EURASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW, FINANCE AND
APPLIED SCIENCES
Innovative Academy Research Support Center
IF = 7.984
Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2025 ISSN 2181-2853
Page 26
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AS A HUMAN RIGHT:
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND NATIONAL REFORMS
IN DISABILITY RIGHTS
Saltanat Akilbekova
Trainee teacher at Karakalpak State University
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16902548
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Received: 14
th
August 2025
Accepted: 18
th
August 2025
Online: 19
th
August 2025
Inclusive education has emerged as one of the central pillars of
contemporary human rights law, affirming the principle that no
person should be excluded from learning opportunities on the
basis of disability. While international legal instruments such as
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
establish strong obligations for States to ensure access to
inclusive education, the translation of these commitments into
effective national reforms remains uneven. This article
examines the right to education of persons with disabilities
through the lens of international human rights standards and
the legislative reforms undertaken within Uzbekistan. It
situates the issue within the broader normative framework
established by the United Nations and regional human rights
systems, before turning to the domestic legal order to analyze
the extent to which global commitments are reflected in
national law and policy. In doing so, the article highlights
persistent challenges—including accessibility barriers, limited
resources, and societal stigma—that hinder the effective
realization of inclusive education. Drawing on doctrinal
analysis and comparative perspectives, it argues for the
harmonization of domestic legal frameworks with
international standards and emphasizes the importance of
sustained reforms. Ultimately, the paper underscores inclusive
education as both a legal obligation and a catalyst for
advancing equality, dignity, and social integration for persons
with disabilities.
KEYWORDS
Inclusive
education,
disability rights, human
rights
law,
CRPD,
accessibility.
Introduction
The right to education is universally acknowledged as a cornerstone of human rights and
a fundamental condition for human development. It is enshrined in key international
instruments, including Article 26 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[1] and Article
13 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
[2]. Beyond its
instrumental role in fostering knowledge and skills, education serves as a gateway to
empowerment, civic participation, and equality. For persons with disabilities, access to
education is particularly critical as it represents a pathway to breaking cycles of poverty,
exclusion, and dependence [3]. Despite decades of progress, global statistics reveal that persons
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW, FINANCE AND
APPLIED SCIENCES
Innovative Academy Research Support Center
IF = 7.984
Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2025 ISSN 2181-2853
Page 27
with disabilities remain among the most marginalized groups in education. According to
UNICEF (2021) [4], children with disabilities are twice as likely to be out of school as their non-
disabled peers, and those who attend often face environments that are neither accessible nor
inclusive. These disparities highlight the urgent need to strengthen legal frameworks and
ensure effective implementation of the right to education for persons with disabilities.
Historically, persons with disabilities were either excluded from formal education or relegated
to segregated institutions that reinforced social isolation. The prevailing assumption was that
disability constituted an inherent limitation best addressed through special schooling.
However, beginning in the late twentieth century, there has been a paradigmatic shift toward
inclusive education—a model that emphasizes integration into mainstream schools, the
removal of barriers, and the provision of reasonable accommodations.
This transformation is most clearly reflected in Article 24 of the CRPD, which obliges
States to ensure inclusive education systems at all levels. The provision establishes that persons
with disabilities shall not be excluded from the general education system on the basis of
disability, that reasonable accommodations must be provided, and that individualized support
measures should be available to maximize academic and social development [5]. The CRPD thus
elevates inclusive education from a policy aspiration to a binding human rights obligation.
Uzbekistan provides a timely and important case study in this respect. Since ratifying the
CRPD in 2021, Uzbekistan has embarked on a series of legislative and institutional reforms
aimed at strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities, including the adoption of a new
Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
[5]. These reforms reflect a broader trend across
states transitioning from policy models rooted in medical or charitable views of disability
toward rights-based and inclusive approaches. Nevertheless, the process of aligning national
law and practice with international obligations remains complex and requires sustained
commitment. Uzbekistan’s legislative reforms reflect this shift. The 2020 law and subsequent
national strategies explicitly endorse inclusive education, marking a departure from earlier
frameworks that emphasized special schools. However, as with many states, the challenge lies
in moving from declarative commitments to practical implementation: ensuring accessible
infrastructure, equipping teachers with inclusive pedagogical skills, and addressing deeply
rooted societal stigma.
International Legal Standards on the Right to Inclusive Education
Education is a universally recognized human right, and for persons with disabilities, it
carries transformative potential to overcome exclusion and realize equality. The global legal
framework on education has progressively evolved from general guarantees of access to
explicit recognition of
inclusive education
as a binding obligation. This section examines the
international legal standards underpinning the right to inclusive education, drawing from
foundational human rights instruments, specialized disability conventions, interpretative
guidance by treaty bodies, and jurisprudence from regional and international courts.
1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948)
The modern international framework for the right to education originates with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
. Article 26(1) provides that “[e]veryone has the right
to education” and stipulates that primary education shall be free and compulsory (United
Nations [UN], 1948). While the UDHR does not explicitly mention disability, its universal
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW, FINANCE AND
APPLIED SCIENCES
Innovative Academy Research Support Center
IF = 7.984
Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2025 ISSN 2181-2853
Page 28
framing underscores that the right applies equally to all persons, regardless of status or
condition. [1]
The drafting history of the UDHR indicates a conscious choice to frame education as a
universal entitlement, tied to human dignity and the full development of personality [7]. For
persons with disabilities, this principle is foundational: exclusion from education is not a matter
of benevolent choice but a violation of inherent rights. The UDHR thus provides the moral and
legal baseline for later treaties that more specifically address disability-inclusive education.
2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966)
The
ICESCR
gives binding force to the aspirational norms of the UDHR.
Article 13
guarantees “the right of everyone to education” and obliges States to ensure progressive
realization, subject to available resources [2]. Article 2 further imposes the principle of non-
discrimination, which, as clarified by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR), prohibits exclusion based on disability. [8]
The Committee’s
General Comment No. 13
on the right to education [9] and
General
Comment No. 20
on non-discrimination (2009) make explicit that States must prioritize
accessibility for persons with disabilities, including both physical and curricular access.
Moreover, the “four As” framework—
availability, accessibility, acceptability, and
adaptability
—developed by Katarina Tomaševski and endorsed by the CESCR, remains central
to assessing state compliance. [10]
Although the ICESCR does not specifically reference inclusive education, its general
obligations have been interpreted in line with the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD)
, thereby reinforcing a shift from segregated provision toward inclusion.
3. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989)
The
CRC
represents a critical milestone in aligning children’s rights with disability
inclusion.
Article 28
guarantees the right of the child to education on the basis of equal
opportunity, while
Article 23
addresses specifically the rights of children with disabilities,
emphasizing “effective access to education, training, health care services, rehabilitation
services, [and] preparation for employment”.[11]
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has interpreted these provisions as requiring
states to adopt inclusive educational policies. In its
General Comment No. 9
(2006) on the
rights of children with disabilities, the Committee rejected segregation and called for
mainstreaming children with disabilities into general education systems with necessary
accommodations. [12]
Thus, the CRC provides a bridge between general education rights and disability-specific
guarantees, anticipating the more comprehensive approach of the CRPD.
4. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, 2006)
The CRPD marks the decisive shift toward inclusive education as a binding human rights
obligation. Adopted in 2006 and entering into force in 2008, the CRPD represents a paradigm
shift away from medical or welfare approaches to disability and toward a social and human
rights model [5]. Unlike earlier international instruments, which often treated persons with
disabilities as passive recipients of protection or charity, the CRPD positions them as rights-
holders entitled to full participation in society on an equal basis with others. This shift is
particularly visible in the realm of education, where the treaty rejects segregated or parallel
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW, FINANCE AND
APPLIED SCIENCES
Innovative Academy Research Support Center
IF = 7.984
Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2025 ISSN 2181-2853
Page 29
systems and instead affirms the principle that all learners, regardless of ability, must be
accommodated within mainstream educational environments.
