This chapter explores the different forms of environmental violence practised against humans and nature (including the cannabis plant) in a context of intensive cannabis cultivation. In particular, it examines the effects of the industrial farming of cannabis since the 1960s on water, land, forests, animals and farmers. It also investigates the exploitation of the labour force, which has comprised vulnerable populations, especially women and landless agricultural workers since Rifian agriculture was first integrated into colonial capitalism in Morocco. While this study focuses on the Moroccan territory, the situation presented is by no means unique at the global level. The phenomenon can be seen developing both within a framework of prohibition and when legal and illegal actors adopt a capitalist system of exploitation, as is the case in California.
{"title":"The Rif and California: Environmental Violence in the Era of New Cannabis Markets","authors":"Kenza Afsahi","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3931","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the different forms of environmental violence practised against humans and nature (including the cannabis plant) in a context of intensive cannabis cultivation. In particular, it examines the effects of the industrial farming of cannabis since the 1960s on water, land, forests, animals and farmers. It also investigates the exploitation of the labour force, which has comprised vulnerable populations, especially women and landless agricultural workers since Rifian agriculture was first integrated into colonial capitalism in Morocco. While this study focuses on the Moroccan territory, the situation presented is by no means unique at the global level. The phenomenon can be seen developing both within a framework of prohibition and when legal and illegal actors adopt a capitalist system of exploitation, as is the case in California.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43056777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter challenges contemporary policy conceptions on the historical relationship between drugs and development policies. It uses a historical analysis to examine the interaction of drugs, governance, security, welfare and economic development policies within drug producing contexts in Asia, from colonialism through the period of decolonisation. It highlights that although modern narratives of drugs and development tend to view the latter as new and involving even immediately contemporary innovations for dealing with the outcomes of drug economies and drug policies, the historical reality is much more complex. Managing drugs and development was a fundamental historical process of state regulation, control and the settling of geographical boundaries, both economically and physically. This chapter posits two foundational ideas. First, the issues of drugs and development have always been fundamentally linked, from the globalisation of trade through mercantilist imperial policies, state formation, the limits of governance, the distribution of economic gains, and political economy outcomes stretching from the local to the global. Drugs, licit and illicit, have therefore always been an issue of economic development. Second, policymakers have long recognised and developed state responses based on the above reality. While not going under its now ‘official’ title, many of the principles of ‘alternative development’ have been ingrained in policy responses and limitations over the past several centuries.
{"title":"Imperial Drug Economies, Development, and the Search for Alternatives in Asia, from Colonialism to Decolonisation","authors":"J. Collins","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3683","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3683","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter challenges contemporary policy conceptions on the historical relationship between drugs and development policies. It uses a historical analysis to examine the interaction of drugs, governance, security, welfare and economic development policies within drug producing contexts in Asia, from colonialism through the period of decolonisation. It highlights that although modern narratives of drugs and development tend to view the latter as new and involving even immediately contemporary innovations for dealing with the outcomes of drug economies and drug policies, the historical reality is much more complex. Managing drugs and development was a fundamental historical process of state regulation, control and the settling of geographical boundaries, both economically and physically. This chapter posits two foundational ideas. First, the issues of drugs and development have always been fundamentally linked, from the globalisation of trade through mercantilist imperial policies, state formation, the limits of governance, the distribution of economic gains, and political economy outcomes stretching from the local to the global. Drugs, licit and illicit, have therefore always been an issue of economic development. Second, policymakers have long recognised and developed state responses based on the above reality. While not going under its now ‘official’ title, many of the principles of ‘alternative development’ have been ingrained in policy responses and limitations over the past several centuries.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44300356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Development questions have been central to international drug policy since the first tentative steps towards a global control regime over a century ago. The strategy that was devised to limit the cultivation of mind- and mood-altering plants imposed a disproportionate cost on cultivating territories in the global South. This burden intensified in the post-war period and as the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and United States ‘war on drugs’ in the 1970s institutionalised ‘narcotics’ as a security issue and a law enforcement concern. Despite criminalisation and coercive state eradication efforts, illicit narcotic plant cultivation (opium poppy, coca) has persisted, reaching record highs after 2015. Recent decades have seen improved understanding of development deficits as the driver of sustained illicit cultivation. However, high-level efforts to promote inter-agency and thematic linkages between drug strategy and global development goals have seen the reinvention of orthodox approaches to both drug control and poverty reduction. Neither has a record of sustainable success or of raising concerns as to the counterproductive impacts of policy reproduction. In patching together new ideas within failing paradigms, alternative development is better understood as ‘policy bricolage’.
