Forced Sexual Sterilisation of Persons with Disabilities: Between International Obligations and National Implementation: A Comparative Study
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 1.1. Research Objectives. – 1.2. The Research Question. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Conceptual Framework. – 3.1 Definition Of Persons With Disabilities. – 3.2 Defining Forced Sexual Sterilisation. – 4. Historical And Ideological Foundations Of Forced Sterilisation. – 4.1 The Role Of Eugenics In Normalising Sexual Sterilisation. – 5. Laws And Case Law In Selected Jurisdictions. – 6. International Law And Human Rights. – 6.1 From Act To Violation: The Core Causal Chain. – 7. Discussion – 7.1 The Right Of Persons With Disabilities To Marry And Found A Family. – 7.2 The Right To Manage One’s Sexual And Reproductive Life. – 8. Conclusions
Background: This study investigates the legal regulation of forced sterilisation of persons with disabilities through a comparative analysis of the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, and the United States, evaluated against international human rights norms, particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Unlike much of the existing literature, which reiterates established prohibitions, this research highlights the persistence of legal loopholes that enable sterilisation without personal consent, including third-party authorisation in the UAE, guardianship and judicial approval in the Czech Republic, and significant disparities across U.S. states.
Methods: Employing a descriptive-analytical comparative methodology, the study systematically examines constitutional, legislative, and judicial texts, integrates human rights jurisprudence, and draws on UN and NGO reports to assess practical enforcement. The findings demonstrate three original contributions: (1) mapping the causal link between guardianship regimes and the continuation of forced sterilisation practices; (2) exposing the inadequacy of partial remedies, such as the Czech Victims’ Compensation Act, in addressing systemic violations; and (3) proposing a concrete policy framework comprising cooling-off periods, substituted consent, simplified consent procedures, a national registry, and redress mechanisms.
Results and Conclusions: The research advances the debate by moving beyond normative condemnation to offer an actionable reform blueprint. It argues that protecting reproductive autonomy requires universal and explicit prohibition of sterilisation without free and informed personal consent, the replacement of guardianship with decision-support systems, and the removal of sterilisation requirements from administrative processes such as legal gender recognition. By integrating comparative evidence with practical policy tools, the study contributes a novel pathway for aligning domestic laws with the CRPD and strengthening accountability in the protection of reproductive rights.
Abstract
Background: This study investigates the legal regulation of forced sterilisation of persons with disabilities through a comparative analysis of the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, and the United States, evaluated against international human rights norms, particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Unlike much of the existing literature, which reiterates established prohibitions, this research highlights the persistence of legal loopholes that enable sterilisation without personal consent, including third-party authorisation in the UAE, guardianship and judicial approval in the Czech Republic, and significant disparities across U.S. states.
Methods: Employing a descriptive-analytical comparative methodology, the study systematically examines constitutional, legislative, and judicial texts, integrates human rights jurisprudence, and draws on UN and NGO reports to assess practical enforcement. The findings demonstrate three original contributions: (1) mapping the causal link between guardianship regimes and the continuation of forced sterilisation practices; (2) exposing the inadequacy of partial remedies, such as the Czech Victims’ Compensation Act, in addressing systemic violations; and (3) proposing a concrete policy framework comprising cooling-off periods, substituted consent, simplified consent procedures, a national registry, and redress mechanisms.
Results and Conclusions: The research advances the debate by moving beyond normative condemnation to offer an actionable reform blueprint. It argues that protecting reproductive autonomy requires universal and explicit prohibition of sterilisation without free and informed personal consent, the replacement of guardianship with decision-support systems, and the removal of sterilisation requirements from administrative processes such as legal gender recognition. By integrating comparative evidence with practical policy tools, the study contributes a novel pathway for aligning domestic laws with the CRPD and strengthening accountability in the protection of reproductive rights.
