Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T08:32:54.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Adolf Lande
Get access

Extract

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, was opened for signature on March 30, 1961. As of August 1, 1961 (the last day for such action), this treaty was signed by 64 countries and as of the date of writing this article eleven states had become parties by ratification or accession: Cameroun, Canada, Cuba, Dahomey, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Morocco, Syria, and Thailand. When the United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, meeting at United Nations Headquarters from January 24 to March 25, 1961, adopted the new Convention on March 25, 1961, it completed a work which had occupied international organs since 1948. It was in this year that, at its third session, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs adopted a resolution, introduced by the representative of the United States, which recommended the draft finally adopted by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as Resolution 159 II D (VII), August 3, 1948. In this resolution the Secretary-General of the United Nations was requested to begin work on the drafting of a new single convention on narcotic drugs. He was instructed that the new treaty should replace the existing treaties in the field, provide for control of the cultivation of plants grown for the production of narcotic drugs, and simplify the international control machinery by replacing the present Permanent Central Opium Board and Drug Supervisory Body by a single organ.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1962 , pp. 776 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Subsequently referred to as “Single Convention”.

2 Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Single Convention.

3 Economic and Social Council Official Records (7th session), Supplement No. 9, p. 23Google Scholar.

4 The International Opium Convention, signed at The Hague, on January 23, 1912, subsequently referred to as the “1912 Convention”.

The International Opium Convention, signed at Geneva on February 19, 1925, subsequently referred to as the “1925 Convention”.

The agreement concerning the manufacture of, internal trade in, and use of prepared opium, signed at Geneva on February 11, 1925, subsequently referred to as the “1925 Agreement”.

The convention for limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of narcotic drugs, signed at Geneva on July 13, 1931, subsequently referred to as the “1931 Convention”.

The agreement for the control of opium smoking in the far east, signed at Bangkok on November 27, 1931, subsequently referred to as the “1931 Agreement”.

The convention for the suppression of the illicit traffic in dangerous drugs, signed at Geneva on June 26, 1936, subsequently referred to as the “1936 Convention”.

The following treaties were concluded after World War II:

The protocol signed at Lake Success on December 11, 1946, amending the agreements, conventions, and protocols on narcotic drugs concluded at The Hague on January 23, 1912, at Geneva on February 11, 1925, February 19, 1925, and July 13, 1931; at Bangkok on November 27, 1931, and at Geneva on June 26, 1936; subsequently referred to as the “1946 Protocol”.

The protocol signed at Paris on November 19, 1948, bringing under international control drugs outside the scope of the convention of July 13, 1931 for limiting the manufacture and regulating the distribution of narcotic drugs, as amended by the protocol signed at Lake Success on December 11, 1946, subsequently referred to as the “1948 Protocol”.

The protocol signed at New York on June 23, 1953, for limiting and regulating the cultivation of the poppy plant, the production of, international and wholesale trade in, and use of opium, subsequently referred to as the “1953 Protocol”.

5 The relevant provisions were mainly contained in the 1912 and 1925 Conventions.

6 The provisions concerned constituted the principal subject of the 1931 Convention.

7 The provisions relating to the illicit traffickers were primarily in the 1936 Convention.

8 Article 15 of the 1931 Convention (“special administration”), articles 11 and 12 of the 1936 Convention (“central office”); see also recommendation I of the 1931 Conference for the “Limitation of the Manufacture of Narcotic Drugs” as regards a “single authority”.

9 Economic and Social Council Resolution 667 H (XXIV), 08 1, 1957Google Scholar; see also ECOSOC Resolution adopted at the 34th session on August 3, 1962 (Document E/3692, Resolution F).

10 Article 20 of the 1925 Convention.

11 As regards prepared opium see, however, chapter II of the 1912 Convention, article 1 of the 1925 Agreement, and article 1 of the 1931 Agreement.

12 The system of licensing applied, however, to preparations of the extracts and tinctures, i.e., to dilutions which are less potent than the basic drugs.

13 For a comparison of the provisions of the existing treaties with the Single Convention, see Document E/3527.

14 “Production” is a treaty term for “harvesting”.

