In a recent gathering at the United Nations in New York, the global community faced a significant crossroads regarding the proposed global cybercrime treaty. Initially put forward by Russia in 2017, the treaty aimed to establish a unified legal framework for combating online malfeasance, including fraud, scams, and harassment. However, as the U.N. convened for what was anticipated to be the concluding session earlier this February, human rights organizations voiced concerns over the treaty.
Civil society organizations and human rights defenders have raised alarm bells over the treaty’s vague language and broad scope, fearing it could pave the way for repressive regimes to curtail freedom of expression and expand state surveillance under the guise of fighting cybercrime. The criticism is not unfounded; authoritarian governments, notably those of China and Russia, have a notorious history of leveraging national security and cybercrime laws to suppress dissent and muzzle the press.
The apprehensions were articulated in a joint statement endorsed by around 50 organizations and experts, including the likes of Human Rights Watch, PEN International, and ARTICLE 19. The latter ARTICLE 19 is an international think–do organization that propels the freedom of expression movement locally and globally to ensure all people realize the power of their voices. They recently sent an open letter to the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime:
Particularly concerning is that the draft treaty authorises states to conduct intrusive cross-border data collection without prior judicial authorisation, without oversight, and in secrecy. Service providers would be unable to notify users or inform anyone about data collection being ordered. Civil society and individuals would not know when their data is being accessed, making it impossible for them to challenge arbitrary requests and protect their privacy. Given these flaws, this process is at real risk of producing an instrument that can be used to conduct broad data collection on a global scale under the guise of fighting cybercrime.
Article 19: Open Letter to the UN (link)
Dozens of human rights organizations signed the open letter. The call to action is clear: the treaty must narrowly define cyber-dependent crimes and explicitly protect vulnerable actors from being unjustly targeted. Yet, as it stands, the draft treaty’s expansive language risks empowering countries to enact or amend criminal and surveillance laws in ways that could severely undermine human rights protections globally.
The role of surveillance-related provisions has been particularly contentious, with reports of Russia and China pushing for expanded surveillance capabilities. This move has sparked fears among rights groups, with Barbora Bukovska of ARTICLE 19 highlighting the global impact on civil liberties. Similarly, Raman Jit Singh Chima from Access Now pointed out the deterioration of the draft’s language over time, emphasizing the necessity of safeguarding “good faith” actions by security researchers, journalists, and activists from criminalization.
The international community stands at a critical juncture. The drafting of this treaty presents an opportunity to set a global standard for addressing cybercrime without compromising fundamental human rights. As the U.N. prepares to reconvene later this year to finalize the treaty language, the pressure mounts on member states to heed the calls of civil society and ensure the final document upholds the principles of necessity, legality, and proportionality in any government action it sanctions.
The stakes are high. With several countries already deploying cybercrime laws to persecute journalists and critics, the international legal framework must not legitimize or exacerbate such practices. As negotiations continue, the global community must remain vigilant, advocating for a treaty that not only combats cybercrime but also firmly protects the rights and freedoms that form the cornerstone of democratic societies. Failure to do so could signal a regressive shift in international law, one that could embolden repressive regimes at the expense of global civil liberties.
