Depending on the conceptualization of the domain [40], this would imply the codification of the right to mobility or accessibility as a basic human right.
In the case of a positive right, like the right to mobility or accessibility, this typically implies a duty on government to provide a service in case persons are not able to guarantee their rights through 'free' market transactions.
This includes the US, where regulations and directives based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have lead to increasing scrutiny of transportation plans and policies from the perspective of justice, although it has by no means resulted in the establishment of a right to mobility or accessibility [34, 38, 45, 46, 56].
The AAAQ concept operationalises the right to health in terms of availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of care.
Yet, the transport domain could clearly benefit if interested parties would actively advocate a human right to (sufficient) mobility or (sufficient) accessibility.
Yet, interestingly, the 'right' to accessibility is implicitly mentioned in the right to housing where it reads that "adequate shelter means adequate location with regard to work and basic facilities, all at reasonable cost" ([11], Article 7).
Availability, accessibility, acceptability, and good quality are criteria that health services should fulfil in order to contribute to users' right to health care (11, 32– 32).
There is an international legal right to health, even if the ICC did not accept that it exists and unreasonably rejected the proposition that the right extends to the availability and accessibility of quality health information [ 42].
But isn't voting a right everyone should have equal right and accessibility to?
But neither has he been a panderer to "accessibility".
It comes down to accessibility.