By enshrining inclusive education in Article 24, the CRPD establishes that access to
schooling is not merely about physical presence in classrooms, but about meaningful
participation supported through reasonable accommodations, individualized support services,
and the removal of structural and attitudinal barriers. The treaty also underscores the role of
states in training teachers, developing accessible curricula, and providing alternative modes of
communication such as Braille, sign language, and assistive technologies. In doing so, the CRPD
reframes education from being a privilege for children with disabilities to being a non-
derogable right that is justiciable under international human rights law.
Article 24
of the CRPD enshrines the right to
inclusive education
at all levels. It requires
that persons with disabilities not be excluded from the general education system on the basis
of disability, that reasonable accommodations be provided, and that individualized support
measures be available. The article also stresses training for teachers, access to Braille, sign
language, and alternative formats, and measures to facilitate lifelong learning.
The CRPD Committee has emphasized that inclusion is not optional but a legally
enforceable obligation. This interpretation reflects the understanding that inclusive education
is central to realizing the broader rights guaranteed under the Convention, including equality,
non-discrimination, and full participation in society. The Committee has consistently
underlined that states cannot justify the maintenance of segregated or parallel education
systems on grounds of tradition, limited resources, or gradual implementation. Instead, states
are under a positive duty to restructure their education systems to ensure accessibility,
reasonable accommodation, and individualized support within mainstream settings.
The Committee’s jurisprudence highlights repeated failures of states that continue to rely
on special schools or segregated arrangements, warning that such systems entrench stigma and
perpetuate the marginalization of learners with disabilities. In its Concluding Observations and
individual communications, the Committee has clarified that segregated education can amount
to discrimination unless inclusion is structurally guaranteed and adequately resourced [13].
Importantly, the Committee has stressed that inclusion does not mean the mere physical
placement of children with disabilities in general classrooms, but requires systemic reforms—
such as teacher training, accessible curricula, assistive technologies, and the elimination of
physical and attitudinal barriers—that allow meaningful participation and learning outcomes
on an equal basis with others..
5. General Comment No. 4 (2016) on the Right to Inclusive Education
To clarify the scope and content of Article 24, the CRPD Committee issued
General
Comment No. 4 (2016)
, which constitutes the most authoritative interpretation of the right to
inclusive education. The General Comment frames inclusive education not merely as a policy
preference but as
“a fundamental right of all learners”
and the essential mechanism through
which states fulfill their obligations of equality and non-discrimination under the Convention.
[13]
In doing so, the Committee provides a conceptual framework that draws a sharp
distinction between four approaches to the education of persons with disabilities:
Exclusion
: the outright denial of access to education, whether by law, policy, or practice;
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW, FINANCE AND
APPLIED SCIENCES
Innovative Academy Research Support Center
IF = 7.984
Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2025 ISSN 2181-2853
Page 30
Segregation
: the placement of learners with disabilities in separate institutions or
programs designed only for them;
Integration
: the placement of such learners in mainstream settings without
corresponding adjustments or reforms, leaving them to adapt to an unmodified system;
and
Inclusion
: the full and effective participation of all learners within general education
systems, supported by individualized measures, systemic adaptation, and structural
transformation.
According to the Committee, only the last approach—
inclusion
—satisfies the binding
obligations of the CRPD. Integration and segregation, even when motivated by protective or
remedial aims, fall short of the Convention’s mandate because they fail to dismantle systemic
barriers and perpetuate inequality. The Committee insists that inclusion requires not just
legislative recognition but the comprehensive transformation of education systems. This
entails
curriculum reform, sustained teacher training in inclusive pedagogy, adequate
resource allocation, and the creation of accessible physical and digital learning
environments
.
