The Meaningful Participation of ‘Stakeholders’ in Global Drug Policy Debates—A Policy Comment

Ann Fordham
{"title":"The Meaningful Participation of ‘Stakeholders’ in Global Drug Policy Debates—A Policy Comment","authors":"Ann Fordham","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This policy comment seeks to address three key questions relating to the participation of civil society in international drug policymaking. Firstly, who are the relevant ‘stakeholders’ and what options do they have to participate in drug policy discussions at the United Nations level? Secondly, have certain ‘stakeholders’ been able to positively influence the direction of global drug policies? And thirdly, who are the ‘most affected’ communities and what could be done to improve their meaningful engagement in the definition of drug policies that directly impact their lives? Unpacking the terminology around civil society, stakeholders, and most affected communities, the chapter argues for a clearer distinction between ‘rights-holders’ and ‘duty-bearers’. Masking the inherent power imbalances between the different stakeholders risks underplaying the rights of affected communities and legitimising a place at the table for corporations as ‘equal actors’ in spite of fundamentally different interests. The commentary concludes that the increased involvement over the past decade of civil society as well as other United Nations entities around the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS) has markedly influenced the global drug policy debate by shifting more attention towards health, human rights and development concerns.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This policy comment seeks to address three key questions relating to the participation of civil society in international drug policymaking. Firstly, who are the relevant ‘stakeholders’ and what options do they have to participate in drug policy discussions at the United Nations level? Secondly, have certain ‘stakeholders’ been able to positively influence the direction of global drug policies? And thirdly, who are the ‘most affected’ communities and what could be done to improve their meaningful engagement in the definition of drug policies that directly impact their lives? Unpacking the terminology around civil society, stakeholders, and most affected communities, the chapter argues for a clearer distinction between ‘rights-holders’ and ‘duty-bearers’. Masking the inherent power imbalances between the different stakeholders risks underplaying the rights of affected communities and legitimising a place at the table for corporations as ‘equal actors’ in spite of fundamentally different interests. The commentary concludes that the increased involvement over the past decade of civil society as well as other United Nations entities around the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS) has markedly influenced the global drug policy debate by shifting more attention towards health, human rights and development concerns.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“利益相关者”在全球毒品政策辩论中的有意义参与——一项政策评论
本政策评论力求解决与民间社会参与国际药物决策有关的三个关键问题。首先,谁是相关的“利益攸关方”,他们有什么选择参加联合国一级的毒品政策讨论?第二,某些“利益攸关方”是否能够对全球毒品政策的方向产生积极影响?第三,谁是“受影响最大”的社区?在制定直接影响他们生活的毒品政策方面,可以做些什么来改善他们的有意义参与?本章对民间社会、利益相关者和受影响最大的社区的术语进行了分析,主张对“权利持有人”和“责任承担者”进行更明确的区分。掩盖不同利益相关者之间固有的权力不平衡,可能会低估受影响社区的权利,并使企业作为“平等参与者”在谈判桌上的地位合法化,尽管它们的利益根本不同。评论的结论是,过去十年来,民间社会和其他联合国实体在2016年联合国大会世界毒品问题特别会议(特别会议)前后的更多参与,通过将更多注意力转向健康、人权和发展问题,显著影响了全球毒品政策辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Resistiendo frente a la extracción: desafíos para la creación de coaliciones entre los movimientos agrarios y antimineros Expanding Extractivisms: Extractivisms as Modes of Extraction Sustaining Imperial Modes of Living Regulación de la rehabilitación y el cierre de minas en tierras de propiedad indígena: Perspectivas de los Estados con recursos regulados de Australia y Canadá ‘We are nature defending itself’—The Forest of Dannenrod Occupation as an Example of Contested Extractivism in the Global North Les vies d’après de l’extraction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1