Abstract
As opium was one of the original drugs to be brought under an international control regime, it is appropriate to deal with this drug separately, in order to determine the present state of the control programme designed for it. Opium in the Single Convention has been classified under two categories, viz., medicinal opium and opium. While the former means “opium which has undergone the processes necessary to adapt it for medicinal use,” the latter means “the coagulated juice of the opium poppy.”1 However, the Single Convention has brought all kinds of opium under the same regime by placing them in Schedule I.2 The term “medicinal opium” has found expression in the Single Convention only once, in Article 23, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (e),3 wherein it has been provided that medicinal opium and opium preparations may be excluded from government monopoly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Article 1, paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (O) and (P). The Hague Opium Convention of 1912 (Introductory paragraphs of chapters II and III) and the International Opium Convention of 1925 (Article 1) classified “opium” under three categories, viz. “raw opium,” “prepared opium” and “medicinal opium,” and they provided separate control regimes for each of them. The 1953 Protocol, however, abolished these differences and brought them under one control regime. In the 1953 Protocol “opium” has been defined as “the coagulated juice of the poppy in whatever form including raw opium, medicinal opium and prepared opium ...” (Article 1).
Opium preparation and manipulated opium are also subject to the control regime of the Single Convention, see Article 2, paragraphs (1) and (3).
Article 23, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (e): “The Agency (i.e., the National Opium Agency) shall, in respect of opium, have the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading and maintaining stocks other than those held by manufacturers of opium alkaloids, medicinal opium or opium preparations. Parties need not extend this exclusive right to medicinal opium and opium preparations.”
Article 22; see also Article 12 of the 1972 Protocol.
For an account of the estimates system, see below, sub. sec. 10.2–10.4.1.
Estimated World Requirements of Narcotic Drugs and Estimates of World Production of opium are published by the International Narcotics Control Board annually.
Article 24, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b).
See Article 25.
Sub-paragraph (b): “A Party shall not permit the production of opium or increase the existing production thereof if in its opinion (italics added) such production or increased production in its territory may result in illicit traffic in opium.”
Paragraph 3: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 2, a Party that during tern years immediately prior to 1 January 1961 exported opium which such country produced may continue to export opium which it produces.”
The countries that produced opium for export as of 1 January 1961 were: India, North Vietnam, Turkey, the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia; the countries that during ten years immediately prior to 1 January 1961 exported opium which they produced were: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Burma, India, Iran, North Vietnam, Pakistan, Turkey, the USSR and Yugoslavia. Reports of the Permanent Central Board E/OB/17, table I, pp. 12–13 and table IX. 1., pp. 44–45 and E/OB/18, table I, pp. 12–13 and table IX.I, pp. 44–45; see also information furnished by the Secretariat of the International Narcotics Control Board.
Article 24, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (a), clause (i).
See Article 24, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (a).
Article 24, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (b).
Article 31, paragraphs 4–15.
Article 4, paragraph (c).
Article 31, paragraph 1; see also Article 9, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (b) of the 1972 Protocol.
Article 24, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (b).
Article 23, paragraph 1.
Nowehere in Article 23 has the term “territory” been used.
Article 23, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (a).
“Person” in this context includes an individual or a corporation.
Such particulars include the identity of lands (sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 2), conditions of delivery of the crop to the agency and the name of the person who should be responsible for the control of production of poppy under the license.
Such authorization, in fact, amounts to the grant of license.
UN Doc. E/NT/9 (November 1955), paragraphs 26, 27 and 29.
Article 23, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (d).
See also Article 3, paragraph 5 of the 1953 Protocol.
Article 23, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (d).
The 1953 Protocol did not provide for such a maximum time-limit.
Article 23, paragraph (e).
Under the 1953 Protocol, the manufacture of or wholesale trade in medicinal opium by private manufacturers was not allowed in opium-producing countries (Article 3); see also UN Doc. E/NT/9 (November 1955), paragraph 38.
Article 1, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (w).
Article 1, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (x), clause (iv).
UN Doc. E/NT/9 (November 1955), paragraph 24.
See also Article 14(1) (b) of the 1972 Protocol.
Article 36(2).
See below, sub. sec. 11.1.4 and sub. sec. 11.2.4.
Article 36(3).
Article 36(4).
See further Article 12(2) of the 1972 Protocol amending Article 22 of the Single Convention.
See Concise Oxford Dictionary, fifth edition, p. 977.
Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 276.
Article 42; see also Article 46(1).
Under Article 3 of the 1953 Protocol, private manufacture of and/or wholesale trade in medicinal opium allowed only under the authorization of the government concerned. See UN Doc. E/NT/9 (November 1955), paragraph 38.
See also Article 1(1) (x).
Article 5 of the 1953 Protocol provided that the opium stocks of Parties should not exceed certain limits.
Such reports are necessary only on the quantity of opium straw used for the manufacture of drugs; see below p. 389.
Article 4 of the Protocol.
Article 4(c).
Article 31, paragraphs 4–15 and Article 25, paragraph 2.
See above, pp. 368 and 372.
See also Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 304.
See also Article 14 of the 1972 Protocol. Since no evidence of illicit traffic in poppy straw had been found, the Permanent Central Board had no strong views on the matter. See further Official Records, vol. II, op. cit., p. 151.
See further Official Records, vol. II, p. 150. The Dutch delegate, however, pointed out that poppy paste should be subject to the same provisions as opium, including those regarding the limitation of stocks.
Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 249. See also Article 20(1) (b).
Although the third draft of the Single Convention provided for poppy straw the same regime as applicable to opium, this proposal did not find support at the Plenipotentiary Conference on the grounds that it would neither be justifiable nor practicable. Official Records, vol. II, op. cit., pp. 11–13 and 23.
Article 4(c); see above, sub. sec. 9.1. and sub. sec. 9.2.4.
Article 22; see also Article 12 of the 1972 Protocol.
Article 23.
Article 24.
For a discussion on the difficulties of ascertaining the quantity of opium required on medical grounds, see above, sub. sec. 4.4.4.1.
Paragraph 2(a) and paragraph 4(a) (ii).
Paragraph 1 (b). For an account of the dangers involved in such a provision, see above, sub. sec. 9.2.3.
See also Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 290. 65. See also Official Records, vol. II, op. cit., pp. 161–163.
In the Commentary on the Single Convention it has been emphasized that the recommendation of the Council under paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (b) not to engage in the production of opium for export is legally binding upon the notifying party involved (p. 293). The author wishes to disagree with this observation. The phrase “not withstanding the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 2” as found expressed in paragraph 3 of Article 24 does not necessarily imply that the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 are legally binding.
See further Official Records, vol. II, op. cit., p. 162.
Italics added.
See also Commentary on the Single Convention, op. cit., p. 297.
Articles 23, 24 and 25.
Article 4.
Article 22; see also Article 12 of the 1972 Protocol.
See above, sub. sec. 4.4.4.1. Since for a long time, opium has been accepted as a multi-purpose drug in the medical sciences, particularly in the Asian and Latin American countries, difficulties are usually encountered in ascertaining the amount required for a certain period of time.
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). Limitation on the Production of Opium. In: Legal Aspects of International Drug Control. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7066-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7066-8_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7068-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7066-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive