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

中文翻译：

---

通过积极的人权义务和相互间条约修正，对大麻进行合法化

尽管联合国麻醉药品公约不允许缔约国将大麻的种植和贸易合法化以用于娱乐用途，但各州仍有可能在不违反国际公法的前提下这样做。第一种选择涉及积极的人权义务，即要求各国采取措施以提供最佳人权保护的义务。如果一个国家令人信服地认为，通过大麻法规，可以比禁止性方法更有效地实现保护社会的积极人权义务，那么人权义务相对于毒品公约的优先地位就可以证明这种法规是合理的。第二种选择是仅通过某些缔约国之间关于大麻管制的相互协定来修改毒品公约。积极的人权方针和相互之间的可能性可以相互加强，是一种至高无上的结合。* PHPHMC van Kempen教授还是国际刑罚和监狱基金会（ippf）的秘书长。494 van Kempen和Fedorova国际共同体法律评论20（2018）493–526