The present and future of the UN cybercrime convention | #cybercrime | #infosec

The United Nations Convention against Cybercrime (Hanoi convention) is a widely signed new legal instrument that was agreed by consensus at a time of geopolitical fragmentation. The potential benefits of the convention are considerable, as are the potential risks if it is misused.

This policy brief reviews the history and content of the convention and considers its future, concluding that cross-regional and cross-sectoral trust building and engagement will be essential for its success. But whose treaty is it? The convention is no longer owned by those who proposed it, nor by those who initially rejected it. Its history has been marked by polarization and suspicion, but its future must be one of shared ownership – by the states parties, coming from different perspectives, as well as by the private sector and civil society, who recognize the unique role they play in implementation, all under the auspices of the UN.

Key findings

• The ecosystem of cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crime is both transnational and highly adaptive, making it increasingly difficult for states to respond through isolated or purely domestic measures.
• There has never been a consensus on the need for a new UN treaty, but member states have overcome their differences to reach a consensus on this treaty, the terms of which are based on overarching human rights safeguards.
• Despite member state consensus, there are some countries that want to expand the treaty’s scope through new supplementary protocols (led by Russia), and others that do not look like they will sign up to the main convention including the US, where major technology companies are based.
• Many of those big technology companies, along with human and digital rights NGOs, are vocally opposed to the treaty. Other civil society experts are hopeful that it will have an impact against harmful and exploitative forms of criminality carried out online.
• Law enforcement organizations are clear on the benefits of the treaty, in the context of fragmented and disparate domestic and international frameworks.
• Countries in the Global South have strongly advocated for more capacity building and technical assistance, and are hoping for a treaty that can deliver, but politics and financial resource constraints do not bode well.
• The convention references non-governmental stakeholders many more times and in many more contexts than the existing UN counter-crime conventions, which augurs well for an effective and open implementation process, but this engagement must be built on trust.
• At the operational level, building trust through predictability, safeguards and institutional networking and capacity building will be key to the treaty’s success.
• At the political level, states parties now have a responsibility to create an open and inclusive engagement mechanism, in recognition of the broad and deep roles of diverse stakeholders throughout the convention.