European Experiences in the Political Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities: What Can Jordan Learn?
In the second half of the twentieth century, the international system witnessed a fundamental transformation in its approach to human rights. This shift moved human rights from the realm of broad moral principles to that of a binding international legal framework, one that redefined the relationship between the state and the individual, clarified the limits of authority, and reshaped the concept of human dignity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 marked the starting point of this transformation. It was subsequently strengthened through the adoption of the two International Covenants in 1966, which firmly established the principles of the universality and indivisibility of rights and linked states’ commitments to clear legal obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill those rights.
Within this broader evolution, a qualitative shift has emerged in the approach to the rights of persons with disabilities, marked by a move away from a logic of care and charity toward a rights-based framework grounded in equal citizenship. Disability is no longer understood as an isolated individual condition, but rather as a structural and rights-related issue linked to the legislative and institutional environment and its capacity to enable full participation in public life, particularly in the political sphere.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) of 2006 stands as the most authoritative international reference in this regard. It established a comprehensive legal framework affirming the right of persons with disabilities to meaningful political participation—not merely in formal terms, but in terms of their genuine ability to influence decision-making processes—while emphasizing the principles of consultation and active involvement in the formulation of public policies. Accordingly, compliance with relevant international obligations cannot be achieved through purely formal legislative alignment; rather, it requires clear implementation policies and robust institutional frameworks that ensure effective inclusion and translate legal rights into practical, sustainable reality.
This paper aims to analyze how Jordan can move from mere legislative recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities toward achieving genuine and sustainable political inclusion, drawing on a critical examination of European and Canadian experiences in this field. It seeks to assess the existing gap between the legal framework and actual practice in the Jordanian context, and to examine the impact of institutional and organizational factors, as well as public policies, on enabling or constraining the participation of persons with disabilities in political life and decision-making processes, within the broader context of political system modernization.
European and Global Experiences in the Political Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities
The European experience has emerged as one of the most advanced models for integrating the rights of persons with disabilities within the broader framework of human rights and democratic governance. This approach is grounded in a firmly held conviction that political participation is not a social privilege, but a fundamental right inherent in full citizenship. The explicit commitment of European states to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has contributed to making political inclusion a legislative and institutional priority, particularly given the Convention’s integration within a well-established European rights regime. This regime includes the European Union and its legal instruments, most notably the European Convention on Human Rights, which together have reinforced the normative and practical foundations of inclusive political participation.
Human rights moved from the realm of broad moral principles to that of a binding international legal framework, redefining the relationship between the state and the individual and reshaping the concept of human dignity.
The European approach is grounded in a broad understanding of political inclusion as a means of strengthening social cohesion, ensuring fair representation, and expanding participation in public decision-making. The involvement of persons with disabilities in electoral processes, parliamentary work, and public policy formulation is therefore not viewed merely as compliance with international obligations, but as a fundamental condition for enhancing the quality of democracy itself, by incorporating voices and experiences that have long been marginalized in the public sphere.
Nevertheless, as in most international experiences, a clear gap has emerged between ambitious legislative texts and the level of practical implementation. European states recognized early on that the existence of an advanced legal framework does not, in itself, guarantee effective inclusion unless it is supported by implementation measures, oversight mechanisms, and public policies capable of removing real-world barriers. Consequently, many countries have moved toward adopting complementary legislation and practical measures aimed at bridging this gap and translating international commitments into tangible practices.
In this context, the 2018 amendment to the European Union’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive stands as a telling example of the shift from normative commitment to concrete implementation. The amendment required television broadcasters to provide subtitles, sign language interpretation, and audio description, as well as to ensure accessible emergency services. This development had a direct impact on the political sphere by increasing both the quantity and quality of electoral content available to persons who are deaf or blind, thereby enhancing their ability to follow political and electoral programs and to make informed decisions on an equal basis with others.[1]
This trajectory was further reinforced by the launch of the Declaration in Support of the Right of Persons with Disabilities to Vote (2023), which was signed by 22 EU member states alongside the European Disability Forum under the title “Declaration on Expanding Voting Rights.” The declaration focused on a set of practical principles, most notably the involvement of organizations of persons with disabilities in the design of electoral policies, the removal of physical, digital, and informational barriers, the guarantee of the right to vote independently and secretly, and the recognition of the growing role of technology in facilitating access to political information and electoral services.
These experiences demonstrate that the relative success of the European model is attributable not only to the strength of its legislation, but also to the adoption of an integrated approach that brings together law, public policy, technology, and partnership with civil society organizations. This approach underscores that the political inclusion of persons with disabilities is not a narrowly technical measure with limited impact, but rather a long-term structural process aimed at redefining political participation on the basis of equality, empowerment, and full recognition of the right to influence and participate in decision-making.[2]
At the national level, several European states, along with Canada, have taken advanced steps in developing legislation, policies, and practical systems designed to support the political inclusion of persons with disabilities. These efforts are grounded in an approach that treats political participation as an inseparable component of equal citizenship, rather than as a mere extension of social welfare policies.
The United Kingdom: From Statistical Recognition to Institutional Empowerment
The United Kingdom is regarded as one of the leading countries in integrating a disability perspective into public policy, drawing on robust data systems and a clear legal understanding of the concept of disability. According to a national survey for the period 2023–2024, approximately 25 per cent of the population is classified as persons with disabilities, reflecting both the size of this group and its direct impact on public and political life.[3] British law defines disability as the presence of a physical or mental impairment that has substantial and long-term adverse effects and significantly limits an individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This definition is consistent with the international standards set out in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[4]
This understanding has been reflected in a set of policies and practical measures designed to support political inclusion, most notably the establishment of the Access to Elected Office Fund. This fund is dedicated to covering the additional costs that candidates with disabilities may incur during electoral campaigns, such as expenses related to personal assistance, interpretation, or technical accommodations. Its primary objective is to reduce the structural and social barriers that hinder candidacy and to ensure equal opportunities in accessing elected office.
The shift from charity and care toward a rights-based framework grounded in equal citizenship represents a qualitative transformation in disability rights.
In parallel, the UK Parliament has worked to create a supportive institutional environment through internal mechanisms that include support networks for staff and Members of Parliament with disabilities, as well as training and awareness programs and the adaptation of parliamentary procedures to guarantee full and effective participation. These measures contribute to normalizing the presence of persons with disabilities within state institutions, reducing stereotypes, and transforming inclusion from an exceptional arrangement into a sustainable institutional practice.
Germany: Independent Monitoring and the Role of Civil Society
In Germany, the national experience has been shaped by a combination of robust legal frameworks, independent monitoring mechanisms, and an active civil society. In 2008, the German government established the Independent Monitoring Mechanism (IMM), an autonomous body tasked with assessing the extent to which legislation, public policies, and administrative procedures comply with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and with issuing periodic recommendations to improve practical implementation.
According to data from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, the proportion of individuals classified as having a “severe disability” reached 9.4 per cent of the population by the end of 2021. The German legal system adopts a functional classification of disability based on the degree of limitation in daily activities, an approach that allows for the design of more precise policies tailored to the diverse needs of different groups.[5]
Civil society organizations in Germany play a pivotal role in promoting the social and political inclusion of persons with disabilities, not only through advocacy but also via innovative practical initiatives. For instance, Sozialhelden e.V. works to remove physical and societal barriers and raise public awareness. One of its flagship projects, Wheelmap, provides an interactive map that assesses the accessibility of public spaces, indirectly facilitating broader social and political participation.[6]
Similarly, bezev plays an active role in political advocacy at both national and international levels, working to integrate disability issues into sustainable development and international cooperation policies. The Interessenvertretung Selbstbestimmt Leben (ISL) is another leading organization advocating for the right of persons with disabilities to live independently, actively participating in the formulation of public policies and monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in everyday life.[7]
Austria and Canada: Advanced Models of State–Civil Society Partnership to Promote Political Inclusion
In Austria, disability is defined functionally, based on the impact of long-term physical, mental, psychological, or sensory impairments on an individual’s ability to participate in social life, particularly in everyday professional activities. According to official data for 2022, persons with disabilities constitute approximately 8.3% of the total population, reflecting a socially significant presence that calls for effective inclusion policies, especially in the political sphere.[8]
Within this framework, civil society organizations play a central role in policy-making and rights advocacy. The Austrian Council for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities serves as an umbrella body encompassing around 85 organizations representing nearly 1.4 million persons with disabilities. The Council functions as an organized political advocacy group, coordinating the interests of member organizations and translating them into actionable policies at both national and international levels. This approach strengthens meaningful political participation and ensures that the disability perspective is systematically integrated into decision-making processes.
Advanced legal frameworks do not, in themselves, guarantee effective inclusion without implementation measures and oversight mechanisms.
In addition, the Oesterreichische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation (OeAR) stands out as a key organization representing more than 78 associations, covering approximately 400,000 persons with disabilities, and serving as the national contact point with the European Disability Forum. OeAR contributes to the preparation of periodic reports, including the alternative report on the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). It also participates in specialized studies addressing the rights to political participation and monitors mechanisms that ensure the electoral and administrative rights of persons with disabilities. These efforts exemplify a participatory model based on institutional cooperation between the state and civil society, aligning with international standards and enhancing the implementability and evaluability of policies.[9]
At the global level, Canada represents an advanced model in building a comprehensive national system for monitoring and implementing CRPD obligations. The Canadian government has established national indicators to measure progress and relies on a federal definition of disability that emphasizes functional limitations hindering full and equal participation in society. According to the 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD), approximately 27% of Canadians aged 15 and older live with some form of disability, highlighting the need for robust inclusion policies, particularly in the electoral and political spheres.[10]
In this context, civil society organizations play a crucial role in advocacy and facilitating access to the electoral process. For example, the ARCH Disability Law Centre monitors federal party positions and analyzes their commitments to disability issues, while also providing clear and accessible information about facilitated voting procedures on election day. Similarly, the Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD-ASC) conducted a survey targeting five major political parties to clarify their positions on key issues, including accessibility of the electoral process, housing, Canadian disability benefits, and inclusive technology.
These tools—particularly standardized surveys—serve as effective means of generating both quantitative and qualitative data that help assess compliance with national laws and international conventions. They also support the formulation of precise, measurable public policies and enable periodic comparisons to gauge progress over time. The Austrian and Canadian experiences demonstrate that sustainable political inclusion rests on three integrated pillars: a precise functional definition of disability, institutional partnership with civil society, and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that translate international commitments into tangible outcomes within democratic practice.
Implications of Comparative Experiences in the Political Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities
European and Canadian experiences in integrating persons with disabilities into political life reveal a set of structural insights that transcend national particularities and offer lessons applicable to public policy and contemporary democratic models.
First, these experiences demonstrate that effective political inclusion begins with a conceptual shift in the definition of disability—from being perceived as an individual or medical condition to being recognized as a rights-based and structural issue linked to the legislative, institutional, and social environment. The adoption of functional definitions of disability, as seen in the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, and Canada, enables states to design targeted policies aimed at removing barriers rather than merely managing their consequences. This conceptual shift constitutes a fundamental prerequisite for meaningful political participation.
Second, these experiences underscore that legislation alone is insufficient. Despite the existence of advanced legal frameworks, particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a clear gap has emerged between legal texts and their practical implementation. This gap has been addressed through executive policies and practical instruments, such as funds supporting candidacy, adaptations in political media, ensuring accessible polling stations, and independent monitoring mechanisms. Political inclusion, therefore, relies on an integrated system of laws, funding, and administrative measures, rather than on legal compliance alone.