Moreover, General Comment No. 4 situates inclusive education within the broader
normative architecture of the Convention, linking it directly to the principles of
human dignity,
autonomy, equality, and social participation
. By doing so, the Committee underscores that
inclusive education is not merely an educational policy, but a cornerstone of social justice and
democratic participation. This interpretative guidance therefore serves as an indispensable
benchmark for evaluating state compliance with the CRPD and for identifying practices that
risk perpetuating discrimination.
Uzbekistan’s Legislative Framework and Reforms in Light of International
Standards
Uzbekistan has undertaken significant legal and institutional reforms in recent years to
align its domestic legislation with international human rights obligations, including the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which the state ratified in 2021.
The ratification marked a decisive step in recognizing inclusive education as a legally binding
obligation rather than a discretionary policy goal. However, the degree to which Uzbekistan’s
laws and policies emdiv the CRPD’s vision of full inclusion, as elaborated in General Comment
No. 4, requires careful examination. [14]
The country’s education system has traditionally been characterized by a dual structure,
combining mainstream schools with a parallel network of specialized institutions for children
with disabilities. This model raises the very concerns highlighted by the CRPD Committee,
namely that reliance on segregated or “special” schools risks perpetuating exclusion and
inequality unless systemic transformation ensures meaningful inclusion within mainstream
settings.
Several important legislative initiatives deserve attention. First, the
Law on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities
(2020) [15] introduced the principle of equal access to education
and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability. Second, the
Law on Education
(last
revised in 2020) [16] makes explicit reference to inclusive education and the creation of
accessible learning environments. Furthermore, the
Concept for the Development of
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW, FINANCE AND
APPLIED SCIENCES
Innovative Academy Research Support Center
IF = 7.984
Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2025 ISSN 2181-2853
Page 31
Inclusive Education in the Public Education System for 2020-2025
(2020)
[17] adopted for
2020–2025 sets ambitious goals for infrastructure modernization, teacher training, and
resource development to support learners with disabilities in mainstream schools.
At the same time, challenges persist. The coexistence of inclusive language in legislation
with the continued dominance of segregated schooling illustrates a gap between normative
commitments and practical implementation. Moreover, systemic reforms in curriculum,
pedagogy, and resource allocation remain at an early stage, raising questions about compliance
with the CRPD standard that only
structural inclusion
—rather than mere integration—
satisfies international obligations.
Thus, Uzbekistan’s case provides a valuable lens through which to test how far a state in
transition can move from declarative commitments toward a genuine system of inclusive
education that embodies the principles of equality, dignity, and participation.
Conclusion
Despite the considerable progress made in aligning Uzbekistan’s legislative and policy
framework with international human rights standards, the full realization of inclusive
education remains constrained by persistent structural and systemic challenges. First,
implementation gaps
undermine the ambitious provisions of recent reforms. While the Law
on Education and the Inclusive Education Concept establish progressive standards, schools
often lack the practical capacity to translate these commitments into classroom realities.
Second,
resource limitations
continue to pose significant barriers. Inclusive education
requires sustained investments in accessible infrastructure, specialized learning materials, and
individualized support services. However, budgetary allocations remain insufficient to ensure
equitable access across urban and rural regions, leaving many learners with disabilities
excluded or inadequately supported.
Third,
teacher preparedness
is a critical bottleneck. Although training programs are
expanding, a large proportion of educators still lack specialized knowledge of inclusive
pedagogy, differentiated instruction, and assistive technologies. This results in well-
intentioned reforms being implemented in a fragmented or superficial manner.
Fourth,
sociocultural attitudes
toward disability continue to perpetuate stigma and low
expectations. Families and communities sometimes prefer segregated or specialized
institutions, which hinders broader acceptance of inclusive schooling as the norm rather than
the exception.
