E/CN.7/1988/2 (Part II) page 10
48. Divergent opinions were expressed regarding the retention of a limitation clause in the introductory sentence of paragraph 1. Several representatives emphasised that any restricting language would have the undesirable effect of weakening one of the basic articles of the convention; the undertaking by States to punish the illicit traffic should be mandatory and Parties to the convention should be ready to adjust their national legislation to the requirements of its provisions.
49. Some other representatives argued that certain States might find it difficult under their constitutional and legal systems to apply fully and effectively some of the far-reaching provisions of the article and that some form of limitation clause was consequently necessary.
50.
Some representatives expressed the view that the retention of a single limitation clause in paragraph 1 was not the best formula; the provisions of the different subparagraphs should be subject to different limitation clauses adapted to their substantive content and legal implications. This approach would take into account the particular problems that certain States could have in implementing some of the provisions.
51.
Several representatives proposed that the word "serious", which appeared in paragraph 1 of the initial draft, should be deleted as minor offences could also come under the provisions of subparagraphs 1(a)–(d). It was argued in that connection that, should the word "serious" be retained, the introductory sentence would have to be subject to a limitation clause. Several representatives, on the other hand, attached importance to the retention of the concept of "serious" as, among other things, it would serve as an invitation to Parties to provide for severe sanctions commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
52. With respect to subparagraph 1(b) of the reformulated text, several representatives expressed the view that the wording of the provisions was too broad in scope and should be made more specific.
53.
Regarding subparagraph 1(c) of the reformulated draft, the view was expressed that the provisions were too far-reaching and could be subject to ambiguous interpretations leading to the criminalization of bona fide persons involved at different stages of business transactions, or other persons not involved in illicit drug trafficking. They would also constitute unnecessary limitations to free trade.
54.
Several representatives spoke in favour of retaining subparagraphs 1(c) and (d) because of the innovativeness of their provisions which covered, respectively, the preparatory phases related to illicit trafficking and the criminalization of those who knowingly and intentionally benefitted from
illicit traffic.
55.
Several representatives expressed the view that the terminology used in subparagraph 1(d) of the initial draft would raise difficulties under the legal system of some countries and pointed out, in particular, that "conspiracy" was not a universally accepted legal concept.
The provision of the subparagraph should accordingly be qualified by an appropriate limitation clause.