Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Figures and maps
- Tables and boxes
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Soft defection and the domestic normalization of harm reduction
- 3 Harm reduction at the UN: member state tension and systemic dissonance
- 4 Cannabis, soft defection and regime weakening
- 5 Defending the regime: the International Narcotics Control Board
- 6 Beyond regime weakening? Lessons from the UNGASS decade
- Index
- References
5 - Defending the regime: the International Narcotics Control Board
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Figures and maps
- Tables and boxes
- Preface and acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Soft defection and the domestic normalization of harm reduction
- 3 Harm reduction at the UN: member state tension and systemic dissonance
- 4 Cannabis, soft defection and regime weakening
- 5 Defending the regime: the International Narcotics Control Board
- 6 Beyond regime weakening? Lessons from the UNGASS decade
- Index
- References
Summary
[The fight against drugs] will be won. It has been won in a number of countries. It will be won.
Dr. Philip O. Emafo, INCB member and former president, 2008Under the Presidency of Sir Harry Greenfield, the operation of the Permanent Central Opium Board (PCOB) has been described as ‘the judicious pursuit of “quiet diplomacy”’. Such an approach is clearly in marked contrast to that adopted by the PCOB’s successor body during the UNGASS decade. The character of the INCB has undoubtedly fluctuated periodically since it began its operations under the Single Convention in 1968. It is perhaps no coincidence, however, that an increasingly vocal and what can be considered un-diplomatic approach towards exercising its role has taken place during a period when the original prohibitionist vision underpinning the current regime has come under increased and widespread pressure. As the evidence presented in the preceding chapters demonstrates, soft defection from the regime’s authoritative norm in relation to both some harm reduction interventions and various approaches to the use of cannabis at the national and sub-national level have elicited hostile responses from the Board; a body that is becoming increasingly isolated in its faith in a punitive approach to the illicit use of drugs. Beyond this dynamic, the Board’s defensive stance and maximalist interpretation of the conventions also raises questions about the overall nature of its operation within the UN drug control apparatus.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Drug ControlConsensus Fractured, pp. 219 - 278Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2012
References
Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century: An International HistoryLondonRoutledge, 2000Google Scholar
United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, New York 24 January – 25 March 1961, Official Records, Vol. INew YorkUnited Nations, 1964Google Scholar
Penal Aspects of the UN Drug ConventionsThe Hague, London, BostonKluwer International, 2001Google Scholar
United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Vienna, 25 November – 20 December 1988, Official Records, Vol. IINew YorkUnited Nations, 1991Google Scholar
Commentary on The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988, Done at Vienna on 20 December 1988New YorkUnited Nations, 1998Google Scholar
‘The New World Order and the Need for an International Criminal Court’Fordham International Law Journal 16, 1992 108Google Scholar
Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961New YorkUnited Nations, 1973Google Scholar
Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global PoliticsIthaca, New YorkCornell University Press, 2004Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2005New YorkUnited Nations, 2006Google Scholar
The Gentlemen’s Club: International Control of Drugs and AlcoholUniversity of Chicago Press, 1975Google Scholar
The International Narcotics Control Board: Watchdog or Guardian of the UN Drug Control ConventionsBeckley, Oxon.The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, 2006Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1993New YorkUnited Nations, 1994Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2000New YorkUnited Nations, 2001Google Scholar
Response to the 2007 Annual Report of the International Narcotics Control BoardWitley, SurreyInternational Drug Policy Consortium, 2008Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2004New YorkUnited Nations, 2005Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2008New YorkUnited Nations, 2009Google Scholar
The International Narcotics Control Board: Current Tensions and Options for ReformWitley, SurreyInternational Drug Policy Consortium, Briefing Paper 7, 2008Google Scholar
