Global Cyber Governance -

UN Convention on Cybercrime

United Nations convened a signing ceremony for the Convention against Cybercrime.
Convention adopted by the General Assembly in December 2024, supported by 72 countries.
It is the only multilateral criminal justice instrument negotiated in over two decades.
India, the United States, Japan, and Canada did not sign the Convention.
Non-signing reflects fractures in global governance of cyberspace.

Negotiation Process and Global Context

Convention originated from a 2017 Russian-sponsored UN resolution.
Negotiations involved eight formal sessions and five intersessional consultations.
Inputs were taken from civil society experts and private sector stakeholders.
Process highlights challenges in consensus-building within an uncertain global order.

Competing Frameworks and Strategic Alignments

Russia and China aimed to reshape cyber governance beyond the 2001 Budapest Convention.
Budapest Convention has 76 parties and restricts membership to invited states.
India remained outside Budapest due to its non-inclusive accession structure.
The UN Convention is open to all states, but remains politically divisive.

European and American Perspectives

Europeans signed the UN Convention to retain early influence in implementation mechanisms.
EU justified participation to maintain a meaningful voice in operational phases.
U.S. civil society groups warned of broad crime definitions affecting journalists and activists.
American policymakers expressed concern over human rights and authoritarian misuse.

India’s Strategic Calculus

India actively engaged in negotiations but failed to secure institutional data control provisions.
India’s stance reflects caution about ceding sovereignty in global cyber rulemaking.
The country’s influence has declined since earlier climate diplomacy leadership among developing nations.

Principles Versus Practice Gap

Convention allows flexible definitions of cybercrime, risking rights dilution.
Procedural safeguards depend on domestic legal frameworks of signatory states.
India’s AI watermarking proposal shows prescriptive implementation of universal safety principles.

Polycentric Global Governance Challenges

U.S. reduced financial contributions to the United Nations system.
Security Council effectiveness questioned in Ukraine and Gaza conflicts.
WTO dispute-settlement mechanism remains paralysed since 2019.
Cyber governance shifting towards plurilateral and bilateral consensus structures.

Implications for India

India must build technical capacity to navigate overlapping global governance institutions.
Retaining institutional autonomy requires multi-level engagement and domestic regulatory reforms.

Global Cyber Governance