The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention against Cybercrime on December 24, despite widespread concerns that the treaty will facilitate human rights violations.
The convention, the first global treaty of its kind, extends far beyond addressing cybercrime – malicious attacks on computer networks, systems, and data. It obligates states to establish broad electronic surveillance powers to investigate and cooperate on a wide range of crimes, including those that don’t involve information and communication systems. And it does so without adequate human rights safeguards.
The General Assembly launched treaty negotiations, sponsored by Russia, in 2019 after a very divided vote. Years of heated negotiations resulted in consensus, with countries that originally opposed the treaty (notably the United States and European governments) ultimately supporting a deeply problematic outcome.
The convention will obligate governments to collect electronic evidence and share it with foreign authorities for any “serious crime,” defined as an offense punishable by at least four years of imprisonment under domestic law. Many governments treat activities protected by international human rights law as serious offenses, such as criticism of the government, peaceful protest, same-sex relationships, investigative journalism, and whistleblowing.
Additionally, the convention could be misused to criminalize the conduct of children in certain consensual relationships as well as the ordinary activities of security researchers and journalists.
The convention adds powerful new capabilities to a growing toolkit of abusive governments that’s already fueling abuse on a global scale. Transnational repression, when authorities reach beyond their borders to target their critics, is on the rise. Recent studies document that technology like spyware, and digital evidence, are used to target political dissidents, human rights defenders, whistleblowers, journalists, and LGBT people across borders.
While the scope of offenses contained in the treaty remains relatively narrow, states agreed to begin negotiating a protocol on additional crimes within two years of the convention’s adoption.
Some states have pointed to the inclusion of human rights safeguards as justification for supporting this treaty. However, the safeguards are limited, many are optional, and others lack any means of enforcement, which provides no confidence that international human rights standards will prevail over abusive state practices.
The convention will enter into force 90 days after 40 states have ratified it. States should not ratify this treaty and those that do should take significant measures through domestic law and negotiations over the protocol to ensure it will be implemented in a way that respects human rights in practice, not just on paper.
