1. Context

1.1 The United Nations (UN) convened a signing ceremony for the Convention against Cybercrime, the first multilateral criminal justice treaty on cybercrime in over two decades.
1.2 The Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2024 and has received support from 72 countries.
1.3 India did not sign the Convention, along with the United States, Japan, and Canada, reflecting fractures in global cyber governance.

2. Evolution of the UN Cybercrime Convention

2.1 The Convention originated from a 2017 resolution proposed by Russia.
2.2 It represents negotiations among UN member states with inputs from civil society experts and the private sector.
2.3 The process involved eight formal sessions and five intersessional consultations, highlighting the complexity of reaching consensus.

3. Geopolitical Drivers

3.1 Russia and China collaborated to reshape the status quo of global cyber governance frameworks.
3.2 Existing frameworks are centred on the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, a European-led initiative.
3.3 The Budapest Convention includes 76 parties, excludes Russia and China, and restricts accession to invited states, making it non-inclusive.

4. Competing Cyber Governance Models

4.1 The UN Convention is open to all states, unlike the Budapest Convention.
4.2 European countries signed the UN Convention because it borrows definitions and procedures from the Budapest framework.
4.3 The European Union justified signing in July 2025 as a way to ensure early influence over implementation.

5. U.S. and Civil Society Concerns

5.1 The United States remains sceptical of the Sino-Russian initiative.
5.2 Civil society groups warn that the Convention’s broad definition of serious crimes could enable prosecution of journalists, activists, and political opponents.
5.3 Authoritarian regimes could misuse the framework to suppress dissent under the guise of cybercrime control.

6. India’s Strategic Calculus

6.1 India actively participated in negotiations but chose not to sign the Convention.
6.2 New Delhi sought to retain greater institutional control over citizens’ data.

7. Fragmented Multilateralism

7.1 Russia and China view a weakened UN as a platform to legitimise their worldview.
7.2 Europe and other declining powers continue to rely on rule-based multilateral institutions.
7.3 India remains cautious about ceding institutional autonomy, reflecting geopolitical uncertainty.

8. Principles–Practice Rift

8.1 The Convention exposes a gap between international legal principles and on-ground enforcement realities.
8.2 Its definition of cybercrime allows expansion of criminal offences, potentially affecting human rights.
8.3 Procedural safeguards such as judicial review are left to domestic legal frameworks of signatory states.

9. Polycentrism in Global Governance

9.1 Global governance is facing a polycentric shift, not a revival.
9.2 The U.S. has reduced financial contributions to the UN.
9.3 The UN Security Council’s impotence is evident in conflicts such as Ukraine and Gaza.
9.4 The WTO dispute settlement system has remained paralysed since 2019.