In the best interests of the child? Children, drugs and the law

In September 2011 The International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy delivered two lectures at Guangxi University in China. Damon Barrett’s lecture was about children, drugs and the law, focusing on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. His prezi slides are below.

‘Narco-Terror: Conflating the Wars on Drugs and Terror’, P. Gallahue, Essex Human Rights Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, October 2011

The following article is a fascinating insight into the increasing conflation of the wars on drugs and terror and the implications for human rights.

It appears in the current special edition of the Essex Human Rights Review, which focuses on ‘Balancing Counter-Terrorism Efforts with Human Rights a Decade After 9/11′

All article are free to read online.

Abstract

Following 11 September 2001, the United States found itself at war with the Taliban, an enemy that heavily exploits the drug trade, narrowing the divide between the war on drugs and the war on terror  in both rhetoric and tactics, with dangerous implications for human rights. This paper discusses the implications of including drug offenders in the war on terror on fair trial norms, the right to liberty and security of person and the right to life, among other human rights protections. Even before the 2001 attacks on the United States, drug-related offences in countries such as Malaysia and Egypt had been included in emergency legislation meant to deal with threats to the State. Counter-terrorism legislation introduced since launching the  war on terror further blurs the distinction between drug-related offences and terrorism, thus leading to the diminution of human rights protections. The war on terror has presented many challenges to international human rights law. Conflating terrorism with new subjects such as drugs therefore has the potential to do further damage to recognised human rights norms.

Read the full article

Call for Submissions: International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy, volume 2

The International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy is currently seeking submissions for the second edition of the International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy. The Journal is the first and only international peer reviewed law journal focusing exclusively on human rights and drug policy issues.

Established in 2009, the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy is dedicated to developing and promoting innovative and high quality legal and human rights scholarship on issues related to drug laws, policy and enforcement. It pursues this mandate by publishing original, peer reviewed research on drug issues as they relate to international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and public international law.

Submissions will be considered under the following categories.

1. Original articles – research and analysis on drug policy issues as they intersect with international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and/or public international law.
2. Opinion/Commentary – these submissions are designed to allow author(s) a forum to explore new and innovative thinking, promote debate and highlight emerging areas of interest.
3. Case summaries – these are intended to highlight and summarise new court decisions and other jurisprudence related to the Centre’s mandate.
4. Responses - these are short comments on previously published papers.

Author’s guidelines, as well as volume 1 of the Journal, may be found at www.humanrightsanddrugs.org

For more information email info@humanrightsanddrugs.org

*** Deadline for the second edition is 15 November 2011 ****

Vancouver safe injection facility, Insite, wins historic Supreme Court case

In its third successive court win against Government efforts to shut it down, Insite, North America’s only safe injection facility, has been allowed to remain open.

In a 9-0 unanimous verdict the Supreme Court ordered Canada’s Minister of Health to grant Insite the necessary exemption to the country’s drug laws to allow it to remain open.

The Court also set out criteria which should be considered in future such decisions, and stated that when a facility brings the kinds of benefits that Insite has displayed while not generating harms to public security, such exemptions should generally be given.

A case commentary from the lower courts appeared in the first volume of the International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy. A case commentary on this decision will appear in volume II.

The full decision may be read online at http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html

CBC News in Canada also has detailed coverage http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/29/bc-insite-supreme-court-ruling-advancer.html

‘Children of the Drug War: Perspectives on the impact of drug policies on young people’ Damon Barrett (ed)

‘Children of the Drug War’ is a unique collection of original essays, edited by Damon  Barrett (Project Director at the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy), that investigates the impacts of the war on drugs on children, young people and their  families. With contributions from around the world, providing different perspectives and utilizing a  wide range of styles and approaches including ethnographic studies, personal accounts and  interviews, the book asks fundamental questions of national and international drug control systems:

• What have been the costs to children and young people of the war on drugs?
• Is the protection of children from drugs a solid justification for current policies?
• What kinds of public fears and preconceptions exist in relation to drugs and the drug trade?
• How can children and young people be placed at the forefront of drug policies?

Four thematic sections address:

• Production and trade
• Race, class and law enforcement
• Families and drug policy
• Drug use and dependence

The book is published by the International Debate Education Association (iDebate Press). It is available for purchase in hard copy from amazon.com, amazon.co.uk and other outlets.

