Article – Op-Ed – International Treaties Are Not the Barrier By Charl Botha B.Proc (S.A) H3 Legal Solutions South Africa | Cannabis Law Report | Where to buy Skittles Moonrock online

Learn where to buy CBD online. TOP QUALITY GRADE A++

Cannabyss Inc. is the best place online to buy top quality weed, cannabis, vape, marijuana and CBD products. Get your borderless orders delivered at the pickup spot with ease. Top Grade products for client satisfaction.

👉 Click here to Visit our shop! 🛒

International Treaties Are Not the Barrier

By Charl Botha B.Proc (S.A) H3 Legal Solutions

One of the most frequently cited reasons for slow cannabis reform in many jurisdictions is the obligation to comply with international drug control treaties, particularly the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

References to international law are regularly used to justify caution, delay and regulatory restraint. The implication is that national governments’ hands are tied and that meaningful reform cannot proceed without violating international commitments. This argument does not hold up under closer examination.

The global picture tells a different story. In 2018, the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) completed the first comprehensive scientific review of cannabis under the international drug control treaties. In January 2019, WHO formally recommended that cannabis be rescheduled internationally and that its medical value be recognised.

This raises an important question. If international drug control treaties and WHO guidance are repeatedly cited as reasons for caution and delay, why are the WHO’s own recommendations for reform so readily ignored?

A growing number of countries have adopted cannabis policies that differ substantially from traditional prohibition models. Some have introduced regulated adult-use markets. Others have expanded medical access. Many have developed industrial hemp industries, wellness sectors, manufacturing value chains and export opportunities all while remaining participants in international treaty frameworks.

The lesson is clear. International treaties have not prevented reform. They have not prevented governments from recognising medical use, creating regulated markets, supporting industrial development, or aligning policy with constitutional and public health objectives. Rather, governments have interpreted and applied those treaties in ways that reflect their own national circumstances, economic priorities and domestic legal obligations.

If international obligations are invoked as a reason not to act, then the WHO’s recommendations, the evolving global regulatory landscape, and the actions of treaty-signatory nations that have already implemented reform must also be acknowledged. International law cannot be used selectively. It cannot be cited as a barrier to reform while simultaneously disregarding international scientific recommendations that support reform.

Treaties establish obligations, but they do not eliminate the responsibility of governments to interpret those obligations in light of national circumstances. Constitutional rights, economic development objectives and evolving scientific understanding all form part of that process.

Countries around the world have had to balance international commitments with domestic realities. Many have concluded that industrial hemp, non-intoxicating products, wellness applications and regulated adult-use systems can be accommodated within modern policy frameworks without abandoning international cooperation.

The real challenge is not whether international treaties exist. The challenge is whether governments are willing to explore the full range of lawful options available within the international system.

The distinction is important because treaty obligations cannot explain every delay, every missed deadline or every administrative failure that has characterised reform processes in various jurisdictions over the past decade.

The question is no longer whether international law permits innovation. The evidence demonstrates that it does. The question is whether governments are prepared to pursue it.

International agreements did not prevent governments from drafting regulations. They did not prevent them from providing legal certainty to citizens, businesses, patients and traditional communities. These are matters of domestic governance.

International law can inform policy, but it cannot replace policy. Nor can it explain years of delay when other countries have implemented reform, developed regulated industries and created economic opportunities within the same international treaty framework.

The question is no longer whether international law permits innovation. The evidence in other counties demonstrates that it does. The question is whether governments are prepared to pursue it.

When constitutional courts call for change, when scientific authorities recommend reform, and when the opportunity for regulated development is evident, continued delay raises a more fundamental issue. Is the obstacle international law itself, or the continued belief that it prevents action when it requires leadership?

Charl Botha (B.Proc) is a legal strategist, cannabis policy specialist, and co-founder of H3 Legal Solutions (Pty) Ltd. He has briefed Parliament on cannabis policy and industrialisation matters in South Africa.

Independent view of Author not of Cannabis Law Report