15 Poppy straw is also a raw material for the manufacture of “natural” narcotic drugs, but cannot be considered to be a narcotic as such.

16 Article 2 of the 1925 Convention; see also article 1 of the 1912 Convention.

17 Article 3.

18 Article 21 in connection with article 6, paragraph 2.

19 Document E/CN.7/SR.493.

20 Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1953 Protocol.

21 Renborg, Bertil A., International Drug Control (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1947), p. 239Google Scholar; Lande, Adolf, “The Adjustment of the International Opium Administration to an Eventual Dissolution of the League of Nations”, 45 Columbia Law Review (05 1945). P. 411CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Article 10 of the 1925 Convention and article 11 of the 1931 Convention.

23 Economic and Social Council Official Records (7th session), Supplement No. 9, pp. 24–25Google Scholar.

24 ECOSOC Resolution 159 II E (VII), 08 3, 1948Google Scholar.

25 Economic and Social Council Official Records (13th session), Supplement No. 13, paragraph 134.

26 Economic and Social Council Official Records (26th session), Supplement No. 9, paragraphs 478 and 479; see also Document E/CN.7/AC.3/9, articles 32 and 33.

27 Documents E/CN.7/W.41, 44, 50, 53 and E/OB/W.78. See this issue, p. 776.

28 Economic and Social Council Official Records (9th session), Supplement No. 9, pp. 39 and 40Google Scholar; ECOSOC Resolution 246 D (IX), 07 6, 1949Google Scholar.

29 Document E/CN.7/AC.3/3.

30 ECOSOC Resolution 246 D (IX), 07 6, 1949Google Scholar.

31 Document E/CONF.34/22, article 16.

32 Section 23, paragraph 7.

33 Section 24.

34 Economic and Social Council Official Records (9th session), Supplement No. 9. The idea of the international clearing house had been suggested by the Joint Secretariat of the Permanent Central Opium Board and Drug Supervisory Body: Document E/OB/W78, pp. 19–21.

35 Economic and Social Council Official Records (14th session), Supplement No. 8, paragraphs 99 and 100.

36 Section 13(b)(i)(dd).

37 See article 22 of the 1925 Convention and article 22 of the 1931 Convention.

38 Economic and Social Council Official Records (12th session), Supplement No. 2, chapter III; (13th session) Supplement No. 13, chapter III; (14th session) Supplement No. 8, chapter III and annex C; (16th session) Supplement No. 4, chapter III and annex C; (18th session) Supplement No. 8, chapter III and annex D; (20th session) Supplement No. 8, chapter III and annex D.

39 Document E/CN.7/AC.3/7.

40 Article 23, paragraph 2(d).

41 Article 2, paragraph 5 (first alternative: paragraph reference 55). Under a second alternative of paragraph 5 (paragraph reference 56) the prohibition would only have the character of a recommendation to parties.

42 Articles 32–40.

43 Article 59.

44 For a detailed discussion of the second draft see Lande, A., “La Codification du droit international des stupéfiants”, 2 Annuairc Franfais de Droit International (1956), pp. 557–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar plus corrigendum.

45 Economic and Social Council Official Records (22nd session), Supplement No. 8, chapter IV and annex IV; (24th session) Supplement No. 10, chapter X and annex VI; (26th session) Supplement No. 9, chapter XII and annex V.

46 Document E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.1; the drug schedules (Add.1) were prepared by the Secretariat.

47 Economic and Social Council Official Records (26th session), Supplement No. 9, paragraph 471. See also Goodrich, Leland P., “New Trends in Narcotics Control”, International Conciliation, 11 1960 (No. 530), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pp. 191 ff.Google Scholar

48 Economic and Social Council Official Records (26th session), Supplement No. 9, paragraphs 471–483.

49 Ibid., annex I.

50 ECOSOC Resolution 689 J (XXVI), 07 28, 1958Google Scholar.

51 Document E/CONF.34/23.

52 Document E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.1.

53 Document E/CONF.34/1 and Add.1–4. For comments received on earlier drafts see Documents E/CN.7/AC.3/5 and Add.1 and Corr.1, E/CN.7/AC.3/8 and Add.1–3, and E/CN.7/308 and Add.1–2.

