Keywords:
cybercrime
cyberattack
international criminal law
convention on cybercrime and cooperation

  • Abstract

    This study highlights the necessity of controlling the issue of Cybercrime with International Law Principles and treaties, the legal foundation of international cybercrime legislation. The paper pursued normative behavior relying on the legislation of the European Union and countries outside of Europe. The implications of Cybercrime in cyberattack events establish a legal foundation for preventing and punishing cyber criminals wherever they occur. The perceived threats arising from cyberattack activities are grounded in known cyberattack behaviors and literature, underscoring the imminent nature of these threats. The Convention on Cybercrime, inaugurated in Budapest, Hungary, in November 2001, is recognized as a pivotal international agreement addressing Cybercrime and electronic evidence. The negotiation process included the Council of Europe, United States, Japan, Canada, and South African participants. Significantly, nations across Africa, the Americas, and the Asia/Pacific are harnessing this agreement to implement robust strategies against cybercrime. Cybercrime is a new area of international law, namely, International Criminal Law. The international community handles it because no convention has identified Cybercrime globally. It is urgent to govern Cybercrime globally, and statistics imply that the need to regulate Cybercrime under international criminal law is critical. The paper adopts a method designed to deeply understand the global legal structures related to cybercrime. The study employs a comprehensive approach, merging normative legal research to meticulously examine and interpret key legal documents such as the Budapest Convention, with a comparative legal analysis both within the European Union and globally. This analysis scrutinizes various jurisdictions, identifying best practices and discrepancies to inform a holistic understanding of cybercrime regulation. Policy analysis is conducted to critically assess existing strategies and propose innovative solutions, while technological insights are integrated to ensure legal frameworks are attuned to the rapidly evolving landscape of cyber threats. Involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including legal scholars and cybersecurity experts, the research offers a diverse perspective. This multifaceted approach aims to balance thorough legal scrutiny with actionable solutions, promoting robust and flexible strategies for international cybercrime regulation. The results of this comprehensive study underscore the urgent need for a global, unified legal response to combat cybercrime effectively. It concludes that the Budapest Convention marks a significant turning point, offering a foundation for international cooperation and legal harmonization in tackling cybercrimes. However, the rapid technological advancements and the evolving sophistication of cyber threats demand that this convention and other international legal instruments adapt and expand accordingly. The study highlights the importance of harmonizing legal definitions and practices across different jurisdictions, both in common law and civil law countries, cybercrime address the borderless nature of cybercrime. The necessity for enhanced collaboration between public and private sectors in cybercrime investigations is emphasized, alongside the importance of establishing ethical data collection and sharing standards.

