaggregated by disability face multiple forms of discrimination based on their gender and status and gender. As a result of this gap in data, policies are disability status (along with other identities, such as race, age, predominantly designed in a way that accounts either for disability sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and so on). or gender and thus fail to embody the experience of women with disabilities. For example, a policy on access to services for women, When gender and disability interact, when silent on the issue of disability, can indirectly exclude women discrimination multiplies with disabilities from equal access to these services. A study conducted in India, for example, uncovered that sexual and Women with disabilities experience multifaceted forms of reproductive health care services designed for nondisabled persons discrimination and negative stereotypical attitudes in every domain imposed signiÿcant barriers for women with disabilities. Medical of life. °e practice of forced sterilization, ordered by a judge, a professionals were found to hold stigmatizing views of disability as 2 DECIG – Global Indicators Briefs No. 11 Box 2 Why does intersectionality matter? °e situation of individuals with intersecting identities was ÿrst geography, and age—may also overlap and thus compound the coined in relation to the unique experience of women of color, for exclusion of women with disabilities at both the individual and whom race and gender intersect (Crenshaw 1990). Women with systemic level. Laws focusing on distinct and separate grounds of disabilities face unique experiences of discrimination and exclusion discrimination fail to account for these experiences. On the informed by both disability and sex. Additionally, other identities contrary, well-designed laws and policies can guarantee equal such as socioeconomic status—especially poverty, race, ethnicity, protection of women with disabilities, including from gender-based language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, violence, and contribute to their socioeconomic inclusion. a problem to be ÿxed, which prevented women with disabilities awareness raising, freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse, from accessing adequate health care. °e same study exposed other health, and adequate standard of living and social protection. barriers in accessing medical facilities and devices, such as inadequate height of examination tables, inaccessible bathrooms, One of the 11 questions of the data set captures whether the and the lack of sign language interpreters and assistants during national disability rights law follows the social model of disability medical checkups and procedures (Salian 2022). °ese barriers can promoted by the CRPD. Historically, disability has been understood thus be structural, sociocultural, and ÿnancial. Likewise, attitudinal using the medical model, which presents disability as a condition, a barriers and stigma around the sexualities of women with defect, or a sickness to be cured or treated (Kaplan 1999). Under the disabilities limit their access to reproductive health care because social model, however, disability is viewed as the result of the professionals often believe they do not need these services (WHO interaction between impairments and environmental barriers that and UNFPA 2009). exclude a person from accessing equal rights and opportunities. Barriers can therefore disappear when e˛orts are made to change the When it comes to breaking down some of the barriers to full environment to become more enabling. As such, it is up to policy inclusion, laws can play an important role. °e absence of makers to create an environment that no longer imposes barriers to recognition of intersectional discrimination in law overemphasizes access for persons with disabilities. Additionally, the methodology a group’s homogeneity. Laws then seem to consider all women as for analysis considers that gender-neutral language constitutes a good similarly situated: for example, as nondisabled. °is failure to practice when dealing with issues that disproportionately a˛ect acknowledge diversity within one group prevents laws from women, such as sexual harassment, domestic violence, and e˛ectively protecting and meeting the needs of subgroups, such as reproductive and parental rights. For other topics, however, the women with disabilities (Uccellari 2008). In Australia, for example, methodology accounts for the added impact of gender on the legal order focuses on separate and distinct grounds of disability-based exclusion, by giving preference to a˝rmative action discrimination and fails to account for the multiple and on both grounds—disability and sex. overlapping experiences of discrimination (CEDAW Committee 2018). However, such experiences are not uncommon: in an Three-quarters of economies around the world Australian study, 39.2 percent of persons with disabilities reported do not legally recognize multiple discrimination being victims of multiple discrimination based on age, race, gender, and other protected grounds (Blackham and Temple 2020). When of women with disabilities laws and policies do not grasp the realities of women with While the legal recognition of multiple discrimination is disabilities, they perpetuate situations of socioeconomic exclusion required by Article 6 of the CRPD, traditionally, in most and