beschreibt das bei dem ja einen logischen Zusammenhang.

Das sehe ich auch so. Aus der UN-Konvention folgt die Inklusionsforderung.

Etwas mit 'follows' oder 'leading to'?

I also think you could use imply/implies etc. for the first of these. (Which is also a term used to describe logical relationships.)

I'm less sure about the second one, partly because saying "X implies Y" often includes the meaning that X doesn't explicitly state that Y, whereas in the case of this UN convention, it sounds like they are talking about provisions that are explicitly included.

In that one, you might not have to translate 'daraus abgeleitet' directly at all -- e.g. "The Convention's requirement of inclusion aims at [etc.]"

"X implies Y" often includes the meaning that X doesn't explicitly state that Y, whereas in the case of this UN convention, it sounds like they are talking about provisions that are explicitly included.

Yes, the convention explicitly mentions inclusion, e.g. Article 24 "...States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels", so "imply" doesn't make much sense to me. But if the Inklusionsforderung is the one in the convention, why use "ableiten" at all?

Aufgrund der Stärkung der Menschenrechte für Schutzbedürftige (und darauf Bezug nehmend) ergeben sich neue (oder alte werden wieder hervorgeholt) Inklusionsforderungen

This is a useful explanation, thanks.

 But if the Inklusionsforderung is the one in the convention, why use "ableiten" at all?

In a purely formal-logical sense, if X contains Y then you can straightforwardly derive Y from X.

But in less formal contexts, I agree it sounds a little off. Maybe the idiomatic use of 'ableiten' in German differs in that way from the use of 'derive' in English?