The United Nations Strengthens International Drug Control Efforts
| Date | 01 April 1998 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027181 |
| Pages | 148-157 |
| Published date | 01 April 1998 |
| Author | Shazeeda Ali |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Money Laundering Control —
Vol.
2 No. 2
The United Nations Strengthens International Drug
Control Efforts
Shazeeda Ali
INTRODUCTION
For three days in early June 1998 the General
Assembly of the United Nations was imbued with
an air of unity as members strove to find 'common
ground' against the escalating drug crisis. The
international community had gathered together
under the auspices of a special session to contem-
plate a concerted approach to countering the global
drug problem. The latter is perceived to be a grave
threat to 'the well-being of mankind, the inde-
pendence of states, democracy, the stability of
nations, the structure of all societies, and the dig-
nity and hope of millions of people'.
The special session was a historic occasion1
which was attended by senior representatives from
more than 150 UN member states as well as
observers from a number of non-member states
and other international organisations.
By the time the debate ended on 10th June
three resolutions were formally adopted, which
focused on a balanced approach between reducing
drug demand and supply. These resolutions were
contained respectively in the Political
Declaration,
the
Declaration
on the Guiding Principles of Drug
Demand Reduction and that entitled Measures to
Enhance International Cooperation
to
Counter the World
Drug
Problem.2
In the third resolution, action plans
were undertaken for a wide spectrum of drug
counter-activities ranging from combating the
problem of amphetamine-type stimulants and con-
trolling precursors to eradicating illicit drug crops
and promoting alternative development to illicit
drug cultivation through viable, lawful and sustain-
able economic options. Other significant action-
oriented strategies involve measures designed to
counter money laundering and to promote inter-
national judicial cooperation in drug cases.
The present article will attempt to assess the
continued anti-drug money laundering efforts of
the UN, by focusing particularly on those aspects
of the special session and the resolutions that relate
to money laundering control. By way of back-
ground, a brief synopsis of the UN's initial role in
this area will first be provided.
HISTORICAL ROLE OF THE UN
Within the last two decades the international com-
munity has come to recognise that the seizure of
even large amounts of drugs has only a limited
impact on overall illicit trafficking. This is because
the supply of illicit drugs is sufficiently 'elastic' to
accommodate even sharp falls in product avail-
ability and in any event street prices for drugs have
appeared 'immune' to large seizures. There has
been a concurrent realisation that it is the removal
of the profits from drug sales that can significantly
disrupt trafficking operations since it eliminates
both 'the lifeblood and the sole end of illicit drug
trafficking'.3
In this context the UN has been in the van-
guard of collective efforts to control the laundering
of the proceeds of drug crimes.4 It was the 1988
UN Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Nar-
cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ('the
Vienna Convention') which provided the genesis
for an anti-money laundering regime internation-
ally.
The Vienna Convention came into force on
11th November, 1990, only two years after it was
concluded and represents the first international
agreement to endorse the criminalisation of drug
money laundering and provide for the confiscation
of the proceeds of drug crimes.5 To date nearly
150 countries have become party to the Vienna
Convention.
Interestingly, the term 'money laundering' is not
used in the Vienna Convention but the salient
features of this activity are dealt with in Article 3
which requires member states to criminalise 'the
conversion or transfer of property, knowing that
such property is derived from (drug trafficking),
for the purpose of concealing or disguising the
illicit origin of the property or of assisting any
person who is involved in the commission of such
an offence(s) to evade the legal consequences of
his actions'.6 The convention also obliges member
states to criminalise 'the concealment or disguise
of the true nature, source, location, disposition,
movement, right with respect to, or ownership of
Page 148
To continue reading
Request your trial