Third, civil society emerges as a central and indispensable political actor in the success of inclusion policies. In all the studied models, organizations of persons with disabilities played roles that go beyond symbolic advocacy, encompassing participation in policy formulation, preparation of alternative reports, governmental performance monitoring, and evaluation of political parties’ electoral programs. This role reflects a shift from a model of “representation by proxy” to one of “representation through participation,” whereby persons with disabilities become active partners in decision-making rather than merely beneficiaries.
Fourth, these experiences demonstrate that political inclusion enhances the quality of democracy itself. The participation of persons with disabilities in elections, parliaments, and advisory bodies is not merely a response to the needs of a specific group; it broadens the scope of political representation and introduces new lived experiences into decision-making processes. In this way, inclusion shifts from being a sectoral policy to serving as a lever for producing more comprehensive and equitable policies capable of addressing the diversity of society.
Fifth, these models highlight the importance of measurable data and indicators in guiding policy. National surveys, party-targeted questionnaires, and independent monitoring mechanisms all provide tools for assessing progress, comparing performance over time, and holding governments accountable based on quantitative and qualitative evidence. This dimension is crucial for transforming political inclusion from a normative discourse into an outcome-based policy.
In sum, the implications of these experiences indicate that the political inclusion of persons with disabilities is a long-term, cumulative process that requires political will, a flexible legal framework, institutional partnerships with civil society, and continuous evaluation tools. They also underscore that success in this domain is not measured by the number of legal texts, but by the extent to which persons with disabilities can exercise their political rights independently, with dignity, and with meaningful influence over public policy.
Promoting Political Inclusion in Jordan: Lessons Learned and Paths for Development
Despite the significant legislative progress Jordan has achieved in the field of rights for persons with disabilities—through the early ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008 and the enactment of the Persons with Disabilities Rights Law No. (20) of 2017—the main challenge remains the transition from normative frameworks to actual political inclusion. Legislation, no matter how important, is insufficient on its own unless it is enforceable, supported by monitoring and accountability mechanisms, and translated into public policies and operational procedures that ensure equal participation in decision-making arenas.[11]
Political inclusion must be redefined as a full citizenship right linked to equality in influence and decision-making.
Practical experience reveals that the laws governing political life in Jordan still suffer from implementation gaps and organizational deficiencies that restrict the political participation of persons with disabilities—not only in elections but throughout the entire decision-making process: from policy formulation to party work, representation in elected and advisory bodies, and local governance. As a result, their political presence remains limited in form and weak in influence, despite legal recognition of their rights.
Therefore, bridging these gaps cannot be achieved through partial measures or isolated technical solutions; it requires a comprehensive reform approach that redefines political inclusion as a full citizenship right—linked to equality in influence and decision-making, rather than merely logistical accommodations or procedural exceptions. This conceptual shift is what distinguished the successful European and Canadian experiences, where disability was treated as a structural dimension of democratic governance rather than a separate social issue.
In this context, Jordan can draw lessons from international models such as the United Kingdom, Austria, Germany, and Canada—not by copying them literally, but by adapting their core elements in a manner consistent with local realities, including available resources, the legislative framework, and institutional capacity. These experiences demonstrate that meaningful political inclusion does not begin at the ballot box; it begins with integrating a disability perspective throughout the entire public policy cycle: legislation, planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
Within the broader efforts to modernize Jordan’s political and administrative system, there is an urgent need to review existing legislation from an inclusion perspective and to develop comprehensive policies that guarantee the political participation of persons with disabilities, as well as their involvement in local planning and national decision-making. Achieving this requires exploring political options and legislative scenarios that clearly define institutional responsibilities, improve the allocation of competencies, and address the current lack of institutional integration—a weakness that constitutes one of the main obstacles to effective implementation.
European experiences indicate that the success of political inclusion is closely linked to the presence of clear disability governance within the state. This includes strong coordinating bodies, independent monitoring mechanisms, and the regular involvement of organizations representing persons with disabilities in policy formulation, rather than consulting them only after decisions have been made. In the Jordanian context, this implies moving from ad hoc coordination to institutionalized partnership, so that disability issues become a permanent element of the political and administrative reform agenda.
