made a reservation concerning criminalising possession or purchase for personalconsumption (§2), as well as on provisions urging that offences <strong>un</strong>der <strong>the</strong> article beregarded as serious, and be treated with limits on discretion and with long statutes oflimitations (§§6,7,8). The Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands also reserved concerning §§6, 7 and 8, anddeclared a number of ‘<strong>un</strong>derstandings’ upon signing <strong>the</strong> treaty concerning Article 3 and<strong>the</strong> definition of ‘illicit traffic’ in Article 1.Yemen’s reservation is open-ended, reserving its ‘right <strong>to</strong> enter reservations in respect <strong>to</strong>such articles as it may see fit at a time subsequent <strong>to</strong> this signature’.Seventeen parties, including European Union members, Mexico, Turkey and <strong>the</strong> UnitedStates, filed objections <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> reservations <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1988 treaty. The objections concernedmatters of extradition, confiscation, mutual assistance, and <strong>the</strong> law of <strong>the</strong> sea. Only <strong>the</strong>U.S. objection <strong>to</strong> Colombia’s reservations and declarations makes reference <strong>to</strong> areservation concerning Article 3. The objections do not block any of <strong>the</strong> reservations,since <strong>the</strong> 1988 treaty has no specific provision which allows that. However, several of <strong>the</strong>objections considered <strong>the</strong> reservation in question ‘<strong>to</strong> be contrary <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> object andpurpose of <strong>the</strong> Convention’ – as France stated, for instance, concerning Lebanon’sreservations concerning banking secrecy, and Vietnam’s concerning extradition.As noted, France’s language here points <strong>to</strong> possible challenges of future reservations<strong>un</strong>der <strong>the</strong> 1969 Vienna Convention on <strong>the</strong> Law of Treaties. But what is meant by <strong>the</strong>‘object and purpose’ of a treaty, as a leading treatise on international law notes drily, ‘isnot free from <strong>un</strong>certainty’. 52 A footnote <strong>to</strong> this statement quotes two guidelines <strong>to</strong>practice, in draft <strong>the</strong>n but now adopted by <strong>the</strong> International Law Commission, which donot do much <strong>to</strong> give a more specific meaning:3.1.5 Incompatibility of a reservation with <strong>the</strong> object and purpose of <strong>the</strong> treatyA reservation is incompatible with <strong>the</strong> object and purpose of <strong>the</strong> treaty if it affectsan essential element of <strong>the</strong> treaty that is necessary <strong>to</strong> its general tenor, in such away that <strong>the</strong> reservation impairs <strong>the</strong> raison d’être of <strong>the</strong> treaty.3.1.5.1 Determination of <strong>the</strong> object and purpose of <strong>the</strong> treatyThe object and purpose of <strong>the</strong> treaty is <strong>to</strong> be determined in good faith, takingacco<strong>un</strong>t of <strong>the</strong> terms of <strong>the</strong> treaty in <strong>the</strong>ir context, in particular <strong>the</strong> title and <strong>the</strong>preamble of <strong>the</strong> treaty. Recourse may also be had <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> prepara<strong>to</strong>ry work of <strong>the</strong>treaty and <strong>the</strong> circumstances of its conclusion and, where appropriate, <strong>the</strong>subsequent practice of <strong>the</strong> parties. 5352Shaw, M.N. International Law, 6 th edition. 1 st South Asian edition, p. 921. Cambridge, etc.: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2010.53International Law Commission. Guide <strong>to</strong> Practice on Reservations <strong>to</strong> Treaties, 2011. New York: UnitedNations, 2011. http://<strong>un</strong>treaty.<strong>un</strong>.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/1_8_2011.pdf(accessed 7 April, 2012).21