‘Progress or Backsliding on HIV and Illicit Drugs in 2008’Lancet 371 2008 1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Closed to Reason: The International Narcotics Control Board and HIV/AIDSTorontoCanadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the International Harm Reduction Development Program of the Open Society Institute, 2007Google Scholar
‘Addressing the Global Tragedy of Needless Pain: Rethinking the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs’Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35, 2007 562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Ensuring Effective Pain Treatment: A National and Global Perspective’Journal of the American Medical Association 299, 2008 89Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999New YorkUnited Nations, 2000Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2003New YorkUnited Nations, 2004Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2006New YorkUnited Nations, 2007Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2007New YorkUnited Nations, 2008Google Scholar
‘The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco’American Journal of Public Health 94, 2004 836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
From the Mountaintops: What the World Can Learn from Drug Policy Change in SwitzerlandNew YorkOpen Society Foundation Global Drug Policy Program, 2010Google Scholar
Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and PlacesCambridge University Press, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Erratic Crusade of the INCBAmsterdamTransnational Institute, Drug Policy Briefing, Number 4, 2003Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2002New YorkUnited Nations, 2003Google Scholar
The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: A Violation of International Human Rights Law, Harm Reduction and Human RightsLondonInternational Harm Reduction Association, 2007Google Scholar
Drugs and Democracy in Latin America: The Impact of US PolicyBoulder, ColoradoLynne Rienner, 2005Google Scholar
Illicit Drug Policies and the Global HIV Epidemic: Effects of UN and National Government ApproachesNew YorkInternational Harm Reduction Development, Open Society Institute, 2004Google Scholar
‘Emerging Policy Contradictions between the United Nations Drug Control System and the Core Values of the United Nations’International Journal of Drug Policy 16, 2005 425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commentary on the Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961New YorkUnited Nations, 1976Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2002New YorkUnited Nations, 2003Google Scholar
2002
‘War On Drugs: Should Nonviolent Drug Users be Subject to Arrest?CQ Researcher 16, 2006 495Google Scholar
‘Medical Marijuana Policy and the Virtues of Federalism’Publius: The Journal of Federalism 28, 2008 22Google Scholar
The 2007 Commission on Narcotic DrugsWitley, SurreyThe International Drug Policy Consortium, 2007Google Scholar
‘Supervised Injection Facilities and International Law’Journal of Drug Issues 33, 2003 564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2009
De-Americanizing Drug-Policy: The Search for Alternatives for Failed RepressionFrankfurt am Main, GermanyPeter Lang, 1994Google Scholar
‘A Modest Proposal to Clarify the Status of Coca in the United Nations Conventions’Crime, Law and Social Change 42, 2004 298Google Scholar
Sending the Wrong Message: The INCB and the Un-scheduling of the Coca LeafAmsterdamTransnational Institute, Drug Policy Briefing No. 21, 2007Google Scholar
Coca Yes, Cocaine, No? Legal options for the Coca LeafAmsterdamTransnational Institute, Drugs and Conflict Debate Papers, No. 13, 2006Google Scholar
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1994New YorkUnited Nations, 1995Google Scholar
1995
2007
Coca MythsAmsterdamTransnational Institute, Drugs and Conflict Debate Papers, No. 17, 2009Google Scholar
‘Unique in International Relations’? A Comparison of the International Narcotics Control Board and the UN Human Rights Treaty BodiesLondonInternational Harm Reduction Association, 2008Google Scholar
Victims of Groupthink; A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and FiascoesBoston, MassachusettsHoughton, Mifflin, 1972Google Scholar
‘Drug Control, Human Rights, and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: By No Means Straightforward Issues’Human Rights Quarterly 31 2009 752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Challenging the UN Drug Control Conventions: Problems and Possibilities’International Journal of Drug Policy 14, 2003 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reducing the Risk, Harms and Costs of HIV/AIDS and Injection Drug Use (IDU): A Synthesis of the Evidence Base for Development Policies and ProgramsTorontoHealth Canada, 2003Google Scholar
The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First CenturyNew YorkVintage Books, 2003Google Scholar
2001
Commentary on the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961New YorkUnited Nations, 1976Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by