International drug policies and cooperation under the framework of the Three International Drug Control Conventions: flexibility and evolution in the regime?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".