About Authors
Mohammed Nour Eldeen Sayed
PhD (Law), Associate Professor in Criminal Law, College of Law, University of Kalba, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8952-3552
Co-author, responsible for Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft
Karem Aboelazm*
PhD (Law), Assistant Professor, College of Law, United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates
karem.s.aboelazm@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6126-1114
Corresponding author, responsible for Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing
Saleh Al Shraideh
PhD (Law), Associate Professor, College of Law, University of Kalba, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5325-9927
Co-author, responsible for Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft
Khalid Mohamed Dganni
PhD (Law), Associate Professor College of Law, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1139-2495
Co-author, responsible for Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The authors declare that opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Rights and Permissions
Copyright: © 2025 Mohammed Nour Eldeen Sayed, Karem Aboelazm, Saleh Al Shraideh and Khalid Mohamed Dganni. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Editors
Managing editor – Mag. Bohdana Zahrebelna. English Editor – Julie Bold. Ukrainian language Editor – Lilia Hartman.
References
Abada HAM, Birth Control, Birth Control, and the Extent of the State's Authority to Prevent Birth: A Jurisprudential Study (Dar Al-Fikr Al-Jami'i 2011)
Aboelazm KS, ‘Supreme Constitutional Court Review of the Legislative Omission in Egypt in Light of International Experiences’ (2024) 10(17) Heliyon e37269. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37269
Aboelazm KS, ‘The Constitutional Framework for Public Policy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Countries’ (2021) 7(3) International Journal of Public Law and Policy 187. doi:10.1504/IJPLAP.2021.118325
Aboelazm KS, ‘The Judicial Constitutional Review for the Legislative Omission: A Comparative Study’ (2025) 17(1) ‘Krytyka Prawa: Niezależne Studia nad Prawem 316. doi:10.7206/kp.2080-1084.766
Abu Al-Nasr MM, Disability and the Disabled: A Modern Perspective (Arab Group for Training and Publishing 2014)
Ahmed HA, Obligations of the Pregnant Woman Towards the Fetus between Criminalization and Preamble (Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya 1996)
Al Kubaisi FM, Childbirth (Defining, Regulating, Increasing): A Comparative Study in Sharia and Law (Dar Al Nawader 2012)
Al-Baz MA, Birth Control Policy and Methods in the Past and Present (Modern Age for Publishing and Distribution 1991)
Al-Husseini AA, The State of Necessity and Its Impact on Criminal Liability: A Comparative Study (Al-Halabi Legal Publications 2011)
Al-Miladi AMAQ, From People with Special Needs: The Mentally Disabled (University Youth Foundation 2006)
Al-Shazly FA, ‘Legal Protection of Women's Right to Reproduction’ (2009) 2(2) Journal of Law and Economic Research 129. doi: 10.21608/lalexu.2009.272217
Ali SF, Psychology of People with Motor, Hearing, Visual, and Mental Disabilities (Dar Al-Jami'a Al-Jadida 2010)
Antonios N, ‘Sterilization Act of 1924’ Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2011) <https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/sterilization-act-1924> accessed 20 June 2025
Atwaif M, ‘Criminal Protection for the Disabled Child in Moroccan Legislation’ (2015) 1(1) Criminal Justice Journal, Morocco 123
Awhab NM, ‘Protection of the Disabled, Fetal and Adult: A Jurisprudential Study, Sterilization of the Disabled as a Model’ (2017) 34(2) Journal of the College of Islamic and Arabic Studies for Boys, Al-Azhar University 2990
Baer JA, ‘The Rights of the Disabled’ in Baer JA, Equality under the Constitution: Reclaiming the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell UP 1983)
Bridges KM, ‘White Privilege and White Disadvantage’ (2019) 105(2) Virginia Law Review 449
Buckley LA, Combatting Disability Harassment at Work: Human Rights in Practice (Bristol UP 2022) 21. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2x00vrm.11
Cahn C, ‘Justice Delayed: The Right to Effective Remedy for Victims of Coercive Sterilization in the Czech Republic’ (2017) 19(2) Health and Human Rights Journal 9
Elliott L, ‘Victims of Violence: The Forced Sterilization of Women and Girls with Disabilities in Australia’ (2017) 6(3) Laws 8. doi:10.3390/laws6030008
Fakhoury S, Pregnancy Regulation Using Modern Scientific Means (Dar Al Ilm Lil Malayeen 1984)
Friedman PR, ‘Human and Legal Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons’ (1977) 6(1) International Journal of Mental Health 50.