54 Document E/CONF.34/22.

55 Document E/CONF.34/23.

56 Document E/CN.7/AC.3/ 9 and Add.1, article 32, paragraph 1(a).

57 Article 6, paragraph 2(a).

58 Documents E/CONF.34/C.5/SR.1, E/CONF.34/C.5/SR.4–6, E/CONF.34/SR.9–11, and E/CONF.34/SR.33.

59 Documents E/CONF.34/C.5/L.6 and E/CONF.34/SR.33; the vote was 39 to none with 10 abstentions. See article 24 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.

60 The organ that under the new convention will replace the Permanent Central Opium Board and Drug Supervisory Body.

61 Document E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.1, article 37.

62 Documents E/CONF.34/C.7/SR.2 and E/CONF.34/SR.33.

63 Article 24 of the 1925 Convention.

64 Article 14, paragraph 3 of the 1931 Convention.

65 Document E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.1, article 22, paragraph 3.

66 Ibid., article 22, paragraph 4.

67 Document E/CONF.34/SR.19; see also Document E/CONF.34/SR.18.

68 Article 14.

69 Document E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.1, article 2, paragraph 1(e) in connection with article 3, paragraph 3.

70 Documents E/CONF.34/C.2/SR.2 and 3, E/CONF.34/SR.5–6 and 14.

71 Document E/CONF.34A, p. 41.

72 Article 2, paragraph 5(b).

73 Articles 31–34, Schedule I (in Document E/CN.7/AC.3/9./Add.1) in connection with article 1(v).

74 Documents E/CONF.34/C.5/SR.1–3, E/CONF.34/SR.9–11 and 33.

75 Article 20, paragraph 1 (b) and (d) and article 25.

76 Article 45.

77 Documents E/CONF.34/SR.26–27, 32 and 42, and E/CONF.34/C.12/SR.1–5.

78 Article 36.

79 Article 44. Article 9 of the 1936 Convention will however be terminated. This article provided that crimes of illicit traffic should be deemed to be included in present and future extradition treaties and should be considered as extradition crimes by countries which grant extradition without treaty.

80 Article 45.

81 Document E/CONF.34/SR.36.

82 International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950: I.C.J. Reports 1950, pp. 128–145.

83 Article 19 of the 1925 Convention and article 9 of the Single Convention. Of the four members of the Drug Supervisory Body, two are appointed by WHO, one by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, and one by the Permanent Central Opium Board.

84 Article 40.

85 Article 48. Under the third draft also, members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (see article 48, paragraph 1, in connection with ECOSOC Resolution 689 J [XXVI], 07 28, 1958)Google Scholar were admitted; no reference was made to the Statute of the Court.

86 Document E/CONF.34/SR.34–35.

87 Documents E/CONF.34/C.10/SR.2–3, and E/CONF.34/18–19.

88 Article 50, paragraph 2. No such reservation was permitted in respect of article 21, paragraph 4, also applicable to non-parties.

89 Document E/CONF.34/SR.38.

90 Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Soviet Union, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

91 Article 55.

92 Article 48, paragraph 2.

93 Document E/CONF.34/SR.36.

94 Article 50, paragraph 2. It is interesting to note that at the time of signature Bulgaria and Hungary, but not the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, made this reservation; Argentina and Indonesia also made the reservation.

95 For a detailed survey of the progress made in the Single Convention and a comparison of this convention with the existing narcotics treaties, see Document E/3527.

96 Except its article 9; see article 44, paragraph 2 of the Single Convention.

97 Article 16.

98 Article 20 of the 1925 Convention.

99 Article 41, paragraph 1.

100 Documents E/CN.7/SR.493 and E/3645, paragraphs 239–245.

101 Article 24, paragraph 2(a).

102 Documents E/CN.7/SR.493–495, and E/3648, paragraphs 217 to 238.

103 The votes for were: Brazil, Canada, Hungary, India, Japan, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, the Soviet Union, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Yugoslavia; the votes against were: Mexico and the United States; China, France, Iran, Turkey, and the United Arab Republic abstained.

104 United States.

105 France; see Documents E/3692 and E/SIU336.