Dilemmas and Dispute Resolution of Human Rights Guarantees in

the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime: From the

Perspective of the Scope of Criminalisation

Siyuan Qu

Administrative Law School, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing, China

Keywords: Criminalisation, UN, Cybercrime, Human Rights.

Abstract: The development of cybertechnology and the increasing frequency of cross-border interactions have made

cybercrime a major challenge in both public and private law. The United Nations Convention against

Cybercrime, which was concluded after many rounds of negotiations to fully coordinate different concerns of

countries, is not only a great achievement in the global governance of cybercrime, but also a brilliant

breakthrough in the difficult period of multilateralism. The human rights controversy over the convention has

long existed but has been less studied, and the failure to clarify the ambiguity will most likely affect the

subsequent entry into force and implementation. Through comparative and interpretative research methods,

comparing the claims of both broad and narrow criminalisation patterns, and focusing on the existing

provisions of the convention to analyse the reality of its criminalisation scope, the study finds that the

convention is not in fact a product dominated by a broad criminalisation pattern. In adher-ing to the stance of

combating cybercrime while taking into account human rights safeguards to the greatest extent possible, a

good job in coordinating with domestic laws for the convergence and harmoni-sation of the convention and

setting up a bona fide research exception term can provide reference for the subsequent improvement of it

and the formulation of its draft supplementary protocol, contributing to the better coordination of the interests

of parties and responding to the purpose of combating cybercrime eventually.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Conclusion of the Convention

The background of the times, in which criminal

offences have become more and more rampant in

virtual space and in which multilateralism and

unilateralism are at war, provided the basis for the

birth of the United Nations Convention against

Cybercrime (hereinafter referred to as "the

Convention") and the necessity for its subsequent

implementation. In recent years, technological

innovations and cross-border interactions have

fuelled the free flow of information and sharing of

resources, while at the same time providing a

breeding ground for cybercrime by taking advantage

of public health emergencies and other crises

(Albader, 2022), posing serious challenges to the

international interests and domestic governance of

countries. Therefore, seeking an authoritative and

stable cooperation system at the international level to

coordinate the interests of multiple parties has

become a breakthrough recognised by most countries.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the

Convention on 24 December 2024, as the first

universal international convention formulated under

the auspices of the United Nations in terms of global

governance of crimes in cyber-virtual space, which is

highly cohesive of the consensus of multinational

cooperation and bridges the differences in the

legislation among countries (Jiang, 2023), providing

a systematic legal framework for combating

cybercrime in today's world where criminal offences

are increasingly rampant on the basis of digital

networks. And that, it once again proves the

superiority of multilateralism in dealing with global

challenges and provides a reference for other

international issues that need to be addressed

urgently, particularly when pseudo-multilateralism is

posting a threat to world peace.

Qu, S.

Dilemmas and Dispute Resolution of Human Rights Guarantees in the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime: From the Perspective of the Scope of Criminalisation.

DOI: 10.5220/0014293100004859

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science (ICPLSS 2025), pages 13-19

ISBN: 978-989-758-785-6

1.2 Dispute and Resolution

The various focuses on the value positions,

institutional needs and ecological foundations of

cybercrime governance among the participating

parties have given rise to a variety of major games and

focal issues in the formulation and implementation of

the Convention (Wu, 2025). Opponents believe that

the Convention, in which the concept of cybercrime

and legislation are broad and universal (Chalana &

Bhanu, 2024), is likely to be maliciously exploited by

some countries and that it should not be ratified

because of its shortcomings of violating human rights,

endangering security, suppressing freedom and

hindering development. Among them, compared with

international cooperation and technology governance

issues, which are the main research hotspots, the

controversy over human rights is particularly

prominent but less targeted research. The concern of

human rights mainly focuses on the belief that the

scope of criminalisation of the Convention is so broad,

leading to the over-interference in human rights.

