This article was shortlisted as part of the 2025 E-International Relations Article Award, sponsored by Edinburgh University Press, Polity, Sage, Bloomsbury, Manchester University Press, Palgrave Macmillan and Bristol University Press.
International Relations (IR) has long been criticized for its selective silences—those absences that reveal as much about the discipline’s priorities as its theoretical commitments. Feminist scholars have underscored the discipline’s neglect of gender (Tickner, 1992; Enloe, 2014), demonstrating how women’s experiences in conflict, peace-building, and global economic structures were systematically excluded from analytical frameworks that claimed universal applicability. Postcolonial theorists have challenged its Eurocentrism and marginalization of the Global South (Chakrabarty 2000; Acharya 2014), revealing how IR’s foundational concepts—sovereignty, anarchy, the modern state system—emerged from specific historical experiences that were then universalized while erasing alternative forms of political organization. Critical race scholars have exposed its failure to confront racialized hierarchies (Vitalis 2015), showing how supposedly neutral theories of international politics have been complicit in reproducing racial exclusions and colonial logics. Yet, one area of difference still remains absent from the mainstream of IR theory: disability.
This omission becomes even more evident when considered against disability’s increasing prominence in global governance structures and international legal frameworks. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted in 2008, stands as among the fastest-ratified human rights treaties in history, with over 180 state parties demonstrating unprecedented consensus around disability rights principles (Degener, 2016). This rapid adoption reflects a growing recognition that disability rights are fundamental to international justice and human dignity. Development agencies and donors increasingly invoke “disability-inclusive development” as a core principle in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 on inclusive education and SDG 10 on reducing inequalities (UNStats 2025). International financial institutions, humanitarian organizations, and multilateral bodies have developed specific policies and frameworks aimed at ensuring that persons with disabilities are not left behind in global development efforts.
The numerical scope of this exclusion is staggering. Persons with disabilities constitute over one billion people globally—approximately 15% of the world’s population—making them the world’s largest minority group (WHO and World Bank 2011). This figure includes approximately 93 million children with disabilities, many of whom face multiple barriers to accessing education, healthcare, and social services. Their systematic exclusion from education, labor markets, political participation, and social life is not simply a domestic policy issue but a fundamental matter of international justice that demands urgent attention from IR scholars and practitioners alike. When such a significant portion of humanity remains marginalized from the very systems that IR purports to analyze—from international trade and development cooperation to peace-building and security arrangements—the discipline’s claims to comprehensiveness and relevance are fundamentally undermined.
Thus, the goal of this article is to advance disability as an IR method—an analytical approach specifying concepts, mechanisms, and evidence standards for studying global politics. To operationalize this claim, the article bridges theory and practice through an in-depth case study of Uganda’s implementation of the CRPD. Uganda provides a critical vantage point for analyzing the tension between universal human rights commitments and local realities of cultural stigma, resource scarcity, and institutional weakness. Particular attention is given to how an international official development assistance project can demonstrate pathways for moving beyond rhetorical compliance to embed disability rights within domestic governance structures. The Ugandan case not only illustrates how international cooperation can transform global disability norms into concrete practices of inclusion but also shows how disability reframes broader IR concerns with sovereignty, accountability, and justice.
Disability and the Limits of IR Theory
Mainstream IR theories have historically privileged state-centric frameworks and able-bodied assumptions that render disability irrelevant to international politics. This exclusion is not merely an oversight but reflects deeper epistemological commitments that shape how the discipline defines political actors, legitimate concerns, and analytical priorities. Realism, as the dominant paradigm within IR, rests fundamentally on a rationalist conception of sovereign actors pursuing survival and power maximization within an anarchic international system (Waltz 1979). This theoretical architecture presumes the existence of autonomous, self-sufficient actors capable of making strategic calculations and implementing policy decisions—assumptions that directly mirror ableist ideals of independence, rational choice, and individual agency (Campbell 2009). The realist state is conceptualized as a unitary actor possessing clear interests, coherent preferences, and the capacity for strategic action—characteristics that implicitly exclude consideration of how disability affects state capacity, policy priorities, or international behavior.
