English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although the UN narcotic drugs conventions do not allow states parties to legalize cannabis cultivation and trade for recreational use, there are possibilities for states to do so anyhow while staying within the boundaries of international public law. A first option concerns positive human rights obligations, i.e. obligations that require states to take measures in order to offer the best protection of human rights. If a state convincingly argues that with cannabis regulation positive human rights obligations to protect society can be more effectively achieved than under a prohibitive approach, the priority position of human rights obligations over the drugs conventions can justify such regulation. The second option regards the modification of the drugs conventions through an inter se agreement on cannabis regulation between certain of the states parties only. The positive human rights approach and the inter se possibility can strengthen each other and are a supreme combination. * Prof. Dr. P.H.P.H.M.C. van Kempen is also Secretary General of the International Penal and Penitentiary Foundation (ippf). 494 van Kempen AND Fedorova International Community Law Review 20 (2018) 493–526

Regulated Legalization of Cannabis through Positive Human Rights Obligations and Inter se Treaty Modification