gender-based violence. economies, victims could only bring a case of discrimination before courts based on one ground, not multiple ones. °is leads to either Filling the gaps through policy research on the disability or gender component being left out of discrimination women with disabilities claims. However, as examples of the unique forms of discrimination and exclusion experienced by women with °e methodology for analysis of the Women, Business and the disabilities show, it is only when a law recognizes multiple Law research questions is based on international standards: most discrimination that it can address the entirety of the discriminatory importantly, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of experience (Box 3). °e inclusion of multiple discrimination is, Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). °e CRPD is one of the nine however, debated in legal practice because claims brought on core UN human rights treaties. It entered into force in 2008 and multiple grounds are—for now—less likely to be won by plainti˛s has been ratiÿed by 185 countries to date. Article 6 of the due to challenges to meet evidentiary requirements and the lag in Convention recognizes the multiple discrimination to which justice systems in adjusting to this new framing of discrimination women with disabilities are subjected. °is Article is unique in its (Best et al. 2011). scope and is the result of debates on whether a “mainstreaming” or “twin-track” approach should be adopted in the Convention. Data collected by Women, Business and the Law on the legal Proponents of the mainstreaming approach—where the needs of recognition of multiple discrimination against women with men and women are addressed simultaneously throughout the disabilities shows that distinct approaches to gender and disability Convention—argued that a speciÿc mention would increase the remain the norm. While 86 out of 190 economies studied have a likelihood of missing other vulnerable groups. Proponents of the gender equality or nondiscrimination law, only 30 of these twin-track approach—which advocates explicit mentions of speciÿcally mention the rights of women with disabilities. Further, gender—argued that only a speciÿc article would enable countries while 157 economies have a disability rights law, only 52 mention to actively address the issues women with disabilities face. °e women with disabilities. °is means that only one-quarter of twin-track approach was supported by representatives of disability economies worldwide explicitly recognize the rights of women with rights organizations and ultimately prevailed in the form of Article disabilities (Map 1). Strikingly, only 10 economies have mentions 6 (Kim 2013). Additionally, the CRPD mentions gender issues in of women with disabilities in both legal instruments (Austria, El its Preamble and in six other articles on general principles, Salvador, °e Gambia, Germany, Republic of Korea, Marshall 3 DECIG – Global Indicators Briefs No. 11 A labor court in Belgium found a woman to be a victim of multiple discrimination on the basis of Box 3 sex and disability ˜e case that follows, brought before a labor court in Belgium, have rejected her application if she had been a hearing candidate shows that the legal recognition of multiple discrimination is needed who was not pregnant. to address discrimination claims of individuals holding multiple, intersecting identities. ˜e Labor Court of Antwerp in the ÿrst instance ruled this a case of triple discrimination, on the basis of disability during the Ms. F. applied for a position as Research and Development application process when Ms. F. was o˛ered a lower-quality job, and Assistant at a pharmaceutical company. During the recruitment on the bases of disability and pregnancy with regard to the decision process, after she disclosed her hearing impairment and pregnancy, not to hire. It declared that the three associated damages are she was o˛ered a lower-level, temporary administrative job. cumulative because refusing such cumulation would amount to Ultimately, she was not selected for any position at the company. unequal treatment of a victim of multiple discrimination compared to a victim of discrimination on the basis of only one protected Ms. F. ÿled two separate claims in front of the labor court criterion. arguing that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her disability (in violation of the General Anti-Discrimination Act) and ˜e appellate Labor Court of Antwerp upheld the lower court’s on the basis of her pregnancy (which constitutes sex discrimination decision that this is a case of discrimination based on multiple under the Gender Act). ˜e burden of proof fell onto the defendant grounds—disability and sex. It also conÿrmed the possibility of a because Ms. F. was able to establish a prima facie case of cumulation of damages awarded under the Anti-Discrimination Act discrimination. ˜e company was not able to prove that it would as well as under the Gender Act. Source: Labor Court of Antwerpen, Department of Antwerpen, Chamber 2, Judgment 2020/AA/417 of June 28, 2021. https://www.tribunaux-rechtbanken.be/sites/default/files/media/ahct/antwerpen/files/2021-06-28_arrest_a_website.pdf https://www.tribunaux-rechtbanken.be/sites/default/files/media/ahct/antwerpen/files/2021-06-28_arrest_a_website.pdf Islands, Peru, Spain, Türkiye, Zambia). CRPD in 2008, countries have