Therefore, if we do not base our analysis on the

specific text of the Convention to resolve the

disagreements in criminalisation, find a point of

balance between broad and narrow criminalisation

patterns to safeguard human rights, respond to and

resolve the suspicion that broad criminalisation is

detrimental to human rights, and guide the return to

the fundamental purpose of combating cybercrime,

the flaws in the design of the human rights guarantee

system will be the main ground for the opposing

parties to level malicious accusations against the

Convention (Secrss, 2024). This will strengthen the

risk of "group polarisation", which in turn will affect

the ultimate effectiveness of the first attempt to

develop a universal convention in the cyber and digital

domains (Secrss, 2024). At the same time, given that

the Convention has not yet formally entered into force,

timely amendment and improvement of the relevant

provisions or relevant explanations will help more

subjects to understand the purpose of the Convention,

eliminate relevant concerns and actively participate in

signing. Therefore, in order to facilitate the formal

entry into force of the Convention, and provide a

reference for its subsequent refinement and for the

formulation of the draft supplementary protocol, this

study uses comparative and interpretative research

methods to explore the reality of the criminalisation

scope of the Convention on the basis of its specific

provisions, to sort out and respond to existing

disputes, and to provide paths for its improvement.

2 THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN

THE CLAIMS OF BROAD AND

NARROW CRIMINALISATION

Criminalisation is a complex social issue that requires

a reasonable and effective balance between order

maintenance and human rights guarantee. Overly

broad criminalisation standards may lead to the

conviction of innocent people and, conversely, may

fail to respond to the law-making purpose of

effectively combating crime.

2.1 Broad Versus Narrow

Criminalisation

China, the Russian Federation and other countries

advocate the broad criminalisation pattern, believing

that the scope of criminalisation under the Convention

should be as comprehensive as possible to cover

offences committed through the use of the Internet,

such as telecommunication network fraud. At the

same time, given that the Convention itself has not

responded to the new problems posed by the

development of new technologies, such as artificial

intelligence, it should be revised in a timely manner

in accordance with the needs of practice and

technological changes, expand the types of offences

in due course, and improve the framework by means

of supplementary protocols (Wu, 2025).

States parties to the Budapest Convention,

represented by European and American countries,

supported the narrow criminalisation pattern. They

claim that an overly broad scope of cybercrime

entailed the risk of unduly interfering with human

rights and consider that the scope of criminalisation

should be limited to offences committed against

computer systems and the idea of expanding the

scope of criminalisation must be adopted with caution

(Wu, 2025). For example, Germany argued that the

expansion of the scope of cybercrime to all crimes

committed with computers should be considered with

caution, as the use of computers to commit crimes

was not necessarily cybercrime (Zhang & Gong,

2020). At the same time, they insisted on the principle

of "technological neutrality", with a view to making

the legal framework of the Convention inclusive of

technological developments and avoiding frequent

revisions that would undermine the relative stability

of the rules (Wu, 2025).

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

2.2 Causes of Confrontation

2.2.1 Immediate Causes: The Broadness of

the Concept of Cybercrime

Chapter II of the Convention, entitled "Interpretation

of terms", does not define cybercrime, although it

clarifies the meaning of many words and phrases in

the context of cybercrime for the purpose of defining

the nature of the acts in question. Taking into account

the lagging nature of the law, the majority of countries

have not clearly defined the concept of cybercrime at

the legislative level, although some of them have

interpreted it in their effective judicial practice in very

broad terms for purposes of underpinning. At the

same time, the forms and means of cybercrime are

constantly evolving. As a result, the long-term

absence of a uniform framework of rules, coupled

with the complexity and diversity of cybertechnology,

has made it difficult to resolve the problem of the

broad concept of cybercrime. Moreover, there are

differences in the perceptions of cybercrime in

various sectors of society, and there are various

preferences between severe punishment, education

and rehabilitation. To a certain extent, these have led

to differences in the value stance and factors to be

considered by countries in the management of

cybercrime, which in turn affects the development of

the two propositions of scope of criminalisation.

2.2.2 Root Causes: The Choice between

Security and Human Rights

The focus between security and human rights is key

to distinguishing between broad and narrow patterns

of criminalisation, representing the core values of

each. The immediate reason represented by the

broadness of the concept of cybercrime is simply to

serve as a vehicle to provide a platform for adding

one's own values to the two propositions.

The desire of countries to form joint efforts in the

international community to combat crime is based on

the consideration that, on the one hand, it is proactive

in safeguarding the security of the country and its

people, so that, in the event of a threat to security, the

appropriate subjects can be punished in accordance

with international rules. On the other hand, it is a

passive way to improve the means of redress, that is,

in the event that security is violated by any foreign

infringement, redress is available in accordance with

the rules and the state of security is restored.

Sovereignty just establishes a reasonable balance

between the hopes of States. Thus, both the fight

against crime and the emphasis on and protection of

sovereignty can be understood in most international

contexts as an emphasis on national security.

