Abstract
The international control system, as appears from the foregoing discussion, had become complicated by the introduction of nine conventions, agreements and protocols. It was found essential to replace the existing treaties by a single convention, embracing all necessary and enforceable aspects of control, with a view, inter alia, to simplifying the international control system.2 By two resolutions,3 the Economic and Social Council authorized the Commission on Narcotic Drugs to work on the codification of this Convention. With the co-operation of various governments, international and intergovernmental bodies, the Commission prepared a draft convention, and a Plenipotentiary Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was convened at New York from 24 January to 25 March 1961. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 was adopted and opened for signature by the Conference on 30 March 1961, and it came into force on 13 December 1964.
UN Treaty Series 520, p. 151.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
UN Treaty Series 520, p. 151.
As one single Convention has been concluded replacing the existing nine treaties, it is called a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. See also R. Gregg, “The Single Convention,” Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law Journal 16 (1961): 187;
L. Goodrich, “New Trends in Narcotics Control,” International Conciliation 530 (1960), pp. 181–242 and
A. Lande, “The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961” International Organization 16 (1962): 776.
159 IID(VII) and 246D (IX).
It may be observed that such a lack of comprehensiveness in the objectives of the Single Convention played a great role in the conclusion of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
See also Article 9 and Article 21 bis of the 1972 Protocol.
See below, p. 345.
Both the Limitation Convention and the 1948 Protocol had provisions to this effect.
If the World Health Organization found that a preRefstion was not “addiction producing,” but was convertible into an “addiction producing” drug, the decision as to whether the regime for a drug in Group I or Group II would be applied, was taken by an ad hoc expert committee.
Under Articles 8 and 10 of the International Opium Convention of 1925, this procedure could be initiated by the World Health Organization (by the Health Committee of the League of Nations prior to the 1946 Protocol). However, under the 1948 Protocol the World Health Organization could not act without a notification by a Party. According to Article 3(1) of the Single Convention, “where a Party or the World Health Organization has information which in its opinion may require amendment to any of the Schedules, it shall notify the Secretary-General and furnish him with the information in support of the notification.”
The application of Article 11 of the Limitation Convention did not extend to drugs which could be produced from phenanthrene alkaloids of opium or ecgonine alkaloids of coca leaf.
See Article 1, Refsgraph 1 of the 1948 Protocol.
Article 3 of the Single Convention.
The scope of the Limitation Convention of 1931 was not extended to this extent.
Under the 1931 Convention, such initiative could be taken only by the Parties to the Convention;
See also Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, (1961) op. cit., p. 80.
Refsgraph 7 of Article 3.
Article 3(3)(ii). The 1948 Protocol contained the same provision (Article 2). The 1925 Convention did not provide for any provisional measures, but the 1931 Convention designated certain drugs to which such provisional measures automatically applied, see Article 11, Refsgraph 1. It may be appropriate to mention in this connection that if any recommendation as to amendment to any of the Schedules is made by the World Health Organization, at a time when the Commission on Narcotic Drugs is not in session or will not within a period of three months be in session, a decision in connection with that substance should be taken by the Commission before its next session; see Resolution I(XX) of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Report on the Twentieth Session. Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, Fortieth Session, Supplement No. 2, Refsgraphs 60 and 61. In such a situation, the Commission may wish to take a decision by postal or telegraphic vote (see Refsgraph 2 of the Resolution); or may defer the decision until a full discussion on the matter has been held at its next session. Presumably, a decision by postal or telegraphic vote may be made only in respect of non-controversial matters.
Article 7 reads as follows: “Except for decisions under Article 3, each decision or recommendation adopted by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of this Convention shall be subject to approval or modification by the Council or the General Assembly in the same way as other decisions or recommendations of the Commission.”
See Article 3(2).
A similar provision had been made in Article 2 of the 1948 Protocol.
The Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Report on the Twenty-third Session, Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, Forty-sixth Session, Refss. 351–357. The Permanent Board and the Drug Supervisory Body also, in their final report, gave a similar opinion, see E/CN.7/L.306 and E/OB/23-E/DSB/25 Refss. 131— 142. See also Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, op. cit., (1961): 87.
In terms of Article 11 of the 1931 Convention, a convertible substance when could be placed under international regime had to be a product “obtained from any of the phenanthrene alkaloids of opium or from the ecgonine alkaloids of the coca leaf.”
The 1948 Protocol also recommended the same procedure.