At the level of electoral law, the role of persons with disabilities should not be reduced to that of voters who require accommodations only on election day, as is often the case in traditional approaches. Political participation begins much earlier—from access to political information, electoral programs, and public discourse, to the ability to form an independent opinion. Although coordination mechanisms exist, such as memoranda of understanding between the Independent Election Commission and the Higher Council for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enhancing participation requires ensuring comprehensive accessibility throughout the entire political process. This includes removing physical, digital, and informational barriers, and guaranteeing independence and secrecy in a verifiable manner.
Within this framework, the inclusion of binding provisions requiring electoral materials to be available in sign language, Braille, and simplified language, as well as the development of accessible digital platforms, should not be seen as legislative luxury. Rather, it constitutes a direct response to the requirements of equal participation, as evidenced by European experiences that link media accessibility to the quality of political engagement.
Regarding party law, the real challenge extends beyond formal membership to ensuring meaningful participation within party decision-making structures. Political parties represent the primary gateway to political influence, and any exclusion within them—even if informal—effectively translates into national-level political marginalization. The absence of provisions obliging parties to make their offices, websites, internal inclusion policies, and organizational and educational materials accessible results in silent institutional exclusion, even where laws do not formally restrict membership.
Comparative experiences have shown that institutionalizing political inclusion requires linking it to incentives and accountability mechanisms. These may include tying public funding for political parties to clear inclusion indicators, such as physical and digital accessibility, internal representation of persons with disabilities, political training and capacity-building programs, and the allocation of actual positions within candidate lists and leadership bodies.
Ultimately, promoting the political inclusion of persons with disabilities in Jordan is not a sectoral issue or the demand of a specific group; rather, it represents a fundamental step toward achieving social justice and consolidating participatory democracy in its fullest sense. Despite existing legislative progress, bridging implementation gaps requires clear political will, practical and participatory policies, genuine and sustainable stakeholder engagement, and a thoughtful adaptation of international experiences to fit national specificities.
Investing in political inclusion not only advances equality but also contributes to improving the quality of public policies, strengthens the principles of good governance, and redefines political participation as a right to influence rather than merely a right to be present. In this sense, the inclusion of persons with disabilities becomes a fundamental criterion for the success of the political system modernization project in Jordan, rather than a marginal or ancillary concern.
In the Context of Political System Modernization: Political Inclusion as a Fundamental Test of Reform
The discussion of the political inclusion of persons with disabilities in Jordan arises at a pivotal political moment, embodied in the project to modernize the political system. This project seeks to reshape the relationship between the state and society, expand the base of participation, enhance representation, and move from the management of politics to a more open and pluralistic practice of it. In this context, the inclusion of persons with disabilities cannot be separated from the essence of the project, as their presence or absence serves as a crucial indicator of the depth and limits of reform.
Despite Jordan’s notable legislative progress in the field of disability rights—through the early ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008 and the enactment of the Persons with Disabilities Rights Law No. (20) of 2017—the central challenge remains the transition from legal recognition to actual political inclusion. Legislation, no matter how advanced, remains a theoretical framework unless it is supported by clear public policies, practical implementation measures, and accountability mechanisms that ensure the translation of rights into institutionalized practice within political life.
Practical experience shows that the laws governing political activity still treat persons with disabilities primarily as a group requiring special accommodations, rather than as political actors and partners in decision-making. This is evident in their limited presence within political parties, weak participation in the formulation of programs and policies, relative absence from elected and advisory bodies, and the continued existence of physical, digital, and informational barriers within the broader political sphere. These gaps do not so much reflect a lack of legal provisions as they do a flaw in the approach to inclusion itself.
In the context of political system modernization, there is a pressing need to redefine political inclusion as a full citizenship right. It should not be limited to voting or candidacy, but should encompass the right to access information, participate in public debate, engage in party activities, contribute to local planning, and influence public policies. This understanding characterizes the European and Canadian experiences, where disability issues are integrated into the core of political governance rather than treated as a separate social matter.
The political modernization project, which aims to build effective political parties, a representative parliament, and local administrations closer to citizens, cannot achieve its objectives without including persons with disabilities throughout the entire political process. A modern party is one that can represent society in all its diversity, and a strong elected institution is one that reflects the plurality of society rather than a single segment. In this sense, the absence of persons with disabilities from positions of political influence constitutes a reform gap no less significant than any other structural deficiency.
Accordingly, the modernization process requires a comprehensive review of legislation and policies from an inclusion perspective—not merely to add new provisions, but to redesign implementation mechanisms and institutional roles. Weak integration among relevant bodies, overlapping authorities, and reliance on non-binding coordination all serve to undermine the substance of legal commitments and confine inclusion to the realm of intentions.
Inclusion of persons with disabilities is not a peripheral issue, but a fundamental criterion for assessing the seriousness of political reform
Moreover, modernizing the political system provides an opportunity to move from a logic of “accommodations” to a logic of “empowerment.” Rather than focusing on addressing barriers after they arise, the state assumes responsibility for designing inclusive political policies from the outset, taking into account the needs of persons with disabilities in legislation, planning, political communication, party activities, media, and local governance. This shift from reactive measures to proactive inclusion is one of the key lessons of international experiences.
This process cannot be completed without genuine partnership with organizations representing persons with disabilities—not merely as formal advisory bodies, but as active partners in policy formulation, implementation monitoring, and impact evaluation. Political modernization, at its core, is a participatory process; the broader the circle of genuine partners, the greater the likelihood of successful and sustainable reform.
In sum, integrating persons with disabilities into the political modernization process is neither a peripheral addition nor the demand of a specific group; it is a fundamental criterion for assessing the seriousness of political reform itself. Democracy that is not designed to include everyone remains incomplete, and reform that does not open space for the most marginalized groups remains limited in its impact. From this perspective, the political inclusion of persons with disabilities is not merely an expected outcome of modernization—it is one of its essential conditions for success.
[1] European Parliament and Council. Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services. Article 7, accessed December 15, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/DIR2018-1808.
[2] Spanish Presidency of the European Council, “Declaration of the Spanish Presidency of the European Council on Expanding Voting Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” Palma, 16 November 2023, signed by 22 EU Member States and the European Disability Forum; accessed 24 November 2023, https://www.rpdiscapacidad.gob.es/documentos/Noticias/DeclarationRighttoVoteENG241123.pdf. [rpdiscapac…dad.gob.es]
[3] UK Department for Work and Pensions, Family Resources Survey: Financial Year 2023 to 2024, GOV.UK, accessed December 15, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2023-to-2024 .
[4] Equality Act 2010, c. 15, Schedule 1, Part 1, UK legislation, accessed December 2025, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 GOV.UK, Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010, accessed December 2025, https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010
[5] German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), “7.8 Million Severely Disabled People Living in Germany,” press release No. 259 (22 June 2022), accessed December 2025, https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2022/06/PE22_259_227.html .
[6] Sozialhelden e.V., “Über uns,” Zugriff am 20. Dezember 2025, https://sozialhelden.de.
[7] Interessenvertretung Selbstbestimmt Leben e.V. (ISL), “Über uns,” Zugriff am 20. Dezember 2025, https://isl-ev.de
[8] Statistik Austria, Registered Disabled Persons in Austria 2022, accessed December 20, 2025, https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2024/09/20240910Betestat2EN.pdf.
[9] Government of Canada, Indicators for Monitoring the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), accessed December 20, 2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/reports/research/indicators-united-nations-convention.html.
[10] Statistics Canada, Canadian Survey on Disability, 2022, accessed December 20, 2025, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231201/dq231201b-eng.html.
[11] قانون حقوق الأشخاص ذوي الإعاقة رقم (20) لسنة 2017، الصادر في المملكة الأردنية الهاشمية بتاريخ 1 حزيران/يونيو 2017، منشور في الجريدة الرسمية، تم الاطلاع عليه في 20 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2025، https://www.lob.gov.jo/UI/laws/search_no.jsp?no=20&year=2017 .