{"title":"Drug Control and Development: A Blind Spot","authors":"J. Buxton","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3667","url":null,"abstract":"Development questions have been central to international drug policy since the first tentative steps towards a global control regime over a century ago. The strategy that was devised to limit the cultivation of mind- and mood-altering plants imposed a disproportionate cost on cultivating territories in the global South. This burden intensified in the post-war period and as the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and United States ‘war on drugs’ in the 1970s institutionalised ‘narcotics’ as a security issue and a law enforcement concern. Despite criminalisation and coercive state eradication efforts, illicit narcotic plant cultivation (opium poppy, coca) has persisted, reaching record highs after 2015. Recent decades have seen improved understanding of development deficits as the driver of sustained illicit cultivation. However, high-level efforts to promote inter-agency and thematic linkages between drug strategy and global development goals have seen the reinvention of orthodox approaches to both drug control and poverty reduction. Neither has a record of sustainable success or of raising concerns as to the counterproductive impacts of policy reproduction. In patching together new ideas within failing paradigms, alternative development is better understood as ‘policy bricolage’.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42064461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The moral approach that has been used to interpret and implement the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs exacerbates the health burden faced by people who use drugs. Drawing on our experience in research, programming and policy relating to drug use and health in South Africa, we illustrate the negative consequences prohibition has had for the health of people who use drugs in our country. We argue that South Africa illustrates how approaches that stigmatise people who use drugs are morally justified at the expense of human rights and public health outcomes. We highlight how South Africa is perpetuating prohibitionist approaches on international platforms and question why this has endured. Conflicting health and law enforcement policies, local conservatism and donor conditionality have thwarted harm reduction expansion and evidence-based drug policy development, resulting in notable harms. Persistent morally-based perspectives contribute to stigma and discrimination in healthcare facilities and negatively affect treatment-seeking by people who use drugs. Criminal justice responses have increased TB exposure and entry into correctional centres that do not offer evidence-based drug treatment services. Encouragingly, progressive health and HIV policy affecting people who use drugs has recently been developed, and the recent decriminalisation of cannabis opens a door for policy debate. We recommend that to improve health, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs should be challenged to prioritise rights and health and that the personal use of drugs be decriminalised. We also highlight the need for mechanisms to hold health and other actors accountable for ensuring that the health and rights of all people are prioritised and strengthened.
{"title":"Prohibitionist Drug Policy in South Africa—Reasons and Effects","authors":"A. Scheibe, Shaun Shelly, A. Versfeld","doi":"10.4000/poldev.4007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.4007","url":null,"abstract":"The moral approach that has been used to interpret and implement the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs exacerbates the health burden faced by people who use drugs. Drawing on our experience in research, programming and policy relating to drug use and health in South Africa, we illustrate the negative consequences prohibition has had for the health of people who use drugs in our country. We argue that South Africa illustrates how approaches that stigmatise people who use drugs are morally justified at the expense of human rights and public health outcomes. We highlight how South Africa is perpetuating prohibitionist approaches on international platforms and question why this has endured. Conflicting health and law enforcement policies, local conservatism and donor conditionality have thwarted harm reduction expansion and evidence-based drug policy development, resulting in notable harms. Persistent morally-based perspectives contribute to stigma and discrimination in healthcare facilities and negatively affect treatment-seeking by people who use drugs. Criminal justice responses have increased TB exposure and entry into correctional centres that do not offer evidence-based drug treatment services. Encouragingly, progressive health and HIV policy affecting people who use drugs has recently been developed, and the recent decriminalisation of cannabis opens a door for policy debate. We recommend that to improve health, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs should be challenged to prioritise rights and health and that the personal use of drugs be decriminalised. We also highlight the need for mechanisms to hold health and other actors accountable for ensuring that the health and rights of all people are prioritised and strengthened.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44736309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This policy comment aims to trace the evolution of the concept of alternative development (AD)—alongside changes in the global drug control regime during recent decades—from a practitioner’s point of view. Since the 1970s, drug supply reduction was primarily concentrated on law enforcement and crop substitution programmes. Following negative experiences, some governments focused on development-led approaches that consider the socio-economic and political conditions of drug crop cultivating areas. Both the 1988 United Nations drug control convention (Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances), the first to mention the concept of AD, and the 1998 Political Declaration created the latitude necessary for AD to evolve into a ‘third pillar’ within the traditional drug supply control system. Another political milestone was the Outcome Document of the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS), as it was the first to dedicate an entire chapter solely to development-oriented drug control. In recent years—unexpectedly given the niche that AD had formerly been—a growing number of countries have declared that they either implement domestic AD measures or support them abroad. The observable increase in AD interventions may be due to a growing engagement of governments, but could also be explained by a rebranding of existing measures, given the increased popularity of AD. The funding situation in light of this enhanced political momentum is, however, rather poor. Latest figures, from 2013, show that AD only accounts for 0.1 per cent of global official development assistance. Though there seems to have been a slight increase in funding recently, the authors argue that a real surge in funding is so far not in sight.