The universality pursued by the Convention

determines that the principles of human rights and

sovereignty have become its two basic principles, and

the game between the two was played throughout the

negotiation process of the Convention. China, Some

countries have consistently insisted that the principle

of sovereignty should be applied to cyberspace as a

prerequisite for the protection of the security of the

country as well as the people's personal property in

the virtual space. However, Western countries,

represented by the United States and EU member

states, based on ideological traditions, glorify

freedom, highlight human rights protection, and even

downplay the importance of national sovereignty

(Wu, 2025). They argue that some criminal

convictions and procedures and law enforcement

measures infringe on privacy and freedom of

expression (Tropina, 2024). Although the notion of

respect for and preservation of human rights is

recognized by the majority of countries, there is still

a substantial variation in the understanding of the

relationship between human rights, sovereignty and

the battle against cybercrime among them (Wu,

2025).

3 RESPONSE AND SETTLEMENT

OF DISPUTES

The essence of international communication is

cooperation and conflict. Being in the stage of the

situation, in the face of the suspicion of the

deficiencies of the human rights protection of the

Convention due to the overly broad conviction, we

should conduct a detailed analysis based on the

existing provisions of the Convention, seek a

compromise to correctly deal with the contradiction

between the increasingly serious situation of

cybercrime and the highlighted need for human rights

protection, and return to the original intention of

gathering international strength to combat crime and

protect the citizens of the world.

3.1 Observations: The Reality of the

Scope of Criminalisation of

One of the main obstacles to establishing a common

strategy for international harmonisation in the area of

cybercrime has been the lack of a consensus over

whether acts qualify as this kind of criminality

(Tropina, 2024). The hasty aggregation of national

Dilemmas and Dispute Resolution of Human Rights Guarantees in the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime: From the

Perspective of the Scope of Criminalisation

forms of criminalisation will inevitably lead to an

expansion of the scope of domestic criminalisation in

multiple countries, leading to a range of problems

such as abuse of power, overpunishment and

ineffective governance. Just operating simple

intersection calculation will also foresee realities that

are incompatible with the domestic context, such as

fish escaping from the net, ineffective crackdowns

and declining public trust, and may infringe on the

human rights of a wider range of potential victims.

While the Convention's middle-of-the-road approach

has temporarily calmed the interests of many, its

subsequent implementation remains a great

challenge. The controversy over human rights

guarantees is now highlighted in the game between

the broad and narrow criminalisation patterns. The

overly broad criminalisation which leads to excessive

interference of human rights has been the focus of

criticism of the Convention by advocates of the

narrow criminalisation pattern. In this context, it is

necessary to return to the specific provisions of the

Convention for practical analysis.

3.1.1 List of Offences

Chapter II of the Convention, entitled

"Criminalisation", covers a total of 11 criminal

entities, including Illegal access, Interference with

electronic data, Offences related to online child

sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material,

Non-consensual dissemination of intimate images

and laundering of proceeds of crime and so on. In

addition, it also includes content about specific

identification of liability of legal persons,

participation and attempt.

3.1.2 Responding to Questions

Through analysing the opinions of the opponents, the

spirit of the Convention and its specific provisions, it

is clear that the Convention is not in fact characterised

by an extremely broad criminalisation and does not

ignore human rights, which are even guaranteed in

both substance and procedure. The questioning of the

excessive broadness of the criminalisation of the

Convention has been expressed in two main ways,

directly and indirectly.