Disability fundamentally disrupts these assumptions by foregrounding the reality of interdependence and the centrality of care relationships in sustaining both individual lives and collective political projects. Where realism valorizes autonomy and self-reliance, disability studies reveals these as ableist myths that obscure the webs of mutual aid that enable all human flourishing. The realist emphasis on power competition is particularly limited when viewed through a disability lens that highlights how collective well-being and inclusive institutions benefit all members of society. Moreover, the traditional realist focus on military security and territorial integrity fails to capture the security concerns most relevant to persons with disabilities—access to healthcare, protection from violence and abuse, inclusion in emergency planning, and freedom from institutional discrimination.
Liberalism, with its emphasis on international institutions, cooperation, and human rights (Keohane and Nye 1977), might appear more conducive to disability inclusion. Liberal theorists have long argued that international institutions can facilitate cooperation by providing information, reducing transaction costs, and enabling credible commitments among states. The liberal tradition’s commitment to individual rights and rule of law also provides conceptual resources for addressing disability exclusion. Yet, despite these rhetorical commitments to universality and human dignity, liberal IR has rarely engaged substantively with disability rights as a core concern of international politics. This absence is particularly alarming given liberalism’s emphasis on institutions as mechanisms for realizing shared values and protecting vulnerable populations.
The institutional neglect of disability within liberal international order is exemplified by the historical practices of major international organizations. Institutions such as the United Nations and World Bank systematically ignored disability concerns until the early 2000s, treating disability as a specialized humanitarian issue rather than a mainstream development and rights concern (Lord and Stein 2008). This institutional marginalization reflected broader liberal assumptions about which issues constitute legitimate international concerns and which populations deserve prioritized attention.
Constructivism, which highlights the role of norms, identities, and ideas in shaping international politics (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998), offers perhaps the greatest theoretical opening for disability inclusion. Constructivist scholarship has demonstrated how international norms emerge, diffuse across borders, and become internalized within domestic political systems through complex processes of socialization, persuasion, and institutional embedding. The constructivist emphasis on how actors’ identities and interests are socially constructed rather than given provides analytical space for examining how disability identities are formed, contested, and transformed through international processes. Yet mainstream constructivist scholarship on norm diffusion has seldom analyzed how disability rights norms circulate globally, how they interact with existing cultural frameworks, or how they are translated into domestic institutional changes.
This theoretical neglect becomes problematic when considering how constructivist insights about norm dynamics could illuminate the rapid global acceptance of disability rights principles. The speed with which the CRPD gained widespread ratification suggests successful norm entrepreneurship by disability advocates. Yet, this process remains largely unexamined by IR scholars. Understanding how disability rights advocates mobilized across borders, framed their claims in terms of universal human rights, and overcame resistance from states concerned about sovereignty and resource implications could provide valuable insights into broader processes of normative change in international politics.
Critical approaches within IR have systematically challenged these exclusions while developing alternative frameworks that center marginalized voices and experiences. Feminist IR has demonstrated how centering gender as an analytical category fundamentally transforms our understanding of war, peace, security, and global political economy (Tickner 2001; Sjoberg 2013). Feminist scholars have shown how seemingly gender-neutral concepts like security, sovereignty, and the state are actually constructed through gendered assumptions about appropriate roles, capabilities, and priorities.
Similarly, postcolonial scholars have argued for “Global IR” approaches that decentre Western dominance and incorporate non-Western experiences, knowledge systems, and forms of political organization (Acharya 2014). What about critical security studies? It has expanded the analytical agenda beyond traditional state-military concerns to include human security, environmental threats, and everyday forms of insecurity (Booth 2007). Despite these important theoretical innovations, disability studies remains conspicuously marginal in these important debates. This is puzzling because of the clear resonances between disability studies and other critical approaches. Like feminist and postcolonial scholarship, disability studies challenges universalist claims that obscure particular experiences of marginalization. Like critical security studies, it highlights forms of vulnerability and insecurity that are invisible to traditional analytical frameworks. Like critical IR more broadly, it questions the boundaries of political concern and demands attention to voices that have been systematically excluded from both theoretical and policy conversations.
