Uruguay, the first country to enact legislation to legalize and regulate every level of the market for cannabis, will be an important example globally for jurisdictions contemplating whether and how to liberalize drug policies. A combination of political leadership by former President José “Pepe” Mujica and public unease over rising criminality led Uruguay to pursue reforms to place the cannabis market under legal authority of the state, rather than in the hands of illegal groups. The new law, approved in December 2013, encompasses medical as well as adult use, or “recreational cannabis” for which it creates three distinct sources of legal access: home growing, social clubs, and commercial sales through pharmacies. While most Uruguayans remain skeptical of the new cannabis law, the “Broad Front” coalition responsible for passing the law in 2013 renewed its congressional majorities and retained the presidency in the country’s 2014 elections. The current government of President Tabaré Vazquez has stated its commitment to fully implementing the law, but is moving ahead cautiously, mindful of ongoing domestic and international criticisms. While the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has castigated Uruguay for violating its international drug treaty obligations, Uruguay has argued that the country’s human rights obligations under international law take priority over drug control treaty requirements. Given the unprecedented nature of Uruguay’s new cannabis regime, successful implementation will require rigorous monitoring and evaluation and the flexibility to make revisions as problems emerge. Rigorous evaluation of Uruguay’s pioneering reforms can also provide important insights and knowledge for other jurisdictions that may wish to consider comparable regulatory approaches.

Can international peacemaking efforts succeed in an intractable conflict such as the one in Venezuela? In this paper we put forward a conceptualization of peacemaking processes that underlines their ability to creatively change the terms of a conflict. Then we look at the four dialogue and negotiation processes that have occurred during the government of Nicolás Maduro. Our review shows that, while it is clear that the Maduro government uses dialogue processes as a delay tactic through which it can divide and demobilize the opposition, clear progress has been made in the mediators’ ability to generate concrete articulation and discussion of the conflicting parties’ demands. However, international allies on each side of the conflict are affecting the calculations of the two sides, working against an agreement.

Director asistente para Venezuela en la Oficina en Washington para Asuntos Latinoamericanos gramsey[@]wola.org Resumen ¿Pueden los esfuerzos internacionales de pacificación tener éxito en un conflicto tan inextricable como el de Venezuela? En este texto se presenta una conceptualización de los procesos de paz que subraya su capacidad para cambiar creativamente los términos de un conflicto. Luego, se echa un vistazo a los cuatro procesos de diálogo y negociación que han tenido lugar durante el gobierno de Nicolás Maduro. Esta revisión muestra que, si bien es claro que el gobierno de Maduro utiliza los procesos de diálogo como una táctica dilatoria por medio de la cual puede dividir y desmovilizar a la oposición, se han producido avances claros en la capacidad de los mediadores para generar una articulación y una negociación concretas de las demandas de las partes en conflicto. Sin embargo, los aliados internacionales de cada lado del conflicto están afectando los cálculos de ambas partes, lo cual va en contra de lograr un acuerdo. Palabras claveVenezuela; proceso de paz; pacificación; Nicolás Maduro; Juan Guaidó; mediación internacional; Grupo de Contacto Internacional; Noruega. Documentos de Trabajo 25[es] / 2020 (2ª época) AbstractCan international peacemaking efforts succeed in an intractable conflict such as the one in Venezuela?In this paper we put forward a conceptualization of peacemaking processes that underlines their ability to creatively change the terms of a conflict. Then we look at the four dialogue and negotiation processes that have occurred during the government of Nicolás Maduro. Our review shows that, while it is clear that the Maduro government uses dialogue processes as a delay tactic through which it can divide and demobilize the opposition, clear progress has been made in the mediators' ability to generate concrete articulation and discussion of the conflicting parties' demands. However, international allies on each side of the conflict are affecting the calculations of the two sides, working against an agreement.

Efforts at international peace-making commonly present a dilemma. On the one hand, they are worthwhile because they have the power to reorganize a conflict and change its trajectory. But on the other hand, there is no guarantee that this "added value" works in a positive direction. We argue that peace-making efforts need to build upon past efforts to prevent actors from manipulating them. We look at the four dialogue and negotiation processes that have occurred during the government of Nicolás Maduro. Our review shows that while it is clear that the Maduro government uses dialogue processes as a delay tactic, progress has been made in the mediators' ability to generate concrete articulation and discussion of the conflicting parties' demands. However, further progress will require agreement among the international "sponsors" that in 2019 undermined negotiations by providing each side with a better alternative to a negotiated agreement.