A pdf of the full book and pdfs of each of its four sections are available for free download. It may also be read online.

‘Drug Control, Human Rights, and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: A Reply to Saul Takahashi’. Simon Flacks, Human Rights Quarterly

Human Rights Quarterly 33 (2011) 856–877

Abstract:

A recent article in this journal [Human Rights Quarterly] challenged claims that a human rights framework should be applied to drug control. This article questions the author’s assertions and reframes them in the context of socio-legal drug scholarship, aiming to build on the discourse concerning human rights and drug use. It is submitted that a rights-based approach is a necessary, indeed obligatory, ethical and legal framework through which to address drug use and that international human rights law provides the proper scope for determining where interferences with individual human rights might be justified on certain, limited grounds.

Download the article from Human Rights Quarterly

Simon Flacks is a Ph.D. research fellow at the Empowerment Through Human Rights College, University of Vienna, Austria. He holds an LL.M. in International Human Rights Law from Birkbeck College, University of London, UK, and formerly worked for the Child Rights Information Network (CRIN) in London.

He is a research associate with the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy

Summer School on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Central European University, Budapest, 11-22 July

The International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy is taking part in the first summer school on human rights and drug policy to take place at the Central European University, in Budapest, Hungary.

The course covers a range of issues, from the international drug control regime to public health and supply side isses.

Damon Barrett of the Centre is lecturing and facilitating working groups on international law, human rights and the international drug control system, and the rights of the child.

http://www.summer.ceu.hu/02-courses/course-sites/drug/index-drug.php

Course Director: Desmond Cohen, Formerly Dean School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex, UK and Director of the HIV/AIDS and Development Program, UNDP; Advisor OSI Global Drug Policy Program

Faculty:
Damon Barrett, Senior Analyst in Human Rights, Harm Reduction Association, UK and International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Ireland
David Bewley-Taylor, Senior Lecturer, School of Arts and Humanities, University of Swansea, UK
Balazs Denes, Executive Director, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Budapest, Hungary
Krzysztof Krajewski, Professor of Criminology, Jagellonian University, Krakov, Poland
Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, Director, Global Drug Policy Program, OSI, Warsaw, Poland
Daniel Mejia, Professor of Economics, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia
Wiktor Osiatynski, Visiting Professor, CEU, Budapest, Hungary

The course aims to situate drug policies globally within a framework of fundamental human rights, and to assess the extent to which country and international drug policies fail to meet human rights standards. Discussion will focus partly on the identification and understanding of human rights including those that have their basis in international agreements and laws, and in part on evaluation and assessment of the gap between rights and practice in the implementation of drug policies in many countries and regions. The focus of the course will be global and participants will be drawn from all regions internationally.

A mix of teaching modes will be used and faculty are encouraged to minimise the use of formal lectures. Emphasis will be on discussion and interactive learning with maximal use of written and non-written materials. There exist considerable amounts of audio-visual media and these will be extensively used as a basis for group discussion. Time will be allocated for personal reading and participants will be encouraged to interact personally with faculty so as to deepen understanding of the issues. Site visits and discussions with civil society organisations and groups will be a feature of the programme of activities.

All those attending the course will be provided by CEU with a Certificate of Attendance. Opportunities will also be provided during the course for personal discussions with Faculty. It is intended that further work after the conclusion of the course be encouraged both in respect of research and programme analysis and development. Course faculty will be prepared to provide follow up assistance through personal agreement with students

Briefing on Bolivia’s concurrent drug control and other international legal commitments

Damon Barrett
International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy
July 1, 2011

Bolivia’s denunciation of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is not just about one treaty. It is about finding an appropriate balance between multiple concurrent and conflicting international legal obligations. When international treaties ratified by or acceded to by Bolivia and relevant jurisprudence are taken into account, it is clear that Bolivia would find itself in breach of multiple international agreements were it to fully implement the 1961 Single Convention as written. A reservation on the 1961 Single Convention is the most reasonable and proportionate way to address this conflict.