Disability studies itself has undergone significant theoretical evolution that offers important resources for IR scholarship. The field has moved decisively from a medical model, which treats disability as individual pathology requiring cure or rehabilitation, to a social model, which views disability as produced by social and environmental barriers rather than inherent biological limitations (Oliver 1990). For instance, Garland-Thomson (2005) has argued persuasively that disability, like gender or race, functions as a cultural system of representation that structures fundamental distinctions between inclusion and exclusion, normality and deviance, citizenship and dependency. This insight has profound implications for IR theory, suggesting that global political systems are built upon particular assumptions about which bodies and minds are considered capable of political participation, economic productivity, and social contribution. Bringing these insights into conversation with IR reveals how international politics are constructed through ableist assumptions about the ideal citizen, worker, soldier, and political actor—assumptions that have profound consequences for how international institutions operate, how development interventions are designed, and how global governance structures include or exclude particular populations.
The theoretical invisibility of disability within mainstream IR is therefore not accidental but symptomatic of a deeper disciplinary orientation that privileges certain bodies, capacities, and forms of political agency while rendering others invisible or irrelevant. A disability-centered approach to IR challenges this epistemic exclusion and offers new possibilities for understanding how global politics operate, how power relations are constructed and maintained, and how alternative forms of political organization might better serve human flourishing across difference.
It is also important to note that incorporating disability as a central analytical category within IR scholarship requires methodological innovations. Disability studies has long emphasized the importance of experiential knowledge—the insights that emerge from lived experiences of disability, exclusion, and resistance—as a legitimate form of expertise that complements but cannot be replaced by academic or professional knowledge. This perspective challenges conventional hierarchies within IR scholarship that privilege certain forms of knowledge (quantitative data, official documents, expert analysis) while marginalizing others (personal narratives, community-based research, advocacy organization reports).
That is, a disability-inclusive approach to IR research must grapple with questions of whose voices are heard, which forms of evidence are recognized, and how marginalized perspectives can reshape international analysis. As Barnes (2003) argues, knowledge production about disability has historically been dominated by professionals and policy-makers, while persons with disabilities themselves have been excluded from defining their realities. Incorporating experiential knowledge not only challenges epistemic injustice (Fricker 2007) but also opens up new methodological pathways, such as participatory action research and critical ethnography, that better reflect the lived conditions of global politics (Grech and Soldatic 2016). By embracing methodological pluralism that integrates conventional IR approaches and critical disability studies, IR scholars can construct a more inclusive analytical framework that does not simply “add disability” into existing models but reconfigures how IR conceives of actors, agency, and justice. In this sense, disability becomes not only an object of policy analysis but a transformative lens that reshapes the very foundations of international relations theory and practice.
From Theory to Practice: Disability Rights, Global Norms, and the Ugandan Case Study
Recognizing disability as a category of analysis within IR not only exposes the discipline’s epistemic exclusions but also compels scholars to ask how international norms are enacted in practice across diverse contexts. If IR has historically privileged abstract theorizing over lived realities, disability studies reminds us that global governance is always mediated through embodied experiences and cultural frameworks (Meekosha 2011). This shift from theory to practice makes case studies particularly valuable, as they reveal how universal commitments are refracted through local dynamics of power, resources, and meaning. In this sense, examining Uganda’s implementation of the CRPD offers an opportunity to test how far global disability rights norms travel once they leave the room of international negotiation and enter the realities of state policy, development cooperation, and community life.
To begin, the CRPD represents a broad normative acceptance of disability rights principles across diverse contexts. The widespread ratification indicates that disability rights have achieved what constructivist scholars term “norm cascade,” the point at which international norms gain sufficient momentum that non-compliance becomes costly in terms of international legitimacy.
However, legal recognition alone is often insufficient to achieve true social transformation (Haglund and Stryker 2015). The gap between formal ratification and actual implementation reveals the limitations of relying solely on international legal instruments without attending to the political, economic, and social complexities that determine whether such legal norms genuinely translate into meaningful change in people’s lives. Stein and Lord (2010) have argued that while the CRPD has succeeded in establishing disability rights as legitimate international concerns, as many states engage in what they term “rhetorical compliance,” adopting the languages of disability rights while avoiding the actual policy and institutional changes necessary for social transformation.
The implementation challenges become particularly acute in Global South contexts, where resource constraints, weak institutional capacity, and entrenched social stigma give birth to multiple barriers to the realization of disability rights. These challenges often involve deeper structural inequalities within the global political economy that limit the capacity of many states to fulfill their human rights obligations.
