MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001162099

International drug policies and cooperation under the framework of the Three International Drug Control Conventions: flexibility and evolution in the regime?

2019· dissertation· en· W7001162099 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionFlexibility (engineering)Drug controlInternational regimeControl (management)Order (exchange)State (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this thesis is to analyse and critically consider whether the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol; the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971; and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 are flexible enough to develop new and innovative strategies to tackle the World Drug Problem, considering that there are countries establishing new internal policies and strategies that are considered by the International Narcotic Control Board (INCB) and several other States as illegal. This will be done through an evaluation of the current International Drug Control Regime as well as by evaluating the practice and positions of such States. To understand the new positions emerging inside the current drug control regime, particular attention will be given to changing State views after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session of 2016 (UNGASS 2016). 
\n
\nThis thesis will start with an historical analysis of the evolution of the International Drug Control Regime, in order to understand how it was built and what are the historical motivations that make this regime to be considered "repressive" by some States. The next chapter will address the theoretical framework necessary for this investigation. Specifically, it will consider international regimes, how they are constructed and modified by the relevant States or International Organizations. This will be complemented by an analysis of the different international instruments related to addressing the World Drug Problem, such as the Three International Drug Control Conventions. 
\n
\nThe following chapters will address specific case studies that demonstrate how this international debate is affecting national policies and, directly and indirectly, the possibilities for effective international cooperation. The research will address, in particular, the withdrawal and re-accession of Bolivia to the Single Convention of 1961, the Portuguese strategies aimed at addressing its national drug problem in a very innovative way without going out of the framework of the three conventions, as well as the new strategies regarding legalization of cannabis for recreational purposes implemented by Canada, Uruguay and some states of the United States. 
\n
\nThe thesis will seek to answer the research question whether the regime is flexible enough to accommodate new interests and positions from States advocating for a change in international strategies aimed at addressing the World Drug Problem. How far can such States Parties act flexibly within the current regime? Or is it necessary to break, totally or partially, with the current regime to create innovative ways to address this global issue? By answering these questions, this Thesis will seek to demonstrate that the International Drug Control Regime based on the three conventions is flexible enough to accommodate the different interests of the Member States. Therefore, those strategies that seek to go beyond the limits of the regime and the conventions, such as the legalization of the use of narcotics for recreational purposes, would not be justified

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it