Article 11 UNCRPD (Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies) intervenes to protect people with disabilities in the same way as the whole population is protected. 

It may seem obvious, but it was only following the adoption of this article of the UNCRPD that the issue began to receive national attention and prompted a series of concrete commitments, albeit still insufficient, particularly at the national level.

The issue of people with disabilities in emergency and humanitarian interventions only began to receive serious attention following the war in the former Yugoslavia. It was during this conflict that the world first witnessed the dramatic conditions in the refugee camps for displaced persons in Kosovo, where the treatment of people with disabilities often amounted to violations of their human rights, and where civil protection systems proved unable to respond adequately to the needs of this segment of the population.

In Haiti, following the 2010 earthquake, 4,000 people underwent amputations simply due to the lack of adequate healthcare facilities. This highlighted the severe shortage of support, not only in terms of prosthetic and orthotic devices, but also in the provision of appropriate psychosocial support to help individuals rebuild lives that had changed dramatically overnight. This inability to protect and competently assist people with disabilities has been evident in many natural and human-made disasters, including earthquakes and floods that have occurred in our own country.

Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), titled "Situations of Risk and Humanitarian Emergencies," obliges ratifying States to take “all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies, and natural disasters.”

In recent years, the protection and safety of persons with disabilities have become an important focus of international debate to ensure equal opportunities and prevent discrimination against this population.

The so-called Verona Charter of 2007 (Verona Charter on the Rescue of People with Disabilities in Case of Disasters) was the first document to define the general principles underpinning emergency interventions for persons with disabilities. This was followed by a series of articles and manuals at the international level, curated by non-governmental organisations and organisations representing persons with disabilities. Notable among these is the bibliography contained in Humanitarian Aid and Disability. Vademecum 2015 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Rome, 2015), which includes the Vademecum on Humanitarian Aid and Disability published by Italian Development Cooperation—the first comprehensive governmental document on the subject.

The United Nations has also produced a series of key documents addressing humanitarian aid and emergency interventions, including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015) and the Charter on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action (Istanbul, 2016). Building on the latter, in July 2019, a working group of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)—the UN’s primary mechanism for inter-agency coordination in humanitarian assistance, established in June 1992 under General Assembly Resolution 46/182—issued the Guidelines on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action, following two years of collaborative work involving leading international experts. Italy was represented by a delegate from RIDS (Italian Network on Disability and Development). That same year, the UN Security Council also adopted Resolution 2475 (not 9475), aimed at strengthening the protection of civilians in armed conflict, with a specific focus on persons with disabilities.

The common thread running through all these documents is the imperative to ensure that humanitarian and emergency aid respects the human rights of all individuals. Traditionally, the humanitarian approach has been rooted in rapid intervention, drawing on models inspired by military corps or charitable organisations (such as the army or the Red Cross). The former is based on limiting losses, while the latter is founded on the notion that beneficiaries are passive recipients in need of assistance.
This approach typically involves a two-phase intervention: the first focuses on providing essential elements for rescue and immediate relief, such as food, healthcare, and shelter, while the second seeks to address additional needs, often classified as "special". As a result, these methods systematically overlook persons with disabilities, who are indeed considered among those with “special” needs, and are thus frequently excluded from the first phase of response.

This mechanism also reflects the logic of the triage system—a term derived from the French word triage, meaning "sorting" or "screening"—which is used to prioritise individuals involved in accidents or disasters according to levels of urgency, based on the severity of their injuries and clinical condition. However, persons with disabilities affected by natural or human-made disasters are often not treated as a priority, even when they are uninjured, and are frequently assisted only after others.
Even during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the Italian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) issued recommendations on how to manage a pandemic emergency in the context of limited instrumental and logistical resources. These recommendations sparked significant debate among medical professionals, particularly anaesthetists and intensive care unit directors. SIAARTI's guidance suggested excluding certain groups from triage for treatment, namely, very elderly individuals (based on survival probability and life expectancy) and persons with disabilities (based on severe comorbidities, functional status, and disability).
This form of selection—based on categorical criteria rather than individual clinical condition—bears disturbing parallels with historical practices, such as those implemented under Nazism, where population groups deemed to "pollute the race" were systematically excluded from care. Promptly, following a denunciation by the San Marino Bioethics Committee, the matter was brought to the attention of international human rights bodies and organisations representing persons with disabilities, and was strongly condemned.
Nevertheless, this type of discriminatory triage reflects what often occurred before the adoption of the CRPD, in many emergencies.
Disaster risk prevention and reduction must be grounded in multi-risk and multi-sectoral approaches that are inclusive, accessible, and both efficient and effective. In this regard, international frameworks advise governments to actively involve communities and key stakeholders—including women, children and youth, persons with disabilities, older people, and volunteers—in the development of policies, plans, and standards; in short, in building resilience. Society as a whole must act as an engaged partner, with participation based on empowerment (i.e. the growth of self-awareness), inclusion, accessibility, and non-discrimination, with particular attention paid to those disproportionately affected by disasters, especially the most economically vulnerable.
Indeed, the European Commissioner for Equality, Helena Dalli, has stated that persons with disabilities and their families have borne a disproportionate burden of hardship compared to other citizens. Throughout all phases of emergency response, it is essential to consider gender, age, disability, and local cultural contexts. The participation of women and young people must be actively promoted, including through the engagement and strengthening of voluntary civil society organisations.
Both the European Union and the Council of Europe have addressed the issue of inclusive emergency response for persons with disabilities. Following a series of consultations with relevant stakeholders, the Council of Europe published a dedicated manual in 2016 as a contribution to the EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement. The European Union, for its part, adopted the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, while the Council of the EU issued the Conclusions on Disability-Inclusive Disaster Management. In addition, the European Commission released an operational guide in 2019 entitled The Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in EU-funded Humanitarian Aid Operations. This guide laid the groundwork for the subsequent Disability Strategy 2021–2030, which also encompasses actions related to humanitarian and emergency assistance.

In recent years, a range of natural disasters—including earthquakes in Turkey, Morocco, and Italy, and floods in Libya, Germany, Italy, and Spain—as well as armed conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine, have exposed the widespread unpreparedness of emergency systems to safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities. A 2021 study by the European Disability Forum revealed that, among 55 countries examined for national emergency legislation, only five made explicit reference to persons with disabilities, and only two—Italy and Serbia—included organisations of persons with disabilities in emergency response coordination structures.

Climate change is also contributing to an exponential increase in natural disasters. In response, the Human Rights Council, through Resolution 41/21 (adopted on 23 July 2019), requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare an analytical study on the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of climate change. The study was subsequently presented on 22 April 2020.