roadmaps to reforming the un drug conventions - Beckley Foundation

number of countries, including the USA, Canada, Australia, and several in Europe and LatinAmerica. Many of them have in turn mounted vigorous defences of their reforms. It isbecoming increasingly apparent, in other words, that in the past two years, significant crackshave opened up in the previously unassailable fortress of international control.In parallel with this stretching of the boundaries, countries need to consider how theirinternational treaty obligations might be amended – principally because there are severeconstraints on how much can be achieved within the room for manoeuvre allowed by thecurrent system. For example, a legally regulated market for non-medical, non-scientific useis clearly beyond the pale. As the cracks continue to widen and the status quo begins tocrumble, it is important for countries to be aware of what alternatives are open to them.This Report provides a framework for the development of such alternatives, explaining howcountries might amend their international obligations in order to allow them more freedom toformulate national policies that better suit their special needs, in place of the ‘one-size-fits-all’prohibitionist policies currently mandated by the UN Drug Conventions of 1961, 1971 and1988. In particular, Room and MacKay explore how countries could be afforded the freedomto adopt, within their own borders, policies that i) clearly and explicitly decriminalise thepossession and use of one or more currently controlled substances; or ii) create a strictlyregulated, legal, non-medical market in one or more currently controlled substances.The authors suggest two mechanisms by which these changes could be brought about. InChapter 6, Robin Room proposes that, by denouncing (i.e. withdrawing from) one or more ofthe Conventions and immediately re-acceding with reservations, countries could removethemselves from the scope of specific treaty clauses, while remaining committed to theremainder of their existing obligations. He calls this method ‘reform by subtraction’, becauseit subtracts from the wording that binds a party, but does not permit the modification orcreation of treaty wording. This is the path that Bolivia has taken in respect of coca-leaf.In Chapter 5, by contrast, Sarah MacKay shows how treaty clauses might be amendedand/or created in order to permit a country – or, better still, a group of countries actingtogether – the freedom required to formulate policies that better suit their domestic needs.The ideas put forward in this Report raise a number of legal and practical questions. Onwhat grounds might countries seek to modify their international obligations? How wouldamendments be enacted in practice? What would be the legal effect of adopting measuresthat conflict with existing obligations? In the process of reform, how would the rights ofcountries which did not wish to change the present system be assured? The authors givedetailed consideration to all of these questions, making this Report a practical as much as anacademic document.The UN Drug Conventions were supposed to protect the world from the risks associatedwith problem drug use, while safeguarding the supply of essential medicines. But illicitdrugs are cheaper, purer and more available than ever before; and a handful of rich nationsconsume over 90% of the world’s opioid analgesics, leaving the majority of countries withlittle or no access to them. Moreover, global prohibitionism has had devastating unintendedconsequences, including conflict and death, corruption and environmental destruction.By regarding the Conventions as immutable, we have turned what should have been a nobleservant into a brutal master. It is time for the nations of the world to reconsider and reassertcontrol, harnessing the organs of international diplomacy for the benefit of mankind.Amanda Feilding, 2012iv