As Swaine notes, ‘<strong>the</strong> Vienna Convention [on <strong>the</strong> Law of Treaties] sheds no light on howa treaty’s “object and purpose” is <strong>to</strong> be reckoned, nor does practice’. 54 Though someobjections <strong>to</strong> reservations <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>drug</strong> treaties have used <strong>the</strong> ‘object and purpose’formulation, no fur<strong>the</strong>r argument is made indicating views on what <strong>the</strong> phrase mightmore specifically mean in a <strong>drug</strong> treaty context.The precedents in <strong>the</strong> <strong>drug</strong> treaties, in summary, are that <strong>the</strong>re are multiple reservationsby many parties <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> treaties. Parties making reservations include <strong>the</strong> U.S., <strong>the</strong> RussianFederation, and o<strong>the</strong>r co<strong>un</strong>tries viewed as strong supporters of <strong>the</strong> <strong>drug</strong> prohibitionsystem. It thus seems disingenuous of <strong>the</strong> INCB, with respect <strong>to</strong> Bolivia’s action in 2011,<strong>to</strong> criticise ‘any approach whereby Governments use <strong>the</strong> mechanism of den<strong>un</strong>ciationand re-accession with reservation, in order <strong>to</strong> free <strong>the</strong>mselves from <strong>the</strong> obligation <strong>to</strong>implement certain treaty provisions’. 553.3 Den<strong>un</strong>ciation followed by reaccession with reservationsAs already noted, withdrawing from a treaty and <strong>the</strong>n immediately rejoining withspecified reservations is a strategy with a number of modern precedents from o<strong>the</strong>rtreaties. 56 As mentioned, Bolivia has now set out down this path, deno<strong>un</strong>cing <strong>the</strong> 1961treaty while anno<strong>un</strong>cing an intention <strong>to</strong> reaccede with a reservation concerning cocaleaves. Though <strong>the</strong> path probably seems more extreme <strong>to</strong> an <strong>un</strong>tu<strong>to</strong>red observer(considering <strong>the</strong> melodramatic connotations of ‘deno<strong>un</strong>ce’ in ordinary usage), it is apath which is less problematic <strong>un</strong>der international law than <strong>the</strong> apparently simpler pathof a late (retrospective) reservation (see 3.2 above). As noted, even <strong>the</strong> INCB, in its pressrelease deploring Bolivia’s action, acknowledged it <strong>to</strong> be ‘in line with <strong>the</strong> letter of <strong>the</strong>Convention’.The essential nature of a reservation is that it subtracts from <strong>the</strong> treaty or specifies it, butdoes not add new provisions or language. Thus it inherently has a more limited scopethan making amendments <strong>to</strong> a treaty, which usually involve adding new language.Never<strong>the</strong>less, reservations can be used <strong>to</strong> accomplish <strong>the</strong> two main goals with which weare concerned, and in <strong>the</strong> next chapter we set forth how this could be accomplished.In <strong>the</strong> previous section, we spelled out <strong>the</strong> provisions in <strong>the</strong> <strong>drug</strong> treaties concerningobjections <strong>to</strong> reservations, and <strong>the</strong> conditions <strong>un</strong>der which objections can mean that areservation is rejected. Reservations discussed in Chapter 6 entail proposed alterations<strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1961 (as amended) and 1971 treaties with respect <strong>to</strong> provisions in <strong>the</strong> treaty where54Swaine, E.T. ‘Reserving’. Yale Journal of International Law 2:307−66, 2006.55TNI with Reuters and Associated Press, ‘Evo does not convince <strong>the</strong> INCB on coca chewing’. Dec. 16.Amsterdam: TransNational Institute, 2011. http://<strong>drug</strong>lawreform.info/en/newsroom/latestnews/item/3049-evo-does-not-convince-<strong>the</strong>-incb-on-coca-chewing(accessed 2 July, 2012).56Helfer, L.R. ‘Not fully committed? Reservations, risk and treaty design’. Yale Journal of InternationalLaw, 31: 367−82, 2006.22
- Page 2 and 3: ROADMAPS TO REFORMINGTHE UN DRUG CO
- Page 4 and 5: ContentsPreface ...................