Download the backgrounder (PDF)

This is particularly so in relation to indigenous peoples and free prior and informed consent relating to issues that affect them. The manner in which Bolivia translates international obligations under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs into national legislation, programmes and policies must be consistent with its obligations to respect indigenous peoples rights that flow from its obligations under contemporary international, constitutional and (indigenous) customary law. The proposed reservation provides the means through which these obligations can be harmonised. Without it the Convention would constitute a unilateral imposition of a ban on the coca leaf on indigenous peoples, and a failure to fulfill the obligations to hold good faith consultations in order to obtain their consent and to ensure their cultural and physical survival.

A second question relates to whether the reservation is compatible with other concurrent international legal obligations, in this case under the law of treaties and children’s rights. An analysis of these agreements set against Bolivia’s proposal reveals no apparent conflict.

This backgrounder is divided into two sections.

I. Considers drawing a balance between the Single Convention of 1961 and
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
• International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 1966
• International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 1965
• UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2007
• ILO Convention 169 – Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989
• UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003
• UN Convention on the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988
• Convention on Biological Diversity 1992

II. Considers the compatibility of the proposed reservation with
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
• Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989
• ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour 1999

Bolivia Withdraws from the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

TNI/WOLA Press release
Thursday, June 30, 2011

The Bolivian government formally notified the UN Secretary General of its withdrawal from the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (as amended by the 1972 Protocol) yesterday. The withdrawal will enter into effect on 1 January 2012. At that time, Bolivia will re-accede to the Convention with a reservation on the coca leaf and its traditional uses.

Bolivia’s step – the first of its kind in the history of the UN drug control treaties – comes after the rejection earlier this year of its proposal to delete the Single Convention’s obligation that “coca leaf chewing must be abolished” (article 49). A number of countries, including the United States, objected.

TNI and WOLA express their full understanding and support for the decision taken by the Morales administration, with the approval of the Bolivian legislature. After its proposed amendment was rejected, Bolivia had no other choice but to withdraw from the Convention, given the need to reconcile its international treaty obligations with the country’s new 2009 Constitution, which allows for a period of four years for the government to “denounce and, in that case, renegotiate the international treaties that may be contrary to the Constitution.”

According to the 2009 Constitution: “The State shall protect native and ancestral coca as cultural patrimony, a renewable natural resource of Bolivia’s biodiversity, and as a factor of social cohesion; in its natural state it is not a narcotic. It’s revaluing, production, commercialization and industrialization shall be regulated by law” (article 384). Martin Jelsma, director of TNI’s Drugs and Democracy program, points out: “The restrictions placed by the Single Convention on the coca leaf and its traditional uses – in the absence of any evidence of its harmfulness, were an historical error and a violation of indigenous rights.” The other procedure available under the treaty to correct this error – apart from the amendment that was already rejected – is a World Health Organization (WHO) review of the classification of the coca leaf. Bolivia considers that the outcome of such a WHO procedure would likely take too long to comply with the four-year Constitutional deadline.

We call on the international community to express understanding and support for the decision taken by the Bolivian government. Other countries with comparable legal conflicts regarding the status of the coca leaf, such as Peru, Colombia and Argentina, would be well-advised to follow Bolivia’s step and/or to initiate the long overdue WHO review.

CONTACT:
Kristel Mucino, TNI/WOLA Drug Law Reform Project Communications Coordinator
kmucino@wola.org; 617-584-1713

RESOURCES:

Backgrounder: Bolivia’s denunciation of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
Backgrounder: Bolivia’s concurrent drug control and other international legal commitments
Press conference by H.E. Pablo Solon, Permanent Representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, on Bolivia’s decision to withdraw
Martin Jelsma, Director of TNI’s Drugs and Democracy Program, on “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”
Drug Law Reform Website: Unscheduling the Coca Leaf

Bolivia likely to denounce 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Bolivia’s lower house has agreed to denounce the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs due to longstanding disagreement with the ban on traditional uses of coca in the treaty.

The law, proposed by President Evo Morales, is likely to pass the upper house where his party has a significant majority. The aim is to re-accede to the Convention with a reservation on the disputed provision(s).

Under the Single Convention (articles 49 and 50) reservations are dealt with in some detail. This move in fact raises some interesting legal issues, and will create inevitable diplomatic heat. It is unclear as yet what the reservation will look like.

The Guardian newspaper is carrying the story. It will be a very interesting legal issue to follow, and one we will be watching closely.

Next Page »