For example, Uganda provides an interesting case study of these implementation dynamics. The country has developed a progressive legal and policy framework around disability rights, including not only constitutional recognition but also specific legislation that protects disability rights. Uganda was one of the earliest signatories to the CRPD and has worked with international partners to develop national action plans aimed at promoting inclusion.
However, despite this normative commitment, everyday realities reveal significant gaps. While Uganda has formally embraced universal primary education, children with disabilities face high dropout rates due to inaccessible classrooms and limited numbers of trained special needs teachers. In healthcare, services are often uneven, with rural health centers often lacking the capacity to provide disability-related health services. In employment, the mandated 2% recruitment quota for persons with disabilities in public service remains largely unenforced, with discrimination and inaccessible workplaces remaining widespread.
Moreover, cultural and social beliefs further complicate implementation. In many Ugandan communities, disability is still understood through traditional explanations that attribute disability to spiritual causes, family shame, or divine punishment. Such interpretations fuel stigma and exclusion, with families sometimes hiding their own children with disabilities or prioritizing other siblings in schooling. These cultural factors shape how international norms are interpreted, contested, and translated within local contexts. Rather than being received as universal principles of justice, rights-based approaches to disability often confront deeply embedded belief systems that frame persons with disabilities as dependent, cursed, or incapable of full participation in community life (Whyte and Ingstad 1995).
From an International Relations perspective, this disjuncture illustrates both the possibilities and limits of global norm diffusion in contexts where local cultural frameworks intersect with international human rights discourses. While constructivist scholars emphasize the power of norm cascades to generate widespread adoption of treaties such as the CRPD (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998), Uganda’s experience demonstrates that the process of translating international commitments into domestic realities involves what Acharya (2014) calls norm localization—the adaptation of global norms to resonate with existing social and political contexts. Disability rights, though codified in Uganda’s Constitution (1995) and the Persons with Disabilities Act (NCPD 2020), are often refracted through cultural imaginaries that do not always align with the liberal human rights framework promoted by international institutions.
This tension underscores a key dilemma in global governance: the implementation of international human rights norms must be both locally grounded and globally accountable. As Merry (2006) argues, international law becomes effective not by imposing universality in a top-down fashion, but by engaging in processes of vernacularization—translating global principles into local terms while retaining their transformative potential. In the Ugandan case, this means addressing stigma, resource scarcity, and entrenched inequalities without diluting the core principle of equality and dignity for persons with disabilities.
Postcolonial critiques sharpen this analysis by questioning the assumption that human rights, including disability rights, are culturally neutral and universally applicable without modification (Mutua, 2002; Mignolo, 2011). Yet while such critiques expose the colonial legacies embedded in human rights discourse, they also risk being mobilized to justify neglect or delay in fulfilling obligations to marginalized groups. For persons with disabilities in Uganda—who continue to face systemic exclusion from education, healthcare, and employment—invoking cultural relativism can perpetuate injustice under the guise of respecting local difference. As Goodley (2017) notes, disability rights frameworks should be understood as both global and situated, demanding recognition of cultural diversity while insisting on minimum standards of equality and inclusion.
Thus, the challenge is not whether universality should apply, but how to implement disability rights in ways that are contextually responsive yet uncompromising on core human rights commitments. One practical example of this balance is reflected in the official development assistance project titled “Support for Vocational Training Schools for Persons with Disabilities and Raising Disability Awareness in Western Uganda,” implemented by the Korea International Cooperation Agency and Korea Food for the Hungry International.
The project is structured around two interrelated pillars that directly engage with the politics of global norm diffusion. The first is the provision of vocational training for persons with disabilities, equipping them with skills that expand opportunities for employment and disrupt narratives of dependency. By focusing on practical skills training, the initiative operationalizes the CRPD’s emphasis on participation, equality of opportunity, and economic empowerment (CRPD, Art. 27). In IR terms, this represents the movement from norm acceptance (ratification) to norm internalization (practical policy outcomes), addressing what Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) describe as the final stage in the life cycle of norms. This also directly tackles Uganda’s implementation gap in the labor market, where 12.3% of the population largely remain unemployed, with significantly larger higher rates projected for persons with disabilities (UBOS 2024).