Clarify Suspicions of Directly Extend the Scope of

the Accusation. The Convention is not an extensive

list of offences. The establishment of the

Convention's system of offences was one of the

controversial issues throughout its formation and

development, with each country expressing its own

concerns on the basis of values, culture and actual

national conditions, and thus proposing different

offences to be included in the Convention. Taking

internet pornography offences as an example,

European countries are more open to adult

pornography and focus their efforts on fighting

against child pornography, while Iran treats adult

pornography in the same way and believes that adult

pornography also needs to be cracked down on

(Zhang & Gong, 2020). On the whole, compared with

the advocates of the narrow criminalisation pattern,

the advocates of the broad criminalisation pattern

believe that the Convention should include offences

other than pure cybercrime, and at the same time take

technological developments into consideration,

trying to make up for the lag in law-making in a

timely manner. However, compared with the text of

the former sessions of the Special Committee, the

final adopted text deleted 17 traditional cybercrime

offences, such as copyright infringement. And in

terms of the constituent elements of each offence,

some of them have also been streamlined and

lightened, such as article 14, paragraph 4, of the

Convention on the determination of the exceptions to

the child pornographic material (Jing, 2024; Li,

2025). It can be seen that the Convention does not

show the characteristics of a broad criminalisation

pattern, but rather favours a narrow criminalisation

scheme. At the same time, the author believes that

there is no basis in reality for criticising the

Convention for being too broadly criminalised on the

basis of the argument that it may be relied upon by

some States to criminalise a wide range of offences at

the domestic level. The Convention itself does not

have the ability to directly intervene in domestic

governance, and how to effectively and appropriately

reconcile domestic and international law mainly lies

at a country's own rule of law capacity and political

strategy.

Dispelling the Suspicions of Indirectly Extend the

Scope of the Accusation. It has been argued that the

Convention is given a broad scope of application

because article 3 of the Convention provides for the

application of it to all stages of the prevention,

investigation and prosecution of offences, while

article 4 provides for the linking of the Convention

with other United Nations conventions, such as The

Convention against Transnational Organized Crime,

by requiring States parties to incorporate into their

domestic legal systems the action of using the Internet

to commit those offences included in these

Conventions (Wu, 2025). Thereby, this indirectly

expands the offence system. In the author's view, this

is not the case.

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

First, the phrase "applicable to all stages of the

prevention, investigation and prosecution of

offences" is a procedural safeguard, a means of

ensuring that the spirit of law-making can be carried

out and reflected in the entire process of prosecution,

and has no substantive impact on the judgement of the

broadness of criminalisation in substantive terms.

Secondly, the provisions of article 4 of the

Convention on linkage with other conventions do not

establish additional offences outside of those

conventions, and a distinction needs to be made

between offences and crimes in different

jurisdictions, that is, whether or not new criminal

offences are established in essence. To be more

specific, the method in which an offence is

"committed through information and communication

technology systems" does not have the "resistance"

which helps this offender escape from punishment

according to the existing laws, even facilitates the

perpetration. And even if the offence is not committed

in that manner, the circumstances and consequences

of the act are already worth punishing. Furthermore,

paragraph 2 of the article stresses that "nothing in this

article shall be construed as establishing a criminal

offence in accordance with this Convention". It is

clear that article 4 of the Convention is in fact a

cautionary provision, which is intended to remind and

stress the importance of not overlooking the special

circumstances of the use of the Internet to commit an

offence and to reiterate the specificity of the basic

provisions. In addition, the view that the creation of a

new provision is equivalent to the establishment of a

completely new criminal offence is also too arbitrary.

The offence is only a superficial judgement. The

reason why some countries will create a new offence

or article in such situation is that some of the

provisions of the Convention can not be organically

integrated into the existing domestic legal system, so,

in order to better integrate with the treaty, they have

to supplement or explain through these new articles.

Therefore, in the light of the spirit of the purpose of

the Convention, the author believes that articles 3 and

4 of the Convention do not encourage the

establishment of a new criminal offence in

accordance with a Convention other than the two

conventions, which certainly does not lead to the

alleged indirect expansion of the scope of

criminalisation.

Human Rights Concerns of the Convention.

During the negotiation process of the Convention,

human rights issues were one of the focal points of

the game in the draft treaty. While China, Russia and

other countries have consistently emphasised national

sovereignty over cyberspace, countries and regions

led by the United States and Europe are more inclined

to emphasise human rights protection. Under the

impetus of Western countries, the current text of the

Convention has a considerable degree of reflection of

the concern for human rights protection (Secrss,

2024). Article 6 of the Convention, as an independent

provision on respect for human rights, gives great

human rights concern to the fight against cybercrime

in the status of a fundamental principle, and

paragraph 2 of this article also specifically lists the

relevant obligations under international human rights

law, such as freedom of expression, belief and

association, so as to make clear the Convention's

value position of respect for and protection of human

rights. The procedural safeguards set out in article 21,

paragraph 2, of the Convention, the conditions and

safeguards provided for in article 24, the protection of

personal data in article 36, and the affirmation of the

principle of non-discrimination in mutual legal

assistance in article 40, paragraph 22, also reflect that

the Convention has in fact affirmed the protection of

human rights at the three levels of principle,

substance and procedure.

3.2 Breaking the Ice: Combating

Cybercrime as a Priority,

Guaranteeing Human Rights

Secondly

Although the Convention has textually balanced the

scope of criminalisation and human rights guarantees,

dispute is a subjective interpretation of objective

rules, which may accompany the Convention all the

way forward. In the future, with the continuous

development of cybertechnology and changes in the

international situation, the Convention still needs to

be improved and adjusted to meet new challenges and

needs.

3.2.1 Premise: The Need to Understand the

Importance of Human Rights

Guarantees

Human rights and cyberspace have grown so

entwined as policy domains that comprehending one

necessitates ongoing attention to the other (Aliyu,

2022). The controversy between the advocates of

broad and narrow criminalisation patterns fully

reflects the different considerations of human rights

between the two sides. In order to find a compromise

solution to the differences, it is necessary to clarify

the necessity of human rights protection, so as to find

the two protection thresholds at the opposite end of

Dilemmas and Dispute Resolution of Human Rights Guarantees in the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime: From the

Perspective of the Scope of Criminalisation

the spectrum, and the two sides can then negotiate and

consult within this reasonably closed scope. As we

live in the same global village and participate in

building a community with a shared future for

mankind to meet various global challenges, the

improvement and implementation of human rights

protection also need to rely on the strategy of moving

from domestic human rights concepts to international

human rights concepts and finally to international

human rights norms (Mao, 2023). How human rights

are safeguarded in international exchanges reflects

the international responsibility of each country and

the value stance of its domestic governance.

International Responsibility. The establishment of

the principle of the protection of basic human rights

is the result of the joint efforts of the international

community in recent times, reflecting the universal

recognition of the human dignity and value of human

beings. And as a basic principle of international law

explicitly stipulated in international legal documents,

different from jus cogens which mainly regulates

treaty relations between countries, it is applied to all

relations between countries. Respecting, protecting

and fulfilling human rights is a responsibility and a

right of all countries. The global governance of

cybercrime should likewise insist on the

implementation of the basic principle of protecting

basic human rights, and should be integrated

organically with other rules in order to build a just,

prosperous and harmonious cyberworld.

Domestic Governance Requirements. When legal

interests become the only object of protection of the

law, the law loses its meaning of existence. The

establishment of a society governed by the rule of law

and the manifestation of the rule of law's spirit in the

nation will be facilitated when citizens' fundamental

rights are protected by coercive force at both the

substantive and procedural levels. This will give them

the confidence to express their desires and find legal

solutions to their problems. At the same time, human

rights, as a common value of all mankind, is an

important foundation for building international trust,

which, together with respect for national sovereignty,

promotes equal democratic exchanges and

cooperation among countries, providing an

opportunity for absorbing and learning from each

other's beneficial achievements. Governance

practices vary from country to country, and the

transnational nature of cybercrime has made the issue

of how to govern it a hot topic of discussion in various

circles; in the face of the problem of protection and

punishment, human rights safeguards are a necessary

consideration to ensure the legality and legitimacy of

actions to combat cybercrime.

3.2.2 Path of Improvement

Adherence to the Fundamental Position of

Combating Cybercrime. The primary purpose of the

Convention is to strengthen the prevention of and the

fight against cybercrime in a more efficient and

effective manner. The mere pursuit of freedom and

human rights in favour of an narrow criminalisation

pattern is not conducive to the proper functioning of

the Convention, while adhering to an overly broad

criminalisation pattern in order to curb criminality

harshly by blending the views of various countries

will contribute to turning the law into an inefficient

instrument of violence. And the ultimate result of

both approaches is a departure from the original intent

of each. Security is a prerequisite for human rights.

Therefore, the author believes that the subsequent

improvement of the Convention must insist the prior

position of combating cybercrime while taking into

account human rights protection to the greatest extent

possible, rather than constructing a system of "human

rights law" by sacrificing the essential, as draining the

pond to get all the fish. Emphasis on human rights

protection will dilute or even dissolve the purpose of

the Convention in combating cybercrime (Secrss,

2024).

The Interface Between Domestic Law and

Treaties. International treaties are essentially a

coordination of wills between sovereign countries,

and their effectiveness and governance effects

ultimately depend on whether and how a country can

coordinate the transformation and incorporation of

international treaties so that they can live and work in

peace and happiness at home. With the completion of

the criminalisation system of the Convention,

countries should update the relevant terminology in

their domestic laws to ensure that the relevant

connotations are consistent, complete and accurate,

and integrate their domestic policies with the

purposes of the Convention in order to improve the

relevant domestic laws and regulations (Jing, 2024).

