31.738
Bearbeitungen
Descriminalização das drogas no Brasil e além (2): Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Descriminalização das drogas no Brasil e além (2) (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 11. September 2016, 16:33 Uhr
, 16:33, 11. Sep. 2016→A Note on the Legal Framework
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 55: | Zeile 55: | ||
=== Bibliography === | === Bibliography === | ||
== | == Leftovers & Quarry == | ||
Like most UN treaty-based regimes, a number of organisational actors oversee its various aspects. Key among these is the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), which is the central policy-making body. The CND consists of 53 member states, and is assisted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB or the Board). The Board is the self-described independent and quasi-judicial’ control organ for the implementation of the treaties. It assesses worldwide scientific and medical requirements for scheduled substances and monitors compliance with the relevant conventions. Both the CND and the INCB rely on the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – the UN agency responsible for coordinating drug control activities – for administrative and technical support. | Like most UN treaty-based regimes, a number of organisational actors oversee its various aspects. Key among these is the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), which is the central policy-making body. The CND consists of 53 member states, and is assisted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB or the Board). The Board is the self-described independent and quasi-judicial’ control organ for the implementation of the treaties. It assesses worldwide scientific and medical requirements for scheduled substances and monitors compliance with the relevant conventions. Both the CND and the INCB rely on the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – the UN agency responsible for coordinating drug control activities – for administrative and technical support. | ||
| Zeile 61: | Zeile 61: | ||
Within this framework, textual ambiguity and subjective legal interpretation allow certain leeway in formulating national policies. Yet flexibility is limited. Consequently, while there has long been variation in national policies – a spectrum ranging from quasi-legal coffee shops in the Netherlands to zero-tolerance policing elsewhere – the regime greatly restricts national freedom of action. For example, no member state can create a regulated cannabis market for recreational use and still remain within treaty boundaries. Moreover, the conventions generate a powerful ‘background prohibitionist expectancy’ on nations regarding personal drug use. | Within this framework, textual ambiguity and subjective legal interpretation allow certain leeway in formulating national policies. Yet flexibility is limited. Consequently, while there has long been variation in national policies – a spectrum ranging from quasi-legal coffee shops in the Netherlands to zero-tolerance policing elsewhere – the regime greatly restricts national freedom of action. For example, no member state can create a regulated cannabis market for recreational use and still remain within treaty boundaries. Moreover, the conventions generate a powerful ‘background prohibitionist expectancy’ on nations regarding personal drug use. | ||
Although it is ultimately a multilateral construct, the shape and operation of the current treaty system is very much a result of American endeavour. The prohibitionist norm at the heart of the regime owes much to the successful internationalisation of the United States’ domestic approach – namely, that the recreational use of certain substances is morally wrong. Furthermore, the near universal levels adherence to the regime cannot be divorced from Washington’s support. States obviously perceive benefits from regime membership. | Although it is ultimately a multilateral construct, the shape and operation of the current treaty system is very much a result of American endeavour. The prohibitionist norm at the heart of the regime owes much to the successful internationalisation of the United States’ domestic approach – namely, that the recreational use of certain substances is morally wrong. Furthermore, the near universal levels adherence to the regime cannot be divorced from Washington’s support. States obviously perceive benefits from regime membership. | ||
===Regime Weakening=== | ===Regime Weakening=== | ||