{"title":"From Alternative Development to Development-Oriented Drug Policies","authors":"Daniel Brombacher, Sarah David","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3711","url":null,"abstract":"This policy comment aims to trace the evolution of the concept of alternative development (AD)—alongside changes in the global drug control regime during recent decades—from a practitioner’s point of view. Since the 1970s, drug supply reduction was primarily concentrated on law enforcement and crop substitution programmes. Following negative experiences, some governments focused on development-led approaches that consider the socio-economic and political conditions of drug crop cultivating areas. Both the 1988 United Nations drug control convention (Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances), the first to mention the concept of AD, and the 1998 Political Declaration created the latitude necessary for AD to evolve into a ‘third pillar’ within the traditional drug supply control system. Another political milestone was the Outcome Document of the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS), as it was the first to dedicate an entire chapter solely to development-oriented drug control. In recent years—unexpectedly given the niche that AD had formerly been—a growing number of countries have declared that they either implement domestic AD measures or support them abroad. The observable increase in AD interventions may be due to a growing engagement of governments, but could also be explained by a rebranding of existing measures, given the increased popularity of AD. The funding situation in light of this enhanced political momentum is, however, rather poor. Latest figures, from 2013, show that AD only accounts for 0.1 per cent of global official development assistance. Though there seems to have been a slight increase in funding recently, the authors argue that a real surge in funding is so far not in sight.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46585901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This introductory article explains the rationale behind the 12th Thematic Issue of International Development Policy, which explores the tension between development and drug control goals, both current and historic. The volume of fifteen articles draws on a broad spectrum of thematic issues to address the following key questions: Are prohibition and development mutually exclusive or complementary international agendas? How do the harms associated with drug policy enforcement undermine development prospects? The diverse group of authors highlight the corrosive effects of criminalisation and prohibition - based approaches on the livelihoods and fundamental rights of those who are vulnerable, including women, children, people who count on drug cultivation and trafficking to make a living, and people who use drugs. They also address the limitations and feasibility of development - focused interventions in drug control strategies within the context of the prohibition paradigm.
{"title":"Are Barriers to Sustainable Development Endogenous to Drug Control Policies?","authors":"Khalid Tinasti, J. Buxton, M. Chinery-hesse","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3616","url":null,"abstract":"This introductory article explains the rationale behind the 12th Thematic Issue of International Development Policy, which explores the tension between development and drug control goals, both current and historic. The volume of fifteen articles draws on a broad spectrum of thematic issues to address the following key questions: Are prohibition and development mutually exclusive or complementary international agendas? How do the harms associated with drug policy enforcement undermine development prospects? The diverse group of authors highlight the corrosive effects of criminalisation and prohibition - based approaches on the livelihoods and fundamental rights of those who are vulnerable, including women, children, people who count on drug cultivation and trafficking to make a living, and people who use drugs. They also address the limitations and feasibility of development - focused interventions in drug control strategies within the context of the prohibition paradigm.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43422124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The illicit drug economy has emerged as a major factor that can exacerbate violence, complicate peace negotiations and corrupt transitions from war to peace. Trafficking chains span continents, yet they often take root in fragile and conflict-affected states, where violent actors can exploit the ‘violent-governance paradigm’ to entrench their economic, political and social influence. When this combines with the international narcotics enforcement regime, it has proven to have detrimental consequences for the resolution of conflict, as well as for the long-term developmental trajectories of those whose livelihoods depend on the drug economy. A harm reduction approach can be argued for, but the drug policy community has yet to demonstrate that it can offer proven alternatives beyond the point of cultivation for actors further along drug supply chains.
{"title":"Making War: Conflict Zones and Their Implications for Drug Policy","authors":"Tuesday Reitano","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3813","url":null,"abstract":"The illicit drug economy has emerged as a major factor that can exacerbate violence, complicate peace negotiations and corrupt transitions from war to peace. Trafficking chains span continents, yet they often take root in fragile and conflict-affected states, where violent actors can exploit the ‘violent-governance paradigm’ to entrench their economic, political and social influence. When this combines with the international narcotics enforcement regime, it has proven to have detrimental consequences for the resolution of conflict, as well as for the long-term developmental trajectories of those whose livelihoods depend on the drug economy. A harm reduction approach can be argued for, but the drug policy community has yet to demonstrate that it can offer proven alternatives beyond the point of cultivation for actors further along drug supply chains.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42528482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper looks at women involved in drug offences and women who use drugs, from the perspective of the intersection of three axes: i) gender relationships and gender systems, ii) development, and iii) drug policy. Its purpose is to analyse the impacts of drug policy on women from a gender perspective, with a focus on two groups of ‘women in detention’: incarcerated women and women in residential treatment centres. The paper argues that current drug policies are part and parcel of patriarchal structures that underlie violence against women and children and undermine gender equality and development. The international framework of drug control generates, via prohibition, illicit drug markets and drug trafficking organisations, which mirror hegemonic gender systems and treat women and children as disposable objects, maintaining sexist structures that lead to the exploitation of women’s labour by their male partners, patriarchal relations with regard to illicit waged labour, and patriarchal violence and culture. The other direct results of the implementation of international drug policy are the use of incarceration as a means of deterrence and the growing number of women in prison for drug offences. Also in the case of women who use drugs, current drug policies contribute, with practical and discursive elements, to the reproduction and justification of violence against women and girls. The two groups of women in detention analysed in this chapter, instead of being accompanied by communities, families and state institutions that address and attempt to repair the suffering and the crimes committed against them, are further isolated through institutionalisation in legal or illegal sites, in which violence against women is further reproduced and development is hindered.
{"title":"The Gendered Impacts of Drug Policy on Women: Case Studies from Mexico","authors":"Corina Giacomello","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3966","url":null,"abstract":"This paper looks at women involved in drug offences and women who use drugs, from the perspective of the intersection of three axes: i) gender relationships and gender systems, ii) development, and iii) drug policy. Its purpose is to analyse the impacts of drug policy on women from a gender perspective, with a focus on two groups of ‘women in detention’: incarcerated women and women in residential treatment centres. The paper argues that current drug policies are part and parcel of patriarchal structures that underlie violence against women and children and undermine gender equality and development. The international framework of drug control generates, via prohibition, illicit drug markets and drug trafficking organisations, which mirror hegemonic gender systems and treat women and children as disposable objects, maintaining sexist structures that lead to the exploitation of women’s labour by their male partners, patriarchal relations with regard to illicit waged labour, and patriarchal violence and culture. The other direct results of the implementation of international drug policy are the use of incarceration as a means of deterrence and the growing number of women in prison for drug offences. Also in the case of women who use drugs, current drug policies contribute, with practical and discursive elements, to the reproduction and justification of violence against women and girls. The two groups of women in detention analysed in this chapter, instead of being accompanied by communities, families and state institutions that address and attempt to repair the suffering and the crimes committed against them, are further isolated through institutionalisation in legal or illegal sites, in which violence against women is further reproduced and development is hindered.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70523271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper focuses on the child rights implications of bringing new substances into the global drug control regime. Focusing on the examples of ketamine and khat, which in turn highlight the issues of access to medicines (SDG 3) and child labour (SDG 8), it outlines the process for placing substances under international control and the child rights implications of such decisions. To date, however, child rights law has not been featured in this procedure. While child rights law may not be determinative in terms of outcome, the chapter focuses on an important process in global drug policy governance. If decisions to place substances under international control within the drug control architecture of the United Nations engage the obligations of child rights treaties, then there is a strong case for formally taking the obligations arising under those treaties into account.
{"title":"Incorporating Child Rights into Scheduling Decisions at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs","authors":"Damon Barrett, D. Lohman","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3972","url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the child rights implications of bringing new substances into the global drug control regime. Focusing on the examples of ketamine and khat, which in turn highlight the issues of access to medicines (SDG 3) and child labour (SDG 8), it outlines the process for placing substances under international control and the child rights implications of such decisions. To date, however, child rights law has not been featured in this procedure. While child rights law may not be determinative in terms of outcome, the chapter focuses on an important process in global drug policy governance. If decisions to place substances under international control within the drug control architecture of the United Nations engage the obligations of child rights treaties, then there is a strong case for formally taking the obligations arising under those treaties into account.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46081150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"The Meaningful Participation of ‘Stakeholders’ in Global Drug Policy Debates—A Policy Comment","authors":"Ann Fordham","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3861","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48553772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：