In this exploration we alose have a legal analysis about regulation from a human rights perspective, containing five terms that the Dutch government needs to follow to regulate or even legalization of cannabis cultivation. The argument "regulation is impossible because of international treaties" appears to stabbing little bit different:
Cannabis cultivation and trade for recreational use may be regulated by governments on the basis of the positive human rights obligations according to research by the lawyer Piet Hein van Kempen and Masha Fedorova of Radboud University. This research was commissioned by a number of coffee shop municipalities which are also attached to the Joint Regulation manifesto.
The argument that regulation of cannabis cultivation is impossible because of international treaties appears to be invailid now.
'International law and cannabis II. Regulation of cannabis cultivation and trafficking for recreational use: positive human rights obligations versus UN drug conventions', Prof. mr. P.H.P.H.M.C. (Piet Hein) van Kempen and dr. mr. M.I. (Masha) Fedorova, 2015. This is a continuation of the earlier study International Law and cannabis from 2014, in which the hypothesis did not involve the meaning of human rights in relation to international law and cannabis.
Pleas for regulation cultivation and trade of recreational cannabis are often based on arguments related to individual and public health, the safety of citizens and the fight against crime: the so-called positive human rights obligations. To date, however, it had not been researched what room these human rights obligations create for the legalization of cannabis. International law and cannabis II is the first study on cannabis and positive human rights obligations.
In a previous study Van Kempen and Fedorova concluded that the UN drug conventions do not leave room for allowing regulated cultivation of cannabis for recreational use. Their new research therefore provides a new perspective based on human rights, taking five terms.
The five primary requirements for regulated legalization are:
1. There must be an interest which human rights require protection.
2. The state must demonstrate that the regulated cannabis cultivation and distribution will lead to a more effective human rights protection.
3. The decision to such regulation must have public support and support national democratic decision.
4. There must be a closed system so that no foreign countries are experiencing any problems because of the regulation.
5. The state is obliged to maintain an active discouragement of cannabis use.
If a state can meet these conditions it is legitimized under current international law to give human rights obligations precedence over any conflicting obligations under the UN drug conventions.
The investigation of the lawyer Piet Hein van Kempen and Masha Fedorova shows that these positive human rights duties can force states to regulate cannabis cultivation and trade when regulating better protects human rights than a total ban on drugs, as defined in the drug conventions.
The researchers also answer another crucial question in the affirmative: States should by international law give priority to their positive human rights obligations before their obligations under the drug conventions.