More than 70 nations, including major global powers like the U.K., the European Union, China, and Russia, signed the landmark U.N. Convention against Cybercrime in Hanoi. This represented a critical advancement in the years-long effort to establish a global legal framework for addressing digital crime, a form of criminality that U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres described as allowing criminals to “defraud families, steal livelihoods, and drain billions of dollars from our economies.” The convention aims to be a “powerful, legally binding instrument” to strengthen collective defenses against online threats, which include the illicit flow of money through cryptocurrencies and ransomware attacks that paralyze essential services.
The primary function of the Convention is to establish new mechanisms for international cooperation, capacity building, and tracking digital offenders. Crucially, it creates the first global framework for the collection, sharing, and use of electronic evidence for all serious offenses, solving a major hurdle for investigators when perpetrators, victims, and data are in different countries. Furthermore, it criminalizes a range of online crimes, including those based solely on technology and, for the first time in an international treaty, the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. A new 24/7 global network is also established to initiate rapid cooperation among member states.
Despite the broad support, the United States was the most significant nation that did not sign the treaty, with the State Department simply noting that it “continues to review” the document. This reluctance occurred even though U.S. representatives attended the signing ceremony. Meanwhile, U.N. officials stressed the treaty’s importance, particularly for governments in the Global South that require assistance and funding for the training needed to combat cybercrime, which is estimated to cost the global economy about $10.5 trillion annually.
The Convention has faced intense criticism from both the tech industry and human rights organizations. The tech sector has warned that the treaty could criminalize necessary cybersecurity research and expose companies to legally problematic data requests from governments. Human rights advocates expressed concern that the broad scope of the treaty effectively obligates member states to establish wide-ranging electronic surveillance powers, potentially allowing authoritarian regimes to abuse the agreement by deploying it against critics or protesters, both domestically and internationally.
U.N. Secretary-General Guterres addressed this backlash directly, acknowledging the need for the treaty to be a “promise that fundamental human rights such as privacy, dignity, and safety must be protected both offline and online.” Ultimately, however, the proponents argue that the Convention solves one of law enforcement’s most complex issues by providing a clear pathway for investigators and prosecutors to overcome the barrier of cross-border digital evidence sharing, paving the way for a more unified and effective global response to the rapidly evolving nature of organized crime online.
Reference:
