As the Internet exploded across the globe in the mid-1990s, the Council of Europe was the only intergovernmental treaty organization to recognize that “only a binding international instrument can ensure the necessary efficiency in the fight against [cybercrime]”1 and began the work of drafting a convention as early as 1996 that would “not only deal with criminal substantive law matters, but also with criminal procedural questions as well as with international criminal law procedures and agreements.”
At the time, the developed countries from across the globe, which possessed the infrastructure and the majority of Internet users, came together out of a common interest to negotiate a draft convention. Four years of negotiations later, in 2001, they finalized the Treaty – the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (“the Convention”).
The Convention not only assisted in the convergence, consistency and compatibility of cybercrime legislation between infrastructure countries but also guided developing nations towards best practices in writing their own cybercrime legislation. For instance, in 2002, having drafted and assisted my country, Pakistan, in enacting its Electronic Transactions Ordinance, my government sought my advice on cybercrime legislation. The only model of effective legislation for inter- national cooperation for combating cybercrime available then and now was the Convention; my advice was to pro- mulgate legislation consistent with the Convention and consider accession.
Today, even after ten years, the Convention represents the only interna- tional instrument and the best hope for countries to establish common minimum standards of relevant offenses, prevent criminals operating from jurisdictions with lower standards and enable speedy and 24/7 international cooperation between law enforcement.
Nonetheless, the continued growing support for the Convention, particularly in developing nations, is by no means assured or inevitable. The Convention faces opposition from certain quarters that traditionally tend to promote a greater role for the regulation of the Internet by UN bodies. This article attempts to raise awareness about the challenges faced by those advocating in favor of the Convention in many devel- oping countries, with the hope that a coalition of ‘friends of the convention’ can help reverse the permeating but weak narrative of its opponents, which seems to have embedded itself in the hearts and minds of some developing nation policymakers. (purchase article…)
Zahid Jamil is a Senior Partner with the family law firm of Jamil and Jamil. He qualified as a Barrister from Gray’s Inn and is currently practicing law in Pakistan specializing in corporate and commercial law, technology, intellectual property rights, cybercrime and counterterrorism.
Image Credit: U.S. Space Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Luke Kitterman, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
This is an archived article. While every effort is made to conserve hyperlinks and information, GJIA’s archived content sources online content between 2011 – 2019 which may no longer be accessible or correct.