- Page 6 and 7: PrefaceTHE IDEA FOR this Report cam
- Page 8: PART I. POSSIBLE ROADMAPS
- Page 11 and 12: hope for serious progress, but we c
- Page 13 and 14: We do not underestimate the difficu
- Page 15 and 16: also imposes requirements concernin
- Page 17 and 18: domestic market, just as producers
- Page 19 and 20: Protocol strengthened some provisio
- Page 21 and 22: ut considerably less potency than s
- Page 23 and 24: has announced its intention to reac
- Page 25 and 26: objected to. Concerning the 1971 tr
- Page 27 and 28: Table 2. Summary of reservations to
- Page 29: Reservations about traditional use
- Page 33 and 34: unhappy about a country implementin
- Page 35 and 36: Preemption by a new ‘single conve
- Page 37 and 38: and their effort was rejected by a
- Page 39 and 40: national or subnational level. Proh
- Page 42 and 43: Chapter 5. Proposed treaty amendmen
- Page 44 and 45: Article 1. DefinitionsExcept where
- Page 46 and 47: Article 36 - penal provisionsIn Art
- Page 48 and 49: Article 7. Special Provisions regar
- Page 50 and 51: and to ensure adequate supplies of
- Page 52 and 53: Article 1 − definition of ‘cons
- Page 54 and 55: Article 19 - estimates of drug requ
- Page 56 and 57: Article 21. Limitation of Manufactu
- Page 58 and 59: contrary to a law or regulation ado
- Page 60 and 61: 1. in subparagraph (a):a) after ‘
- Page 62 and 63: ) for ‘in accordance with paragra
- Page 64 and 65: include a number of general stateme
- Page 66 and 67: the legality of drug possession. A
- Page 68 and 69: Chapter 7. Conforming the 1961 Conv
- Page 70 and 71: solely by Article 30, which require
- Page 72 and 73: on trade activities referred to in
- Page 74 and 75: (c) Require that licensed manufactu
- Page 76 and 77: issued in the form of counterfoil b
- Page 78: APPENDIXDETAILED COMMENTARY ON AMEN
- Page 81 and 82:
Articles 21-34 of the Convention im
- Page 83 and 84:
dispatch, transport, supply, purcha
- Page 85 and 86:
actions involving commercial quanti
- Page 87 and 88:
In the 1971 Convention the followin
- Page 89 and 90:
4.1.3 Option 2 - changes to Preambl
- Page 91 and 92:
separate estimates and statistical
- Page 93 and 94:
After ‘scientific research’, in
- Page 95 and 96:
would also include transforming a d
- Page 97 and 98:
(c) subject to the provisions of th
- Page 99 and 100:
endangered’ by a Party’s failur
- Page 101 and 102:
Article 9. Composition and Function
- Page 103 and 104:
2. The Board shall, in respect of c
- Page 105 and 106:
for the right of the INCB to establ
- Page 107 and 108:
) Subject to the deductions referre
- Page 109 and 110:
excess quantity must be deducted fr
- Page 111 and 112:
prohibition in Article 31(1)(b) aga
- Page 113 and 114:
4.8 Article 20 - statistical return
- Page 115 and 116:
separate returns would be required
- Page 117 and 118:
4.9.1 General comments on Article 2
- Page 119 and 120:
distributors), and any quantity tak
- Page 121 and 122:
a) The quantity consumed, within th
- Page 123 and 124:
Article 21 bis. Limitation of Produ
- Page 125 and 126:
to engage in cultivation; and culti
- Page 127 and 128:
the purposes of Option 2. However,
- Page 129 and 130:
in Article 29 to manufacture of mor
- Page 131 and 132:
) (i) Require medical prescriptions
- Page 133 and 134:
4.15 Article 31(1) - international
- Page 135 and 136:
commercial use. Export to a state o
- Page 137 and 138:
would automatically mean that posse
- Page 139 and 140:
preparatory acts, conspiracy and at
- Page 141 and 142:
offering for sale, distribution, 17
- Page 143 and 144:
Article 36. Penal Provisions1. a) S
- Page 145 and 146:
Article 36. Penal Provisions1. a) S
- Page 147 and 148:
Conference would have intended to a
- Page 149 and 150:
drugs (in more than small quantitie
- Page 151 and 152:
substances into its country or one
- Page 153 and 154:
apply to Schedule 1 substances. In
- Page 155 and 156:
substances (of more than a small qu
- Page 157 and 158:
1. The Parties shall require that t
- Page 159 and 160:
individuals may lawfully obtain, us
- Page 161 and 162:
4. The Parties shall furnish to the
- Page 163 and 164:
2. In subparagraph (b):a) after ‘
- Page 165 and 166:
obligations on Parties in respect o
- Page 167 and 168:
penalise preparatory acts in connec
- Page 169 and 170:
accordance with subparagraph (a) of
- Page 171 and 172:
Article 3(1)(c)(iii) warrants speci
- Page 173 and 174:
6.1.2. Option 1 - changes to the 19
- Page 175 and 176:
uncertainty. Accordingly, Article 3
- Page 177 and 178:
Consequently, Parties would also no
- Page 179:
…4. d) The Parties may provide, e