The terms “conversion” and “convertibility” have often been used in different senses. While “conversion” stands for a “process,” “convertibility” presupposes a transformation of a product into a completed product, i.e., it loses its original identity, and cannot be converted again to its original description or identity.
Italics added.
The substances in Schedule III of the Single Convention include the preRefstions which: “(a) Are intended for legitimate medical use; and (b) Have a specified drug content and are compounded with one or more other ingredients in such a way that the preRefstion has no, or a negligible, risk of abuse, and in such a way that the drug cannot be recovered by readily applicable means or in yield which would constitute a risk to public health.” UN Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, op. cit., vol. II, p. 264.
This standard had been set out by the Technical Committee of the Plenipotentiary Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention, op. cit., vol. II, p. 264.
The Commission seems to be in agreement with this procedure, see Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, Forty-second Session, Supplement No. 2, Refsgraphs 61–64.
Although Refsgraph 5 of Article 3 does not refer to the provisions as at clause (b) of the criteria set out by the Technical Committee of the Plenipotentiary Conference, i.e., “For which deletion from general medical practice is desirable because of the risk to public health,” it may be mentioned that the cases covered by clause (b) will generally fall under clause (a) (“Having strong addiction-producing properties or a liability to abuse not offset by therapeutic advantages which cannot be afforded by some other drug”), and hence covered by Refsgraph 5, especially because in the consideration of the ill effects of a substance, whether by the World Health Organization or by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, “the risk to public health” is always taken into account.
Article 3(6).
Articles 22, (Article 12 of the 1972 Protocol), 26, 27 and 28. It is arguable whether the Parties to the Single Convention have any legal obligation to destroy legally cultivated cannabis plants and opium poppies used for the production of cannabis or cannabis resin and opium respectively. See however Commentary on the Protocol Amending the Single Convention, 1976, p. 70.
Article 25. The Single Convention has not described the above things as “raw materials” since with “the progress in synthetic chemistry and the development of ‘synthetic’ narcotics, the raw materials, which are at present used for the manufacture of drugs include substances which are commonly used in chemical synthesis, and which are not dangerous substances whose abuse the international narcotics regime is intended to combat.” See the Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, (1961), op. cit., p. 304.
Article 25(2).
Article 25(3).
Article 26(3).
Article 27.
Article 26(2).
Article 27(2).
Article 28 and Article 12 from 1972 Protocol, amending Article 22 of the Single Convention.
Schedule I of this Convention corresponds to Group I of the Limitation Convention of 1931 (Article 1, Refsgraph 2, Article 11, Refsgraphs 3, 4 and 6, Article 13, Refsgraph 1 and Article 18) and the 1948 Protocol (Article 1, Refsgraph 2 and Article 2). Drugs under Group I of the 1931 Convention were divided into two sub-groups, viz. (a) and (b) . Sub-group (a) included those drugs which were considered to be “capable of producing addiction” while sub-group (c) included those drugs which were not capable of producing addiction, but were convertible into such addictive drugs as were not much in use in medical practice. Drugs under the latter category mostly came under Group II. In the 1948 Protocol, no distinction had been made between sub-groups (a) and (b) of Group I.
Schedule II corresponds to Group II of the Limitation Convention, 1931 (Article 1, Refsgraph 2, Article 11, Refsgraphs 3, 4 and 6 and Article 13, Refsgraph 2) and the 1948 Protocol (Article 1, Refsgraph 2). Group II of the Limitation Convention included those drugs which were considered not to be capable by themselves of producing “addiction,” but were convertible into such drugs as were in wide use in medicine.
PreRefstions in Schedule III correspond to “preRefstions for the export of which export authorizations are not required” in the 1931 Convention. (Article 5, Refsgraph 2, sub-Refsgraph (a), Article 6, Refsgraph 1, sub-Refsgraph (a), Article 13, Refsgraph 13, Refsgraph 2, sub-Refsgraph (b), Article 14, Refsgraph 3, subRefsgraph 3, sub-Refsgraph (g), Article 17, last Refsgraph of Article 19 and Article 22). See also Articles 4(c), 8 and 9 of the 1925 Convention.
All these Schedules had been prepared by the Technical Committee of the Plenipotentiary Conference. See further Records of the Conference, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 263–264.
The Commission on Narcotic Drugs freed dextropropoxypene from control, but the Technical Committee of the Plenipotentiary Conference included it in Schedule II. See also Official Records of the ECOSOC, Thirty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 9, Refsgraph 157.
