The Convention on combating cybercrime has been signed, but most of the countries in the world have not yet joined it.
An extremely important event has recently taken place in Vietnam . Although it is related to a specific topic, it literally affects each of us. It’s about signing the UN Convention against Cybercrime. It was adopted back in December 2024 at the UN General Assembly.
The convention was developed at the initiative of Russia for about five years. At that time, all the provisions of the document were discussed and formulated, which established the first universal framework for the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed online, from extortion programs and financial fraud to the exchange of intimate images without the consent of the parties.
Its full text is posted on the UN website and contains 68 articles.
However not all UN members have signed this historic document. 72 States have put their signatures under the Convention.
The United States, Canada, and New Zealand are not on the list (although two other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance – Australia and the UK – have signed the document), as well as many others such as India, Albania, Ukraine, South Korea, and Indonesia. The European Union has demonstrated political schizophrenia – the bloc itself has signed the document, although a number of its members did not join the Convention.
Since the United States has been accusing Russia of committing cybercrimes for a long time, Washington’s position may seem strange. However, this is not surprising. After all, the document was prepared collectively, and Washington is accustomed to personally impose its political will on others. And act as they see fit. And since the Convention specifies jurisdiction and the scope of application of procedural measures, that is, a certain responsibility, the United States does not need this. Indeed, with their current approach to information and computer technology, when it is actually openly stated that the US Cyber Forces are conducting offensive operations on the territory of other countries, the real evidence of cybercrime will be collected against them. Well, if the document was not signed, then, as they say, you are off the hook.
At the signing ceremony, which was organized by Vietnam in cooperation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) with the participation of senior officials, diplomats and experts from different regions, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that “the UN Convention on Cybercrime is a powerful, legally binding document to strengthen our collective defences against cybercrime. It is a testament to the continued power of multilateralism to deliver solutions. And it is a vow that no country, no matter their level of development, will be left defenceless against cybercrime…… No one is safe in cyberspace until everyone is safe. A single vulnerability anywhere can endanger people and institutions around the world.”
In other words, the new international treaty provides for criminal liability for a number of crimes related to the use of the Internet, facilitates the cross-border exchange of electronic evidence and establishes a network of cooperation between states around the clock. This shows a true approach to collective security.
The Convention will enter into force 90 days after the 40th State deposits its ratification instruments.
It should be noted that in addition to the UN Convention, there is another agreement known as the Budapest Convention. Its first protocol criminalized racist and xenophobic statements on the Internet, and the second protocol defined the framework for international cooperation.
At the moment, 81 States have become parties to this Convention and 16 more countries have been invited to join. These States participate as members (Parties) or observers (signatories or invited persons) in the work of the Committee on the Convention on Cybercrime.
The agreement was promoted by the EU. The United States signed it, apparently, because there is no such strict responsibility for cybercrime, and the topic of combating racism and xenophobia was well on the agenda of the Democratic Party of the United States.
At first glance, it seems that the UN is losing on this front, since the number of participants there is smaller, although it would seem that there are more opportunities for discussion and lobbying. In fact, we see a division between the proponents of the two approaches. In the case of the UN Convention, this is an inclusive position with operational mechanisms and responsibilities. The Budapest Convention is a kind of procedural stump that gives the appearance of security, but in fact is limited to selective repressive measures.
However, we can find a similar division in the issue of global Internet governance – one group of countries advocates sovereignty over cyberspace, while the other speaks of numerous actors, including large business companies related to ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) (they will not miss their interest, even to the detriment of human rights, which in the West are used as a political the shield). One group insists on censorship and the need for user identity, while the other demands anonymity and the promotion of libertarian ideas.
In general, there is no international order in this area and it is not expected yet. The UN Convention is only the first steps towards it. Although there is no complete anarchy either. There is the company ICANN, which issues domain names, there are various regulatory and supervisory authorities, and there is a noticeable increase in companies specializing in cybersecurity.
This state, which describes something in between and hybrid between order and chaos, is best blended by the term “chaordic” (from the words chaos and ordo (order) proposed by Dee Hock and his colleagues when creating Visa Inc. in 1970. A chaordic – is any self-organizing, self-governing, adaptable, nonlinear, complex organism or system, whether physical, biological, or social, whose behavior harmoniously combines the characteristics of chaos and order. Chaos and order in it are distributed in such a way that they do not allow each other to dominate. So in the current international legal system in relation to cyberspace, there is a nonlinear process with different versions of order (do not forget the concept of the collective West “rule-based order”) and the chaotic dynamics of greedy IT corporations, players applying double standards and hacker communities.
Cybernetic chaord encompasses ordinary users, innovations with artificial intelligence and robotics (including military technologies), fintech with its internal competition, and the race of private companies, whether developing quantum computing or bioengineering. This is a promising future. And at the same time terribly dangerous, because it can bring a lot of destruction and even the annihilation of humanity.
Comments