Regionalization of international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime

Author:Nataliya Maroz
Position:Assistant Professor, Ph.D., Belarusian State University
Pages:218-227
SUMMARY

International legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime is carried out primarily on the basis of regional treaties. Since every regional legal regime is unique and has its own specific characteristics the article addresses possible implications of such regionalization. Therefore, the goal of the research is to reveal characteristics of an ongoing trend on regionalization of international legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime and its possible impact on practical aspects of combating these crimes. It doesn’t address any institutional developments in the area and covers only treaty cooperation on the matter. The applicability of universal treaties on combating different types of crimes to cybercrime suppression is identified. An analysis of regional cybercrime treaties is carried out. On the basis of the undertaken research author makes a conclusion, that regionalization of the international legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime has its positive and negative sides and has led to a paradoxical situation which partly might be explained by a transnational nature of cybercrime. From one point, regional treaty is the best way to address cybercrime problem within a certain regional organization. From the other side different approaches to the criminalization of acts committed on the Internet or with the use of computer technologies might lead to creation of save heavens for cyber criminals, impede mutual legal assistance or extradition between countries that belong to different regions.

 
CONTENT
218 NATALIYA MAROZ
Regionalization of international cooperation in the fight against
cybercrime*
Nataliya MAROZ**
Abstract
International legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime is carried out
primarily on the basis of regional treaties. Since every regional legal regime is unique and
has its own specific characteristics the article addresses possible implications of such
regionalization. Therefore, the goal of the research is to reveal characteristics of an
ongoing trend on regionalization of international legal cooperation in the fight against
cybercrime and its possible impact on practical aspects of combating these crimes. It
doesn’t address any institutional developments in the area and covers only treaty
cooperation on the matter. The applicability of universal treaties on combating different
types of crimes to cybercrime suppression is identified. An analysis of regional cybercrime
treaties is carried out. On the basis of the undertaken research author makes a conclusion,
that regionalization of the international legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime
has its positive and negative sides and has led to a paradoxical situation which partly
might be explained by a transnational nature of cybercrime. From one point, regional
treaty is the best way to address cybercrime problem within a certain regional
organization. From the other side different approaches to the criminalization of acts
committed on the Internet or with the use of computer technologies might lead to creation
of save heavens for cyber criminals, impede mutual legal assistance or extradition
between countries that belong to different regions.
Keywords: Public law, regionalisation, fragmentation of international law,
cybercrime, international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime
Introduction
Cybercrime has an adverse impact on different aspects of social life and
economics. As it was emphasized by the United Nations [hereafter – UN]
Information Service “threats to Internet safety have spiked dramatically in recent
years, and cybercrime now affects more than 431 million adult victims globally”1.
* The article was prepared for the International Law Conference, "Current Issues within EU and
EU Member States: Converging and Diverging Legal Trends", 3rd edition, organized by the Faculty of
Law – Transilvania University of Braşov on the 29th-30th of November 2019. All links were last
accessed on 25 September 2019.
Law Review vol. X, issue 2, July-Decembre 2019, pp. 218-227
Regionalization of international cooperation... 219
Cybercrime is not only one of the fastest growing threats it also might be really
destructive. In 2016 a British hacker Daniel Kaye developed a botnet which
attack, finally, resulted in the shutdown of the Internet in most countries of West
Africa2. Other well-known examples of disruptive cyber incidents are Petya and
NotPetya virus attacks. The latter spread to more than 10 countries and lead to
more than $10 billion in total damage, according to the US Homeland Security
adviser Tom Bossert3.
These cases perfectly demonstrate the need for strong international legal
cooperation in the fight against cybercrime. In particular, it concerns the need for
harmonization of criminal legislation, both material and procedural, and legal
framework for mutual legal assistance on criminal matters and extradition.
Unfortunately, computer technologies are being developed too fast so that
national criminal law can’t keep pace with all the changes. Moreover, cybercrime
tends to be transnational and, therefore, needs a comprehensive international
legal framework to suppress it. Despite the fact states and intergovernmental
organizations recognize transnational nature of cybercrime, there is a
considerable debate concerning the necessity to conclude a treaty on cybercrime
of universal character. Basically, international legal cooperation in the fight
against cybercrime is promoted at regional level. Different approaches to
criminalization of conduct in cyber space, preservation and collection of
electronic evidence might impede effective collaboration of competent authorities
and, thus, combating cybercrime.
The goal of the research is to reveal characteristics of an ongoing trend on
regionalization of international legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime
and its possible impact on practical aspects of combating these crimes. It doesn’t
address any institutional developments in the area and covers only treaty
cooperation on the matter.
Therefore, the article attempts to cover two major issues. First of all, it
concerns international legal framework for cybercrime suppression and regional
conventions establishing legal basis for international cooperation in the fight
against cybercrime. Secondly, it addresses the influence of regionalization of
international cooperation in the area discussed on the effectiveness of cybercrime
suppression.
** Assistant Professor, Ph.D. – Belarusian State University (nataliya.maroz@gmail.com).
1 UN Information Service, Cybercrime, available on http://www.unis.unvienna.org/
unis/en/events/2015/crime_congress_cybercrime.html.
2 The Sunday Times, British hacker Daniel Kaye shut down web for entire nation of Liberia, available
on https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-hacker-daniel-kaye-shut-down-web-for-entire-
nation-of-liberia-dn9kzslhd, consulted on 10.10.2019.
3 R. Brewer. NotPetya malware estimated to have caused $10bn damage, available on
http://insights.threatmanagement.info/post/102f15f/notpetya-malware-estimated-to-have-
caused-10bn-damage.
220 NATALIYA MAROZ
1. International legal framework for cooperation in the fight against
cybercrime
Unfortunately, there is no universal treaty which specifically deals with
international legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime. However, some
international treaties that regulate international cooperation in combating other
types of crimes, for which cyber aspect might constitute one of the sub elements
of actus reus, can be applicable to the matter.
The UN Convention on transnational organized crime (2000) and the
Optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography (2000) can be a basis for international cooperation when a particular
cybercrime satisfies general requirements set forth in these treaties. So, the
Optional protocol can be applicable to producing, distributing, disseminating,
importing, exporting, offering, selling or possessing child pornography when
these acts are committed online (art. 3 c) of the Protocol)4. The UN Convention on
transnational organized crime can apply to the prevention, investigation and
prosecution of a serious cyber offence when it is transnational in nature and
involves an organized criminal group (art. 3 (1) of the Convention)5.
However, this international framework is not enough to create a
comprehensive and robust mechanism of cybercrime suppression, which
requires a well-established system of mutual assistance to ensure preservation
and transmission of electronic evidence while investigating a transnational
cybercrime. As it was stressed in the Discussion Guide for the Fourteenth UN
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice “technology and
globalization enable criminals to coordinate across regions like never before,
increasing their reach, crimes, targeted victims and profits”6. Transnational
cybercrime can affect different states from different regions challenging an
existing system of international legal cooperation in the fight against high-tech
crime.
Unfortunately, an initiative to negotiate a treaty on cybercrime under the
auspices of the UN wasn’t supported by the states7. Since the 12th UN Congress
4 Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, New York, 25
May 2000, available on https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2000/05/20000525%2003-
16%20AM/Ch_IV_11_cp.pdf.
5 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, New York, 15 November
2000, available on https://www.unodc.org/documents/rpanc/Publications/UN_documents/
Crime/TOCebook-e.pdf.
6 Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Discussion
Guide, 24 September 2018, A/CONF.234/PM.1, available on https://www.unodc.org/documents/
congress//Documentation_14th_Congress/DiscussionGuide/A_CONF234_PM1_e_V1806329.pdf.
7 Report of the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, El
Salvador, Brazil, April 12–19, 2010, available on http://www.unodc.org/documents/crime-
congress/12th-Crime-Congress/Documents/A_CONF.213_18/V1053830r.pdf.
Regionalization of international cooperation... 221
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice this issue hasn’t been among the
questions for the discussion.