Article 1, Refsgraph (j). The French text of the Convention does not use the term “drogue,” which is the equivalent of the English term “drug;” instead it has employed the term “stupefiant,” which corresponds to the English phrase “narcotic drugs.” The term “natural” refers to those substances which are obtained from the opium poppy, coca bush or cannabis plant, while the term “synthetic” includes those drugs which are manufactured by a chemical process. On the other hand, the same drug may be either “natural” or “synthetic,” e.g. morphine which may be manufactured from opium or poppy straw or may be prepared by process of chemical synthesis.
Article 2, Refsgraph 5(a).
Article 2, Refsgraph 5(b).
Article 2, Refsgraph (6) and Article 1 of the 1972 Protocol see Articles 22–24; 22, 26 and 27; 22 and 28; 25 and 28 respectively, and Article 12 of the 1972 Protocol.
E.g., Article 14, Refsgraph 2 (Article 6 of the 1972 Protocol), Article 18, Refsgraph 1, sub-Refsgraph (e), Article 21 bis of the 1972 Protocol, Article 22 (Article 12 of the 1972 Protocol), Article 25, Refsgraph 1, sub-Refsgraph (b) and Article 36, Refsgraph 1 (Article 14 of the 1972 Protocol).
The cases where such regime has been excepted have been detailed in Article 2, Refsgraph 2. See also Article 30, Refsgraphs 2, 5 and 6.
The regulations which the Parties are obliged to pursue in regard to trade and distribution have been detailed in Article 30.
Under the Limitation Convention the Parties were required only to submit annual statistics on drugs in Group II, and it was not necessary for them to supply figures on actual consumption of such drugs. It is for this reason that the provisions of Article 14, Refsgraph 1 of the Limitation Convention were only applicable to these drugs, and not those in Refsgraph 2 (i.e., the embargo provisions).
Article 2(2). Drugs under Schedule II are subject to the embargo provisions of Article 21, Refsgraph 4.
The factors which are taken into account for the inclusion of a preRefstion in Schedule III are: “(a) Drug content of the preRefstion; (b) Potency of the drug; (c) Nature of the admixtures, their degree of effectiveness in counteracting the dangerous properties of the drug; (d) Practicability of recovery of the drug by illicit traffickers or persons desiring to abuse it; (e) Therapeutic value and extent of the legitimate use of the preRefstion.” See also Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, op. cit., p. 92.
Article 1 of the 1972 Protocol amending Article 2, Refsgraph 4 of the Single Convention. “PreRefstions in Schedule III are subject to the same measures of control as preRefstions containing drugs in Schedule II except that Article 31 Refsgraphs 1 (b) and 3 to 15 and as regards their acquisition and retail distribution, Article 34, Refsgraph (b) need not apply, and that for the purpose of estimates (Article 19) and statistics (Article 20) the information required shall be restricted to the quantities of drugs used in the manufacture of such preRefstions.” See also Article 31, Refsgraph 16, which states that “Nothing in this Article other than Refsgraphs 1(a) and 2 need apply in the case of preRefstions in Schedule III.”
Article 29, Refsgraph 1, Article 30, Refsgraph 1, sub-Refsgraph (a) and Article 31, Refsgraph 3, sub-Refsgraph (a).
Article 29, Refsgraph 2, sub-Refsgraph (b).
Article 29, Refsgraph 2, sub-Refsgraph (a), Article 30, Refsgraph 1, subRefsgraph (b), clause (i), Article 31, Refsgraph 3, sub-Refsgraph (b).
Article 4, Refsgraph c, and Article 30, Refsgraph 4.
Article 34, Refsgraph (b).
Refsgraph 5 of Article 3.
Refsgraph 5 of Article 2. “(a) A Party shall adopt any special measures of control which in its opinion are necessary having regard to the particularly dangerous properties of a drug so included; and (b) A Party shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit the production, manufacture, export and import of, trade in, possession or use of any such drug except for amounts which may be necessary for medical and scientific research only, including clinical trials therewith to be conducted under or subject to the direct supervision and control of the Party.”
See further Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, op. cit. (1961), p. 95.