been designing their national disability rights legislation in adherence to obligations under this ˜e research ÿndings are further disaggregated into laws that Convention. While only 5 economies had a national disability law apply the social model (as opposed to the outdated medical model). in 1990, one of which was inclusive of gender, as of 2005, 55 About half of the world’s economies that have a disability rights law economies had enacted a domestic disability law, and by October (74 out of 157) use the social model of disability in line with 1, 2021, 157 economies had a disability law in place. E˛orts to international standards established by the CRPD; and out of the 52 abide by international obligations have also addressed the gap in economies where the disability law speciÿcally protects and the inclusion of gender: 43 out of the 52 disability rights promotes the rights of women with disabilities, 39 use the social instruments with speciÿc mentions of gender or women with model (Figure 1). disabilities have been enacted since 2005 (Figure 2). Despite these improvements, Women, Business and the Law data show that 138 ˜e data also show the importance and e˛ectiveness of economies still do not speciÿcally protect and promote the rights of international commitments. Since the entry into force of the women with disabilities in their disability rights laws. Map 1 Only one-quarter of economies worldwide explicitly recognize the rights of women with disabilities Source: Women, Business and the Law database. Note: A score of 2 is attributed to economies with both a gender equality or nondiscrimination law that mentions women with disabilities and a law on persons with disabilities, using either the medical or the social model, that mentions women with disabilities. A score of 1 is attributed to economies with either a gender equality or nondiscrimination law or a disability rights law, using either the medical or the social model, that recognizes multiple discrimination. A score of 0 is attributed to economies where there is no law that explicitly mentions the rights of women with disabilities. 4 DECIG – Global Indicators Briefs No. 11 About half of economies use the social model of disability in their laws, in line with Figure 1 international standards Source: Women, Business and the Law database. While the number of economies with disability laws has nearly tripled from 1990 to 2022, Figure 2 only about one-third of them specifically address women Source: Women, Business and the Law database. Note: The number of economies with laws are not mutually exclusive i. e. economies that have laws that specifically protect and promote the rights of women with disabilities are also counted as economies with a law on persons with disabilities. CRPD = United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 5 DECIG – Global Indicators Briefs No. 11 Data on good legal practices are needed to Additional data analysis will assess the rights to family life, work, advance gender- and disability-inclusive laws, and a life free from violence for women with disabilities. ˜e eight remaining questions of the new Women, Business and the policies, and development projects Law dataset examine such speciÿc issues, including parental rights, Data collected and analyzed by the Women, Business and the inclusive labor markets, and protection from sexual harassment and Law project in 2022 show that laws around the world largely fail to domestic violence. A second Brief in this series will explore these take into account the unique experience of women with disabilities. particular topics and explain in more detail how laws and policies At the global level, there is a continued lack of economic outcome can promote the socioeconomic inclusion of women with data disaggregated by both gender and disability status—rendering disabilities. quantitative analysis di˙cult. ˜erefore, a review of good practices While legal recognition of multiple forms of discrimination is as presented by the Women, Business and the Law research can a vital ÿrst step to address the human rights of women with inform development projects to be inclusive of gender as well as disabilities, anti-discriminatory practices need to be e˛ectively disabilities and guide evidence-based law and policy making. Such addressed and enforced. A “Toolkit” on embedding the rights of e˛orts are highly needed at a time where inclusion of persons with women with disabilities in development projects is likewise being disabilities is becoming an issue of growing importance for World developed to provide concrete examples how policies can be Bank Group policies and operations. implemented and how operational challenges can be overcome. ˜e law, data, knowledge, resources, and concrete, hands-on action The way forward requires deeper analysis and are all vital elements to achieve the full inclusion of women with informed action disabilities and enable societies to thrive in the long run. References Banks Lena Morgon, Hannah Kuper, and Sarah Polack. 2017. “Poverty and Muntz, Harlan R., and Jeremy D. Meier. 2013. “˜e Financial Impact of Disability in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.” Unrepaired Cleft Lip and Palate in the Philippines.” International Journal of PLOS ONE 13 (9): e0204881. Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 77 (12): 1925–28. Banks, Lena Morgon, and Sarah Polack. 