In this regard international regional intergovernmental organizations make
substantial effort to create an effective legal framework for cybercrime
suppression. For the past 20 years there have been concluded 6 cybercrime
conventions: Council of Europe [hereafter – COE] Convention on cybercrime (2001)
and its Additional protocol on xenophobia and racism (2003); African Union
Convention on cyber security and personal data protection (2014); Collective Security
Treaty Organization [hereafter – CSTO] protocol on counteracting crimes in
information security area (2014); Agreement on cooperation of the member-states of the
Commonwealth of Independent States [hereafter – CIS] in fighting crimes in the sphere
of computer information (2001); Arab Convention on combating information technology
offences (2010).
All these treaties establish a legal framework for harmonization of criminal
legislation and cooperation of law enforcement agencies and courts in the fight
against cybercrime in a certain region. However, regional agreements on
cybercrime also create various more or less formal regulatory regimes that
actually might provoke legal conflicts resulting in deviations of institutional
practices and emergence of conflicting jurisprudence, and more importantly, in
creating safe havens for cyber criminals8.
2. Regional treaties on cybercrime and their characteristic
All the regional cybercrime treaties have their own specific features and
might be divided into 2 major groups.
The first group includes treaties that are concluded in the Post-soviet space
and are aimed at harmonization of criminal legislation rather than regulating
mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. It encompasses the CSTO protocol on
counteracting crimes in information security area and the Agreement on
cooperation of the member-states of the CIS in fighting crimes in the sphere of
computer information.
The aforementioned treaties were negotiated to address to a special
challenge to cyber security, which can be revealed through the interpretation of
their preambles. The Agreement on cooperation of the member-states of the CIS
in fighting crimes in the sphere of computer information was concluded to “to
create a legal basis for the cooperation of law enforcement and judicial bodies of
the state parties in the fight against crimes in the sphere of computer
8 Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of
international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, 13 April 2006,
available on http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf.
222 NATALIYA MAROZ
information”9. At the same time the CSTO protocol on counteracting crimes in
information security area is seeking “to ensure effective collective interaction to
counter criminal activities in the information sphere and to create the legal basis
for cooperation of intelligence services and law enforcement agencies of the
Parties in the fight against crimes in the field of information technology”10. Thus,
the treaties have close, but still different objects of legal regulation.
Interestingly, that the list of state-parties to these conventions almost
coincides. For example, Armenia, Belarus, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tadzhikistan are state-parties to both multilateral cybercrime
conventions concluded within the post-Soviet space11. Since the aforementioned
conventions are not treaties relating to the same subject matter, they don’t create
conflicting obligations for the state parties to both of them.
The CSTO protocol on counteracting crimes in information security area
establishes a legal framework for suppression three types of conduct, which is
considered as a crime in accordance with national legislation of state-parties to
the Protocol: against constitutional system and state security, against peace and
security of mankind, in the field of information technology.
The scope of the Agreement on cooperation of the member-states of the CIS
in fighting crimes in the sphere of computer information is relatively narrow. The
treaty regulates cooperation in combating only crimes against computer
information (illegal access to computer information; creating, using, or
distributing malware; violation of the rules of operation of a computer, computer
system or their network by a person that has a legal access to a computer; illegal
use of computer programs and databases protected under copyright law). So, this
regional agreement doesn’t deal with any other offences. However, the vast
majority of cybercrimes are criminal offences against property such as cyber
theft, cyber fraud etc. Moreover, it worth noting that this treaty doesn't contain
any legal provisions on harmonization of criminal procedural legislation in terms
of collecting and using electronic evidence.
9 Agreement on cooperation of the member-states of the Commonwealth of Independent States in
fighting crimes in the sphere of computer information, Minsk, 1 June 2001 (rus), available on
http://www.cis.minsk.by/page.php?id=866.
10 Collective Security Treaty Organization protocol on counteracting crimes in information security
area, Moscow, 23 December 2014 (rus), available on http://pravo.by/upload/docs/op/
E71400003_1438290000.pdf.
11 Agreement on cooperation of the member-states of the Commonwealth of Independent States in
fighting crimes in the sphere of computer information (rus), document characteristic available on
http://etalonline.by/document/?regnum=n00100021&q_id=1118554&type=card; Collective Security
Treaty Organization protocol on counteracting crimes in information security area (rus), document
characteristic available on http://etalonline.by/document/?regnum=e71400003&q_id=1118566
&type=card.
Regionalization of international cooperation... 223
The CIS Agreement and CSTO Protocol regulate possible conflict situations
emanating from the participation of the state parties in other international
treaties. Both treaties stipulate that they “shall not affect the rights and
obligations of the High Contracting Parties arising from other international
treaties to which they are parties”12.
In 2018 member states of the CIS signed an Agreement on cooperation in the
fight against information technology crimes which aim is to replace the
Agreement of 200113. This new treaty significantly extends the area of
cooperation between the CIS member-states in combating cybercrime, requesting
to criminalize not only the crimes in the sphere of computer information but also
cyber theft, computer sabotage, online calls for terrorist acts and extremism
activity, dissemination of child pornography through electronic means of
communication. Nevertheless, it hasn’t come into force yet.
Unfortunately, none of the first group treaties contains provisions with
regard any procedural measures to be taken at the national level for the purpose
of criminal investigation of cybercrimes and the collection of evidence in
electronic form. However, one of the major challenges in combating crime in the
networked environment is the difficulty in identifying the perpetrator and
assessing the extent and impact of the criminal act14. Another drawback of this
type of treaties is that they are based on a traditional approach to mutual legal
assistance on criminal matters.
The second group of treaties includes the COE Convention on cybercrime
and other regional conventions based on it.
The COE Convention on cybercrime is considered to be the most detailed
and progressive treaty in this field. It covers harmonization of legislation, human
rights challenges arising out of combating cybercrime, jurisdiction issues and
mutual legal assistance15. It was ratified by 64 states, including Argentina,
Australia, Cabo Verde, Canada, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ghana,
Israel, Japan, Mauritius, Morocco, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Senegal,
Sri Lanka, the United States, Tonga, which are non-member states of the Council
12 Agreement on cooperation of the member-states of the Commonwealth of Independent States in
fighting crimes in the sphere of computer information, Minsk, 1 June 2001; Collective Security Treaty
Organization protocol on counteracting crimes in information security area, Moscow, 23 December 2014
(rus).
13 Agreement on cooperation of the member-states of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the
fight against information technology crimes, Dushanbe, 28 September 2018 (rus), available on
https://base.spinform.ru/show_doc.fwx?rgn=110821.
14 Police Executive Research Forum, The Changing Nature of Crime And Criminal Investigations,
available on https://www.policeforum.org/assets/ChangingNatureofCrime.pdf.
15 Convention on Cybercrime, Budapest, 23.11.2001, available on https://rm.coe.int/1680081561.
224 NATALIYA MAROZ
of Europe16. Moreover, Benin, Colombia, Nigeria, Tunisia have been invited to
accede to the COE Convention on cybercrime17.
Its comprehensive legal framework became one of the arguments against the
concluding a universal convention under the auspices of the UN during the 11th
and 12th Congresses on crime prevention and criminal justice. The delegates
believed that the COE Convention could have become a universal legal
framework for international legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime18.
However, some states argued that the convention contained some provisions that
could have posed threats to sovereignty and national security (in particular, it
concerned art. 32 (b) of the convention, which was dedicated to transboundary
access to computer information). These arguments are still being put forward by
some countries (for example, Russian Federation)19.
The mechanism of accession to the COE Convention on cybercrime is quite
complicated to the non-member states of the COE. In accordance with art. 37 a
candidate state seeking for accession to the convention should get a unanimous
consent of the contracting states to the convention and the consent of the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe20. It’s not difficult to imagine
that even a slight political misunderstanding exiting between a candidate state
and a state party to the treaty might be a serious obstacle to its accession. The
final decision of a state party on this matter is not supposed to be supported by
any argument. It’s a sovereign right of a state party to give or refuse to give this
kind of consent. Therefore, despite the fact the number of the state parties to the
COE Convention on cybercrime that are non-member states of the COE has been
grown during the past five years; it would be still unfair to assert the Convention
could be a universal legal framework for cybercrime suppression.