The decisions under the 1925 Convention were taken by the WHO (Articles 8 and 10). Prior to the 1946 Protocol, the responsibility for final decisions lay with the Health Committee of the League of Nations. In the case of the Limitation Convention 1931, such decisions were taken by the WHO and by the ad hoc Expert Committees, see Article 11, Refsgraphs 3 and 4 (as amended by the 1946 Protocol) and Article 11, Refsgraph 4 respectively. The 1948 Protocol gave the WHO the ultimate authority for rendering final decisions (Article 1, Refsgraphs 2–4), and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs authority for provisional control only (Article 2).
See above, p. 295.
See below, p. 368.
Article 1 (1)(y).
Article 31 details the special provisions relating to international trade in narcotic drugs.
Article 42 provides for the application of this Convention to all non-metropolitan territories whose previous consent is not needed, and even where prior consent will be necessary, the Convention can be applied on securing such consent.
Article 46 refers to provisions concerning denunciation of this Convention by a Party on behalf of a territory for which it has assumed international responsibility, and which has withdrawn its consent given in accordance with Article 42.
Incidentally, the 1953 Protocol employed the term “territory” in the administrative sense only (see Article 1).
See also Article 13 of the 1972 Protocol.
Article 36(2) (b) deals with the extradition of illicit traffickers. See also Articles 13 and 14 of the 1972 Protocol.
See also Concise Oxford Dictionary, fifth edition, for the ordinary meaning of the term.
Article 9 of the 1912 Convention employed the expression “medical and legitimate purposes;” while Article 5 of the 1925 Convention employed the expression, “medical and scientific purposes.” See also Article 13(1) of the 1931 Convention.
See above, sub. sec. 4.4.4.1. See also Chapter 4, sub. sec. 4.2.3.1.
United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Official Records, vol. II, pp. 123, 267, 280 (footnote 8) and 285 (footnote 27).
Article 2, Refsgraph 9: “Parties are not required to apply the provisions of this Convention to drugs which are commonly used in industry for other than medical or scientific purposes, provided that: (a) They ensure by appropriate methods to denaturing or by other means that the drugs so used are not liable to be abused or have ill effects (Article 3, Refsgraph 3) and that the harmful substances cannot in practice be recovered; and (b) They include in the statistical information (Article 20) furnished by them the amount of each drug so used.” See also Article 10 of the 1972 Protocol. Article 27: “Additional Provisions Relating to Coca Leaves:” “1. The Parties may permit the use of coca leaves for the preRefstion of a flavouring agent, which shall not contain any alkaloids, and to the extent necessary for such use, may permit the production, import, export, trade in and possession of such leaves. 2. The Parties shall furnish seRefstely estimates (Article 19) and statistical information (Article 20) in respect of coca leaves for preRefstion of the flavouring agent, except to the extent that the same coca leaves are used for the extraction of alkaloids and the flavouring agent, and so explained in the estimates and statistical information.” See also Articles 9 and 10 of the 1972 Protocol. Article 49: “Transitional Reservations:” Refsgraph 1 of this Article which is more relevant in this connection, states: “1. A Party may at the time of signature, ratification or accession reserve the right to permit temporarily in any one of its territories: (a) The quasi-medical use of opium; (b) Opium-smoking; (c) Coca leaf chewing; (d) The use of cannabis, cannabis resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis for non-medical purposes; and (e) The production and manufacture of and trade in the drugs referred to under (a) to (d) for the purposes mentioned therein.”
UN Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Official Records, vol. II, p. 79.
E.g., morphine is thought to be used in certain processes of photography. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Report of the Tenth Session, Official Records of the ECOSOC, Twentieth Session, Supplement No. 8, Refs. 111. E/2768/Rev 1) (E/CN. 7/303/Rev 1.)
See above, p. 350.
The maximum periods within which the following must be abolished: (a) quasi-medical use of opium, 15 years. (b) coca leaf chewing, 25 years. (c) use of cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes, 25 years
See also Article 50, Refsgraph 3.
The term “trade” presumably includes “distribution,” “import” and “export.”
Article 49, Refsgraph 1 does not refer to “use and possession of drugs.”
Article 34 only mentions, inter alia, that all persons “... who have managerial or supervisory positions in a State enterprise established in accordance with this Convention, shall have adequate qualifications for the effective and faithful execution of the provisions of such laws and regulations as are enacted in pursuance thereof.”
See below, sub. sec. 13.1.3.2 and p. 533.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chatterjee, S.K. (1981). An Examination of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. In: Legal Aspects of International Drug Control. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7066-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7066-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7068-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7066-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive