Miss Rubeon
253/21
FROM:
Paul Fifoot
DATE:
22 August 1986
Mr Farrand
Farrand
c.c.
Mr Snoxell (ERD)
UND
L
626
30
UN CONVENTION ON ILLICIT DRUG TRAFFICKING
1.
(27)
As suggested in Mr Nagler's letter of 16 July to Mr Lamont,
I am confining my comments to issues more or less of principle.
Article 1 I think that the difficulties are likely to
be those involving technical knowledge relating to the "controlled substances".
Article 3.1
Article 4
This provides that the parties undertake "to prevent"
I think that is the wrong formulation as I doubt whether they can "prevent". One needs to retain the approach in the Single Convention of taking steps with the object of prevent- ing and repressing and co-operating.
This extradition Article builds on the formulations to which we have become accustomed in the aircraft security and internationally protected persons type of Convention. Paragraph 5 perhaps goes further and some civil law countries are likely to object to sub-paragraph (a) (Extradition shall not be refused on the grounds that the person sought is a national of the requested party). Sub-paragraph (b) brings in an "effects doctrine" but I do not think this is offensive. It is not dissimilar in intent to Article 5.1 (c) of the Hostages Conven- tion. Sub-paragraph (c) quite properly gets rid of the political exception.
Paragraph 9, which deals with concurrent jurisdiction would be better expressed in the form of a guideline rather than as a mandatory provision.
/Article 5