Global Governance Crisis and the UN Cybercrime Convention
Global governance is experiencing a crisis highlighted by the recent adoption of the UN's Convention against Cybercrime. Notably, major countries like India, the United States, Japan, and Canada didn't sign this Convention, reflecting fractures in cyberspace governance.
Background and Development
- The Convention was proposed by Russia in 2017 and took eight formal sessions and five consultations to reach consensus.
- It aimed to reshape global cyber governance from the 2001 Budapest Convention, which excluded Russia and China.
- The new UN Convention is open to all, but still encountered significant division among members.
Responses and Reactions
- European Union: Signed the Convention to ensure a voice in early implementation, as it borrowed elements from the Budapest Convention.
- United States: Skeptical of the Convention due to concerns about broad definitions potentially threatening human rights.
- India: While actively engaged in negotiations, India did not sign due to its proposals being rejected, aiming to retain data control.
Challenges in Global Governance
- The UN Convention highlighted a gap between international legal principles and realities, allowing for an expanded scope of criminal offenses.
- Similar challenges are evident in artificial intelligence governance, with consensus on principles but divergence in practices.
Implications for India
- India must build technical capacities to engage in polycentric global governance effectively.
- Domestically, regulatory and administrative reforms are crucial for maintaining institutional autonomy.
Conclusion
The crisis in global governance is underscored by the UN's inability to garner unanimous support for new cyber governance frameworks, reflecting deeper geopolitical tensions and institutional challenges.