The second pillar focuses on disability awareness-raising, not only at the local community level but also nationally. This work responds to entrenched cultural beliefs that frame disability as shameful or spiritually caused, countering stigma through public sensitization campaigns, school outreach, and advocacy with local leaders. At the level of international governance, awareness-raising contributes to the socialization of norms, whereby actors adopt new practices not only out of legal obligation but also due to changing ideas of legitimacy (Checkel 1999). The fact that the project has, for the second time in Uganda’s disability rights history, established an official partnership with Uganda’s National Council for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD) is particularly significant. This partnership exemplifies the CRPD’s participatory mandate that states must actively consult and involve persons with disabilities, through their representative organizations, in policymaking and implementation (Kayess and French 2008). From an IR lens, the alignment with the NCPD illustrates a hybrid governance model, where state sovereignty is not undermined but complemented through transnational cooperation, strengthening both domestic ownership and international accountability.
Framed through International Relations scholarship, the project highlights how development partnerships can move beyond rhetorical compliance toward norm internalization. It resonates with Hopgood’s (2013) critique of the human rights “mainstreaming” project, which warns that formal ratification without social grounding risks empty symbolism. By contrast, this initiative demonstrates how international norms can gain traction when translated into context-sensitive practices that speak to local realities. It also illustrates Zürn’s (2018) notion of “global governance as contested authority,” showing how the legitimacy of international norms depends not on top-down imposition but on their ability to be co-produced with national and local actors. Also, the project complicates postcolonial critiques of human rights as Western impositions. While such critiques highlight the risk of reproducing dependency or external control (Chakrabarty 2000), this project embodies a more dialogical model. International partners contribute resources and expertise, but Ugandan institutions, particularly the NCPD, play a central role in shaping priorities and ensuring sustainability. In this sense, the project is a great case study that demonstrates how transnational cooperation, when grounded in local participation, can both uphold universal human rights principles and respect national agency.
Conclusion
This article has argued that disability must be understood not as a marginal policy issue but as a methodological intervention that reorients how International Relations conceptualizes aid, rights, and justice. By exposing the ableist assumptions embedded within traditional IR theories, disability challenges the discipline’s narrow definitions of agency, security, and legitimacy, while resonating with the broader critical project of feminist, postcolonial, and critical race scholarship. The Ugandan case of CRPD implementation demonstrates both the possibilities and limits of global norm diffusion. That is, progressive legal frameworks and international commitments coexist with persistent gaps in various sectors, shaped by structural inequalities and entrenched cultural stigma. Yet, the vocational training and awareness-raising project in Western Uganda illustrates how global disability rights can be realized through locally grounded, participatory, and state-linked initiatives that strengthen both accountability and sustainability.
For IR as a discipline, the implications are profound. A field that continues to silence the world’s largest minority risks not only analytical incompleteness but also moral irrelevance. If International Relations is to speak credibly about power, justice, and sovereignty in the twenty-first century, it must reckon with disability, not as an afterthought, but as a constitutive dimension of global politics. In this sense, disability is not only an object of policy analysis; it is a new IR method that helps us to reimagine what justice, inclusion, and interdependence mean in today’s globalized world.
References
Acharya, Amitav. “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism.” International Organization 58, no. 2 (2004): 239–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024.
Acharya, Amitav. Rethinking Power, Institutions and Ideas in World Politics: Whose IR? London: Routledge, 2014.
Barnes, Colin. “What a Difference a Decade Makes: Reflections on Doing ‘Emancipatory’ Disability Research.” Disability & Society 18, no. 1 (2003): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/713662197.
Booth, Ken. Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Campbell, Fiona Kumari. Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. “Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe.” International Studies Quarterly 43, no. 1 (1999): 83–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00112.
Uganda. Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995. Kampala: Government of Uganda, 1995. Accessed September 2, 2025. https://www.ngobureau.go.ug/sites/default/files/laws_regulations/2020/12/Uganda%20Constitution%201995.pdf.
Degener, Theresia. “Disability in a Human Rights Context.” Laws 5, no. 3 (2016): 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5030035.
Enloe, Cynthia. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Updated ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789.
Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. “Feminist Disability Studies.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30, no. 2 (2005): 1557–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/423352.
Goodley, Dan. Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. 2nd ed. London: SAGE, 2017.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