The Convention on cybercrime was concluded in 2001, and, thus, didn’t
address all the modern trends in cybercrime. Therefore, there hadn’t been taken
into consideration botnets, child grooming over the Internet or crypto-currency
fraud while drafting this treaty. In this regard, the Conventional committee (T-
CY) issues guidelines aimed at facilitating the effective use and implementation
16 Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 185, available on https://www.coe.int/en/
web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/185/signatures?p_auth=BUuD8GPy.
17 Non-members States of the Council of Europe, available on https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublic
CommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806cac22.
18 Report of the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice,
Bangkok, April 18–25, 2005, available on http://www.un.org/russian/events/
11thcongress/a_conf203_18.pdf.
19 A. Arsentiev, Putin has refused to sign the Convention on cybercrime (rus), available on
http://safe.cnews.ru/news/top/putin_otkazalsya_podpisat_konventsiyu.
20 Convention on Cybercrime, Budapest, 23.11.2001, available on https://rm.coe.int/1680081561.
Regionalization of international cooperation... 225
of the COE Convention on cybercrime in the light of legal, policy and
technological developments21.
Despite positive results achieved in terms of interpretation of the COE
Convention on cybercrime by the T-CY, some recent trends in cybercrime need to
be addressed only through a specific legal instrument. In particular, there exists a
widespread practice of the cloud computing used for commercial and private
purposes, which poses new challenges to collection of electronic evidence.
Therefore, in 2017 the states parties to the COE Convention on cybercrime agreed
to launch the preparation of a protocol to this treaty to help law enforcement
secure evidence on servers in foreign, multiple or unknown jurisdictions22. The
protocol is expected to contain provisions “for more effective mutual legal
assistance; direct cooperation with service providers, including production
orders for subscriber information to be issued directly to a service provider in
another Party; extending searches transborder” etc.23
While analyzing the treaties that belong to the second group it’s worth
mentioning the Arab convention on combating information technology offences
which content was basically developed on the basis of COE Convention on
cybercrime. This treaty also consists of two major parts. The first part is
dedicated to the harmonization of criminal legislation, both material and
procedural. The second one concerns legal and judicial cooperation on the
matter. Remarkably, that the convention attempts to provide a comprehensive
list of computer-related offences (forgery, fraud, theft, pornography, child
pornography, terrorism, organized crime, traffic in human beings etc). However,
the treaty has a significant drawback. It prescribes the state parties to criminalize
some conduct not giving any explanation of its actus reus (art. 14-15 of the Arab
convention stipulating “other offences related to pornography” and “offence
against privacy by means of information technology”).
The Arab convention contains some important legal provisions with regard
to mutual legal assistance. First of all, in accordance with this treaty mutual legal
assistance is granted only on a basis of a legal request sent by one appointed
central authority directly to another (which is similar to a corresponding
provision of the COE Convention on cybercrime). Secondly, a state party can
21 Guidance Notes, available on https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/guidance-notes.
22 Council of Europe, Cybercrime: towards a Protocol on evidence in the cloud, available on
https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/cybercrime-towards-a-protocol-on-
evidence-in-the-clo-1.
23 Directorate of Legal Advice and Public International Law, Use of a ‘disconnection clause’ in the
second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, 29.04.2019, available on
https://www.coe.int/en/web/dlapil/-/use-of-a-disconnection-clause-in-the-second-additional-
protocol-to-the-budapest-convention-on-cybercri-1.
226 NATALIYA MAROZ
refuse to provide any legal assistance if a dual criminality clause is not satisfied
(art. 32 (5) of the Arab convention)24.