2014. ˜e Economic Costs of Exclusion Nardodkar, Renuka, Soumitra Pathare, Antonio Ventriglio, João and Gains of Inclusion of People with Disabilities: Evidence from Low and Castaldelli-Maia, Kenneth R. Javate, Julio Torales, and Dinesh Bhugra. Middle Income Countries. CBM, International Centre for Evidence in 2016. “Legal Protection of the Right to Work and Employment for Persons Disability, and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. with Mental Health Problems: A Review of Legislation across the World.” Best, Rachel Kahn, Lauren B. Edelman, Linda Hamilton Krieger, and Scott R. International Review of Psychiatry 28 (4): 375–84. Eliason. 2011. “Multiple Disadvantages: An Empirical Test of National Women’s Law Center. 2022. Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in Intersectionality ˜eory in EEO Litigation.” Law & Society Review 45 (4): the United States. National Women’s Law Center, Washington, DC. 991–1025. Ozemela, Luana, Diana Ortiz, and Anne-Marie Urban. 2019. “Violence Blackham, Alysia, and Jeromey Temple. 2020. “Intersectional Discrimination Against Women and Girls with Disabilities, Latin America and the in Australia: An Empirical Critique of the Legal Framework.” University of Caribbean.” Policy Brief DB-PB-302, Gender and Diversity Division, New South Wales Law Journal 43 (3): 773–800. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. Buckup, Sebastian. 2010. ˜e Price of Excluding People with Disabilities from the Workplace. Geneva: International Labor Organization. Quinn, Marlee Elizabeth, Cynthia L. Hunter, Sumanta Ray, Mohammad Morshedul Quadir Rimon, Krishno Sen, and Robert Cumming. 2016. Cámara, Angeles, Isabel Martínez, and Rosa Santero-Sánchez. 2020. “˜e Double Burden: Barriers and Facilitators to Socioeconomic Inclusion “Macroeconomic Cost of Excluding Persons with Disabilities from the for Women with Disability in Bangladesh.” Disability, CBR & Inclusive Workforce in Spain.” IZA Journal of Labor Policy 10 (1). Development 27 (2): 128–49. CEDAW Committee (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Salian, Priti. 2022. “I am disabled, it doesn't mean I have no dignity.” Lancet against Women). 2018. “Concluding Observations on the 8th Periodic 399 (10322): 349–50. Report of Australia.” United Nations, New York. Spain, Government of. 2020. “Commentary by the Government of Spain on CRPD Committee (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). the Grevio’s Final Report on Legislative and Other Measures to Implement 2016. “General Comment No. 3 (2016): Article 6: Women and Girls with the Provisions of the Istanbul Convention.” Received by Group of Experts Disabilities.” United Nations, New York. on Action against Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1990. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity (GREVIO) on November 19, 2020, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France. Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43: 1241. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2017. “Report on Dunkle, Kirstin, Ingrid van der Heijden, Erin Stern, and Esnat Chirwa. 2018. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights of Girls and Young Women with “Disability and Violence Against Women and Girls–Emerging Evidence Disabilities.” New York: General Assembly of the United Nations. from the What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls Uccellari, Paola. 2008. “Multiple Discrimination: How Law Can Re˝ect Global Programme.” What Works, United Kingdom Department for Reality.” Equal Rights Review 1: 24–49. International Development. World Bank Group. 2018a. Disability Inclusion and Accountability Gerschick, ˜omas J. 2000. “Toward a ˜eory of Disability and Gender.” Signs: Framework. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 25 (4): 1263–68. World Bank Group. 2018b. “World Bank Group Commitments on Houtenville, Andrew, and Valentini Kalargyrou. 2012. “People with Disabilities: Disability-Inclusive Development.” Brief, July 24, 2018, World Bank Employers’ Perspectives on Recruitment Practices, Strategies, and Challenges Group, Washington, DC. in Leisure and Hospitality.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 53 (1): 40–52. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2010–2021. ILOSTAT–Employment World Bank Group. 2019. Violence Against Women and Girls Resource by Sex and Disability Status (˜ousands) Annual. Geneva: ILO. Guide. Brief on Violence Against Women and Girls with Disabilities. World Bank Group, Washington, DC. Kaplan, Deborah. 1999. “˜e Deÿnition of Disability: Perspective of the Disability Community.” Journal of Health Care Law & Policy 3: 352. World Bank and WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. World Report on Disability. Geneva: WHO. Kim, Mi Yeon. 2013. “Women with Disabilities: ˜e Convention through the Prism of Gender.” In Human Rights and Disability Advocacy, edited by Maya WHO (World Health Organization). 2002–2004. World Health Survey. Sabatello and Marianne Schulze, 113–45. Philadelphia: University of WHO, Geneva. Pennsylvania Press. WHO and UNFPA (World Health Organization and United Nations Mitra, Sophie, and Jaclyn Yap. 2021. ˜e Disability Data Report. New York: Population Fund). 2009. “Promoting Sexual and Reproductive Health for Disability Data Initiative, Fordham Research Consortium on Disability. Persons with Disabilities.” WHO/UNFPA Guidance Note. WHO, Geneva.