Finally,
institutional coordination
remains a challenge. The effective realization of
inclusive education requires a whole-of-government approach, integrating the efforts of the
ministries of education, health, social protection, and finance. At present, overlapping mandates
and weak inter-agency cooperation limit the systemic transformation envisioned by Article 24
of the CRPD and General Comment No. 4.
In sum, Uzbekistan’s legal and policy reforms represent a significant step toward
compliance with international obligations. Yet, the persistence of financial, pedagogical,
cultural, and institutional barriers reveals that
inclusive education is not merely a matter of
legal recognition but of sustained systemic transformation
. Bridging the gap between
normative commitments and lived realities remains the central challenge for ensuring that all
learners, regardless of ability, can enjoy their right to education on an equal basis with others.
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW, FINANCE AND
APPLIED SCIENCES
Innovative Academy Research Support Center
IF = 7.984
Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2025 ISSN 2181-2853
Page 32
References:
1.
United
Nations.
(1948).
Universal
Declaration
of
Human
Rights.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
2.
United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Degener, Theresia. (2014). A human rights model of disability. Routledge Handbook of
Disability Law and Human Rights.
4.
UNICEF. (2024). Seen, counted, included: Using data to shed light on the well-being of
children with disabilities. UNICEF. https://data.unicef.org/resources/children-with-
disabilities-report-2021/
5.
Kayess, Rosemary & French, Phillip. (2008). Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Human Rights Law Review. 8. 1-34.
10.1093/hrlr/ngm044.
6.
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, No. LRU-641,
October 15, 2020. Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/5056057
7.
Morsink, J. (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and
Intent. University of Pennsylvania Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhrpm
8.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). (2009). General Comment
No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights (Article 2, paragraph 2, of the
Covenant).
UN
Doc.
E/C.12/GC/20.
United
Nations.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). (1999). General Comment
No. 13: The right to education (Article 13 of the Covenant). UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10. United
Nations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-
recommendations/general-comment-no-13-right-education
10.
Tomaševski, K. (2001). Human rights obligations: Making education available, accessible,
acceptable and adaptable. Right to Education Primers No. 3. Raoul Wallenberg Institute of
Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.
11.
United Nations General Assembly. (1989).
Convention on the Rights of the Child
. Resolution
44/25, adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990. United Nations
Treaty
Series,
vol.
1577,
p.
3.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
12.
Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee). (2006). General Comment No. 9:
The rights of children with disabilities. UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/9. United Nations.
https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/crc/2007/en/48507
13.
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee). (2016). General
Comment No. 4: The right to inclusive education. UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/4. United Nations.
https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/crpd/2016/en/112080
14.
Republic of Uzbekistan. (2021). On ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (New York, December 13, 2006). Law No. LRU-695 of 7 June 2021.
https://lex.uz/docs/6906578
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW, FINANCE AND
APPLIED SCIENCES
Innovative Academy Research Support Center
IF = 7.984
Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2025 ISSN 2181-2853
Page 33
15.
Republic of Uzbekistan. (2020). On the rights of persons with disabilities. Law No. LRU-
641
of
15
october
2020.
Republic of Uzbekistan. (2020). Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Education (No. ZRU-
637 of 23 September 2020). https://lex.uz/docs/-5013007
17.
Republic of Uzbekistan. (2020). On measures for the further improvement of the system
of education and upbringing of children with special educational needs. Resolution of the
President of the Republic of Uzbekistan № RP-4860 of 13 October 2020.
https://lex.uz/docs/5030967
18.
Omirzakov, R. (2023). Sustainable development goals and its role in the state policy of the
Republic of Uzbekistan in the field of environmental protection.
International Journal Of Law
And Criminology
,
3
(07), 89-93.
19.
Омирзаков R. . (2023). Rule of law in Uzbekistan: improvement of national legislation
.
Узбекистан – стратегия 2030 с точки зрения молодых ученых: экономика, политика и
право
,
1
(1), 321–326. извлечено от https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/strategy-2030-young-
scientists/article/view/28758
