The process of developing a supplementary protocol to the UN Convention against Cybercrime has begun, with early state submissions already showing competing views over its scope and timing.
The Ad Hoc Committee Secretariat invited preliminary written inputs on the possible scope, objectives and structure of a draft protocol supplementary to the Convention, also known as the ‘Hanoi Convention’. The mandate follows UN General Assembly resolution 79/243, which asked the Committee to negotiate a draft protocol addressing, among other issues, additional criminal offences.
The United States questioned the exercise’s premise, arguing that discussions on a supplementary protocol are premature because the Convention has not yet entered into force and its implementation has not yet been tested. Washington called for the Committee first to address whether a protocol is needed at all before discussing its scope, objectives and structure.
Russia, by contrast, submitted a draft protocol text covering a broad range of offences, including terrorism financing, extremism, arms and drug trafficking, critical information infrastructure, unauthorised access to personal data and crimes involving AI. The proposal reflects a wider approach to criminalisation, including content-related offences that are likely to be contested by states concerned about overreach, legal certainty and human rights safeguards.
Other early submissions appear more cautious. Brazil, Nigeria, and Ecuador broadly support advancing the protocol process, while signalling the need to limit its scope and maintain attention to safeguards. Brazil warned against including offences where there is insufficient international consensus, while Ecuador proposed a structure that includes emerging offences, digital evidence, public-private cooperation, proportionality and human rights.
The early inputs point to a familiar divide in UN cybercrime negotiations: whether the treaty framework should remain focused on classical cybercrime, electronic evidence and criminal justice cooperation, or expand further into content-based offences, national security concerns and politically sensitive forms of online conduct.
Why does it matter?
A supplementary protocol could shape the evolution of the UN cybercrime framework after the adoption of the main Convention. If states use the protocol to add broad or content-related offences, the treaty system could move beyond core cybercrime and electronic evidence cooperation into areas with direct implications for freedom of expression, human rights safeguards, political speech, platform governance and state sovereignty. The early submissions suggest that those unresolved tensions are already resurfacing before the Convention has entered into force.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