Frohmader C and Ortoleva S, ‘The Sexual and Reproductive Rights of Women and Girls with Disabilities’ (ICPD International Conference on Population and Development Beyond 2014, July 2012)
Ghazal AFA, The Psychology of Disabilities: Theories and Treatment Programs (Dar Al-Ma'rifa Al-Jami'a 2016)
Hansen R and King D, Sterilized by the State: Eugenics, Race, and the Population Scare in Twentieth-Century North America (CUP 2013)
Haque OS and Stein MA, ‘COVID-19 Clinical Bias, Persons with Disabilities, and Human Rights’ (2020) 22(2) Health and Human Rights 285
Jastaniyeh HMH, ‘Medical Precautions for Marriage: A Jurisprudential Study’ (2016) 33 Journal of the Saudi Jurisprudence Association 257
Khater M and others, ‘The Role of Assistive Technology in Reinforcing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to Employment from a Legal Perspective’ [2025] International Journal of Law and Management. doi:10.1108/IJLMA-04-2025-0151
Laughlin HH, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago 1922)
Mahdi AR, Explanation of the General Rules of the UAE Penal Code Compared to Egyptian Law (UAE University Publications 1989)
Malatesta C, ‘America’s Sterilization Laws: An Essential Guide’ (MA thesis, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey 2017). doi:doi:10.7282/T3ZS309W
Moneim Nour MA, Medical Social Work and Rehabilitation (Cairo Modern Library 1973)
Murdock CW, ‘Sterilization of the Retarded: A Problem or a Solution?’ (1974) 62(3) California Law Review 917. doi:10.2307/3479751
Novotný L, ‘Illegal Sterilisation in the Czech Republic’ (2024) 76(8) Europe-Asia Studies 1185
Patel P, ‘Forced Sterilization of Women as Discrimination’ (2017) 15(38) Public Health Reviews 1. doi:10.1186/s40985-017-0060-9
Petchesky RP, ‘Reproduction, Ethics, and Public Policy: The Federal Sterilization Regulations’ (1979) 9(5) The Hastings Center Report 29. doi:10.2307/3561518
Ravnbøl CI, ‘The Human Rights of Minority Women: Romani Women’s Rights from a Perspective on International Human Rights Law and Politics’ (2010) 17(1) International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 1
Scott ES, ‘Sterilization of Mentally Retarded Persons: Reproductive Rights and Family Privacy’ (1986) 5 Duke Law Journal 806. doi:10.2307/1372669
Sifris R, ‘Involuntary Sterilization of HIV-Positive Women: An Example of Intersectional Discrimination’ (2015) 37(2) Human Rights Quarterly 464
Soohoo C and Diaz-Tello F, ‘Torture and Ill-Treatment: Forced Sterilization and Criminalization of Self-Induced Abortion’ in Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Gender Perspectives on Law and Torture: Law and Practice (American University Washington College of Law 2021) 279
Stote K, ‘The Coercive Sterilization of Aboriginal Women in Canada’ (2012) 36(3) American Indian Culture and Research Journal 117. doi:10.17953
Taha MA, Childbirth between Legitimacy and Criminalization (Dar Al-Fikr wal-Qanoon 2015)
Wang Z and others, In Communities We Trust: Institutional Failures and Sustained Solutions for Vaccine Hesitancy (Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan 2021) doi:10.7302/21935
Reviews for article
Add a Review
Publication history
-
DETAILS FOR PUBLICATION
Date of submission: 14 Jul 2025
Date of acceptance: 07 Oct 2025
Last publication: 17 Nov 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 2 rounds with major revisions
Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
AI Disclosure Statement:
The authors declare that no artificial intelligence tools were used in the writing, translation, or editing of this manuscript. The research and the content of the article represent the authors’ own original work. The corresponding author confirms that all co-authors complied with this declaration
How to cite it?
-
Eldeen Sayed MN, Aboelazm K, Al Shraideh S and Dganni KM, ‘Forced Sexual Sterilisation of Persons with Disabilities: Between International Obligations and National Implementation: A Comparative Study’ (2025) 8(4) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 275-300 <https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.4-a000138>
