Amid growing cyber threats, divisions in global rulemaking are becoming more visible. Late last year, the United Nations held a signing ceremony for the new Convention against Cybercrime, the first multilateral criminal justice treaty in over 2 decades. India, along with the United States, Japan, and Canada, did not sign the convention. The General Assembly adopted the text in December 2024 with support from 72 countries, highlighting deep fractures in cyber governance.
The Convention began with a proposal from Russia in 2017 and was shaped through 8 formal sessions and 5 intersessional consultations. Russia and China worked together to push the treaty as an alternative to the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which has 76 parties but excludes both countries. The Budapest framework limits membership to invited states, making it non-inclusive, and India stayed out of it.
The UN Convention is open to all states, but disagreement remains. European countries signed because the text borrows legal definitions and procedures from the Budapest Convention. A European policy note in July 2025 said joining would give them a “meaningful voice early in the implementation” of the new system. The United States raised concerns over the China–Russia role, while civil groups warned that the treaty’s broad crime definitions could be used against journalists and activists.
India took part in negotiations but stayed away from signing. Its proposals on retaining institutional control over citizens’ data were not accepted. This reflects India’s limited success in shaping global digital rules in recent years, unlike its early leadership in climate negotiations.
The treaty also shows a gap between legal ideals and real practice. Talks began with shared concern over harms such as child abuse material online. Yet the final text allows wide interpretation of cybercrime, which may affect human rights. Legal safeguards are tied to domestic laws, not a shared global standard.
A similar pattern is seen in artificial intelligence governance. Governments agree that AI should be “safe, secure, and trustworthy” and “human-centric”. But national rules differ widely. India’s draft plan on watermarking AI content follows safety principles but suggests strict display requirements that go far beyond broad global norms.
Global institutions are under strain. The Security Council remains divided, the trade body’s dispute system has been stalled since 2019, and financial support to the UN has declined. Cybercrime governance now risks becoming fragmented, with overlapping rules and regional groupings.
India will find it hard to protect its policy independence unless it builds strong technical capacity and engages across multiple platforms. Regulatory reform at home and deeper global engagement are now urgent.
Also read: Viksit Workforce for a Viksit Bharat
Do Follow: The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News LinkedIn Account | The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News Facebook | The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News Youtube | The Mainstream formerly known as CIO News Twitter
About us:
The Mainstream is a premier platform delivering the latest updates and informed perspectives across the technology business and cyber landscape. Built on research-driven, thought leadership and original intellectual property, The Mainstream also curates summits & conferences that convene decision makers to explore how technology reshapes industries and leadership. With a growing presence in India and globally across the Middle East, Africa, ASEAN, the USA, the UK and Australia, The Mainstream carries a vision to bring the latest happenings and insights to 8.2 billion people and to place technology at the centre of conversation for leaders navigating the future.