  • References

    1. Armin, J., Thompson, B., Ariu, D., Giacinto, G., Roli, F., & Kijewski, P. (2015, August). Two thousand twenty cybercrime economic costs: No measure, no solution. In 2015, the 10th International Conference on Availability, Reliability, and Security (pp. 701-710). IEEE.
    2. Back, S., Lee, J., & Soor, S. (2018). Spatial and temporal patterns of cyberattacks: Effective cybercrime prevention strategies around the globe. J-Institute, 3(1), 7-13. https://doi.org/10.22471/protective.2018.3.1.07
    3. Barezzani, S. (2023). General data protection regulation (GDPR). In Encyclopedia of Cryptography, Security and Privacy (pp. 1-6). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27739-9_1811-1
    4. Brandão, A., & Camisão, I. (2021). Playing the market card: The Commission's strategy to shape EU cybersecurity policy. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(5), 1335-1355. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13158
    5. Buçaj, E. (2017). The need for regulation of cyber terrorism phenomena in line with principles of international criminal law. Acta Universitatis, 13(1), 141-162.
    6. Calderoni, F. (2010). The European legal framework on cybercrime: Striving for an effective implementation. Crime, Law and Social Change, 54(5), 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-010-9261-6
    7. Choi, K. S., Lee, C. S., & Louderback, E. R. (2020). Historical evolutions of cybercrime: From computer crime to cybercrime. In The Palgrave Handbook of International Cybercrime and Cyber Deviance (pp. 27-43). Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Council of Europe. (2022). Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 185. Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185). Status as of 17/09/2022.
    9. Csonka, P. (2007). The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cyber-crime and other European initiatives. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 77(3), 473-501. https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.773.0473
    10. De los Ángeles Flores, M. (2022). Intermedia agenda-setting effect of Latino television in the 2020 US presidential election: A comparative study of Telemundo and Univision. In Contemporary Politics, Communication, and the Impact on Democracy (pp. 186-208). IGI Global.
    11. Dumchykov, M., Utkina, M., & Bondarenko, O. (2022). Cybercrime as a threat to the national security of the Baltic States and Ukraine: The comparative analysis. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 12(4), 481-490. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.120409
    12. Dupont, B., & Whelan, C. (2021). Enhancing relationships between criminology and cybersecurity. Journal of Criminology, 54(1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048658211003925
    13. Evans-Brown, M., & Sedefov, R. (2018). Responding to new psychoactive substances in the European Union: Early warning, risk assessment, and control measures. In New Psychoactive Substances (pp. 3-49). https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2018_160
    14. Gasket, B. (2019). Reader's Guide to Understanding the US Cyber Enforcement Architecture and Budget. Third Way.
    15. Goodwin, S. (2022). The need for a financial sector legal standard to support the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. In SoutheastCon 2022 (pp. 89-95). https://doi.org/10.1109/SoutheastCon48659.2022.9764006
    16. Haataja, S., & Akhtar-Khavari, A. (2018). Stuxnet and international law on the use of force: An informational approach. Cambridge International Law Journal, 7(1), 99-121.
    17. Herrero, J., Torres, A., Vivas, P., Hidalgo, A., Rodríguez, F. J., & Urueña, A. (2021). Smartphone addiction and cybercrime victimization in the context of lifestyles routine activities and self-control theories: The user’s dual vulnerability model of cybercrime victimization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3763. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073763
    18. Hollinger, R. C. (1991). Hackers: Computer heroes or electronic highwaymen? ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 21(1), 6-17.
    19. Hollis, D. (2021). A brief primer on international law and cyberspace. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/14/brief-primer-on-international-law-and-cyberspace-pub-84763
    20. Holt, T. J. (2012). Examining the forces shaping cybercrime markets online. Social Science Computer Review, 31(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312452998
    21. Huang, H., Siegel, J., & Madnick, S. (2018). Systematically understanding the cyber attack business: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(4), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3192948
    22. Imam, A., Mohammed, B., Wilson, D. C., & Cheeseman, C. R. (2008). Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. Waste Management, 28(2), 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.01.014
    23. Koops, B. (2010). The internet and its opportunities for cybercrime. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1738223
    24. Kpae, G. (2020). Cyber threat to critical infrastructure and defending national security in Nigeria. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies, 7(2), 214-223. https://doi.org/10.20448/802.72.214.223
    25. Le Nguyen, C., & Golman, W. (2021). Diffusion of the Budapest Convention on cybercrime and the development of cybercrime legislation in Pacific Island countries: ‘Law on the books’ vs ‘law in action’. Computer Law & Security Review, 40, 105521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105521
    26. Le, T. T., Andreadakis, Z., Kumar, A., Román, R. G., Tollefsen, S., Saville, M., & Mayhew, S. (2020). The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 19(5), 305-306. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-020-00073-5
    27. Levy, S. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution (Vol. 14). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
    28. M Aditya Gerald. (2023). Efforts to enhance Australia’s cyber security by developing a partnership with Indonesia in the field of cyber diplomacy. Global Local Interactions: Journal of International Relations, 3(2), 93-102. https://doi.org/10.22219/gli.v3i2.28049
    29. Maimon, D., & Louderback, E. R. (2019). Cyber-dependent crimes: An interdisciplinary review. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024659
    30. Mancosu, M., & Vegetti, F. (2020). What you can scrape and what is right to scrape: A proposal for a tool to collect public Facebook data. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 205630512094070. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120940703
    31. McGuire, M., & Dowling, S. (2013). Cybercrime: A review of the evidence. Summary of key findings and implications. Home Office Research Report, 75, 1-35.
    32. Medeiros, F. A., & Bygrave, L. A. (2015). Brazil’s Marco Civil da Internet: Does it live up to the hype? Computer Law & Security Review, 31(1), 120-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.12.001
    33. Mirkovic, J., Dietrich, S., Dittrich, D., & Reiher, P. (2004). Internet denial of service: Attack and defense mechanisms. Prentice Hall PTR.
    34. Moore, D., Shannon, C., Brown, D. J., Voelker, G. M., & Savage, S. (2006). Inferring internet denial-of-service activity. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 24(2), 115-139. https://doi.org/10.1145/1133305.1133307
    35. Mphatheni, M., & Maluleke, W. (2022). Cybersecurity as a response to combating cybercrime. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 11(4), 384-396. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i4.1714
    36. Nagarathna, A. (2020). Cybercrime regulation through laws and strategies: A glimpse into the Indian experience. International Journal of Digital Law, 1(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.47975/ijdl/1nagarathna
    37. Patel, R., Kaki, M., Potluri, V. S., Kahar, P., & Khanna, D. (2022). A comprehensive review of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna & Johnson & Johnson. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 18(1), 2002083. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2021.2002083
    38. Pickering, S. (2010). Editorial. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(1), iii-iii. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.43.1.iii
    39. Polyzoidou, V. (2021). Combatting cybercrime: Thoughts based on the second additional protocol (draft) to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. In EU Internet Law in the Digital Single Market (pp. 285-306). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_15
    40. Reep-van den Bergh, C. M., & Junger, M. (2018). Victims of cybercrime in Europe: A review of victim surveys. Crime Science, 7(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-018-0084-6
    41. Saqib, N., Germanos, V., Zeng, W., & Maglaras, L. (2018). Mapping of the security requirements of GDPR and NISD. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Security and Safety, 7(e2). https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.30-6-2020.166283
    42. Schmitt, M. (2013). Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare: The law of cyber armed conflict. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139169288
    43. Schmitz, S., & Berndt, C. M. (2018). The German Act on Improving Law Enforcement on Social Networks (NetzDG): A blunt sword? Available at SSRN 3306964. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3306964
    44. Smith, P. K. (2009). Cyberbullying: Abusive relationships in cyberspace. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 180-181. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.180
    45. Soldani, D. (2020). On Australia’s cyber and critical technology international engagement strategy towards 6G: How Australia may become a leader in cyberspace. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 8(4), 127-158. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v8n4.340
    46. Sutter, G. (2003). Introduction: Controlling information in the online environment. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 17(3), 251-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360086032000163151
    47. Talimonchik, V. P. (2020). Legal aspects of international information security. In Security and Privacy from a Legal, Ethical, and Technical Perspective (pp. 55-74). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86119
    48. Tapia, J. (2022). The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.12758.32323
    49. The United States Department of Justice. (2001). Equality and Law Reform Annual Report. p. 51.
    50. Wicki-Birchler, D. (2020). The Budapest Convention and the General Data Protection Regulation: Acting in concert to curb cybercrime? International Cybersecurity Law Review, 1(1-2), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-020-00012-5
    51. Yuliia, Y., & Lyudmyla, H. (2020). International aspects of legal regulation of information relations in the global internet. Law, 11. https://doi.org/10.31548/law2020.03.022
    52. Zheng, R., Qin, Y., Huang, Z., & Chen, H. (2003). Authorship analysis in cybercrime investigation. In Intelligence and Security Informatics: First NSF/NIJ Symposium, ISI 2003, Tucson, AZ, USA, June 2–3, 2003 Proceedings 1 (pp. 59-73). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-40081-7_8
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2025 The Authors

How to cite

Buçaj, E., & Idrizaj, K. (2024). The need for cybercrime regulation on a global scale by the international law and cyber convention. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(1), 2025024. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025024
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
  • Article viewed - 5658
  • PDF downloaded - 3172