African Union Convention on cyber security and personal data protection is
a complex treaty covering civil and public aspects of cybersecurity. The
convention enlarges a list of cyber-offences in comparison with the COE
Convention on cybercrime, paying particular attention to computerized data
breaches and content-related offences. Unfortunately, the African Union
Convention doesn’t stipulate a procedure of mutual legal assistance precisely. In
particular, art. 28 of the treaty provides that “state parties that don’t have
agreements on mutual legal assistance in cyber-crime shall undertake to
encourage the signing of agreements on mutual legal assistance in conformity
with the principle of double liability, while promoting the exchange of the
information as well as the efficient sharing of data between the organizations of
state parties on a bilateral or multilateral basis”25. So, the African Union
Convention mostly leaves aside the question of mutual legal assistance in
criminal matters encouraging state parties to regulate them in specific
international agreements.
Both the COE convention on cybercrime and the African Union Convention
on cyber security and personal data protection establish conventional monitoring
mechanisms, which functions, actually, differ in many respects.
The T-CY was established in accordance with art. 46 of the COE Convention
on cybercrime with the aim to coordinate consultations of the state parties in
three major areas (facilitating the effective use and implementation of the
convention, including the identification of any problems thereof, as well as the
effects of any declaration or reservation made under the convention; the
exchange of information on significant legal, policy or technological
developments pertaining to cybercrime and the collection of evidence in
electronic form; consideration of possible supplementation or amendment of the
convention).
Pursuant to art. 32 the African Union Convention’s Operational mechanism
has a wider competence than T-CY and fulfils a range of functions covering all
the areas regulated by this treaty. In particular, it formulates and promotes the
adoption of harmonized codes of conduct for the use of public officials in the
area of cyber security; submits reports to the Executive Council of the African
Union concerning the implementation of the convention; establishes partnerships
24 Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences, Cairo, 21.12.2010, available on
https://www.asianlaws.org/gcld/cyberlawdb/GCC/Arab%20Convention%20on%20Combating
%20Information%20Technology%20Offences.pdf.
25 African Union Convention on cyber security and personal data protection, Malabo, 27.06.2014,
available on https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/29560-treaty-0048_-_african_union_con
vention_on_cyber_security_and_personal_data_protection_e.pdf.
Regionalization of international cooperation... 227
with the African Union bodies, civil society, intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations in the area discussed etc.
To conclude, regional treaties establish different legal regimes for
international legal cooperation in the fight against cybercrime. The treaties
concluded in the Post-Soviet space are aimed at harmonization of criminal law
and rely on traditional mechanism of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
The treaties developed on the basis of the COE convention on cybercrime
regulate international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime more
comprehensively establishing a framework for harmonisation of material and
procedural criminal legislation, as well as mutual legal assistance. Unfortunately,
the list of cybercrimes enshrined in the treaties differs from region to region. This
situation might give rise to a problem in prosecuting those committed these types
of transnational offences.
Conclusions
Regionalization of the international legal cooperation in the fight against
cybercrime has its positive and negative sides and has led to a paradoxical
situation which partly might be explained by a transnational nature of
cybercrime. From one point, regional treaty is the best way to address cybercrime
problem within a certain regional organization. From the other side different
approaches to the criminalization of acts committed on the Internet or with the
use of computer technologies might lead to creation of save heavens for cyber
criminals, impede mutual legal assistance or extradition between countries that
belong to different regions.
The lack of international legal framework for mutual assistance in the field
might lead to a situation when law enforcement agents have to cooperate directly
on the base of their personal contacts of their colleagues in foreign countries. In
the absence of specific legal framework providing the widest and quickest
cooperation possible it’s quite difficult to combat cybercrime effectively.
The COE Convention on cybercrime can’t establish a universal mechanism
for international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime. It contains a very
complicated mechanism for accession, which is reasonable for a regional treaty,
however, inadmissible to any convention to be considered as of universal level.
Moreover, there is no global consensus concerning the content of its several
provisions concerning transboundary access to computer data.
The more authentic regional treaties on cybercrime are, the more fragmented
international legal framework for international cooperation in the fight against
cybercrime is. The more regional organizations focus on their specific needs in
the field discussed, the less it’s possible to create a robust and effective
mechanism of international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime.
Therefore, any regional treaty-drafting process should be accompanied by a
comprehensive research of existing treaty instruments on cybercrime.