The addition of provisions that do not yet exist in the

country, as well as the path for their incorporation or

transformation, should be carefully designed to

ensure that the purpose of the legislation is not biased,

that the constituent elements are appropriate and that

the level of penalties is commensurate with the

country's situation.

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

Creating a Bona Fide Research Exception Term.

The Convention's provision on illegal access requires

States to criminalise unauthorised access to computer

systems, that is, it precludes the legitimacy of

improvements such as testing systems. As computer

security research is a key driver for improving

cybersecurity, subsequent consideration could be

taken to exclude certain acts that are bona fide and

beneficial to the development of scientific and

technological progress in the international

community of mankind from the offences punishable

under the Convention, so as to ensure the reasonable

self-research and use of information by mankind. At

the same time, in order to prevent some subjects from

abusing this exception, an incrimination line can be

set for the consequences of the act. When

consequences exceed this line, the act should still be

regarded as a crime, and a lighter penalty should be

imposed than that for the act with subjective malice.

However, the determination of good faith, the

reasonableness of the judgement of the method, and

the setting of the severity of the consequence will be

a major problem that is worth discussing.

4 CONCLUSION

An analysis of the history of the discussion of the

Convention and the specific provisions shows that the

Convention has not, as most people believe, become

a "pocket" full of cybercrime offences, and that the

value of safeguarding human rights was reasonably

taken into account by all parties in the conclusion of

the Convention under the guidance of cracking down

on cybercrime. However, the issue of human rights

protection, as an important point of contention in the

formulation and subsequent entry into force of the

Convention, requires the joint efforts of all parties to

resolve and negotiate a balance between different

cultural value systems. In the author's view, under the

stance of combating cybercrime while taking into

account human rights safeguards to the greatest extent

possible, it is possible to better reconcile the interests

of all parties and promote international cooperation

through such paths as better coordination of the

Convention with domestic laws and setting up

exceptions for bona fide research. This study rectifies

the question of the Convention's overly broad

criminalisation to suppress human rights, and

proposes feasible paths to improve human rights

guarantees by taking into account the reasonable

concerns of all parties. So as to help more subjects

understand the purpose of the Convention, eliminate

relevant concerns, and actively participate in signing

it, thus accelerating the effect of the Convention in

combining the strengths of all countries to crack

down on cybercrime and safeguard a wider range of

human rights. However, as to how to carefully

reconcile the Convention with domestic laws and

introduce well-thought-out security exceptions in

accordance with the actual situation of each country,

a certain country may be determined to be the subject

of future research to further deepen the understanding

of this issue and explore the practicality of the

programme.

REFERENCES

Albader, F. 2022. The pivotal role of international human

rights law in defeating cybercrime: amid (un-backed)

global treaty on cybercrime. Vanderbilt Journal of

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 55(5): 1117-

1144.

Aliyu, B. 2022. Examination of the constitutional and

human rights issues in cyberspace. Law and Social

Justice Review 3(3): 50-58.

Chalana, A. & Bhanu, A.P. 2024. Protection of human rights

in cyberspace. Jus Corpus Law Journal 4(3): 646-656.

Jiang, S. 2023. New mechanism of international law for

combating cybercrime. Law Science 2(1): 181-208.

Jing, L.J. 2024. Deficiencies and prospects of the

"Criminalisation" part of the United Nations

Convention against Cybercrime. China Information

Security (8): 61-65.

Li, B.C. 2025. Review of the core issues of the United

Nations Convention against Cybercrime.

Jurisprudence Forum 40(1): 92-103.

Mao, J.X. 2023. The proliferation of international norms in

Xi Jinping's important discourse on respecting and

guaranteeing human rights. Law Forum 38(1): 16-26.

Secrss. 2024, November 8. Western countries challenge UN

Convention against Cybercrime over human rights

protection. https://www.secrss.com/articles/72180.

Tropina, T. 2024. "This is not a human rights convention!":

the perils of overlooking human rights in the UN

cybercrime treaty , Journal of Cyber Policy 9(2): 1-21.

Wu, S.K. 2025. The governance system of the United

Nations Convention against Cybercrime and China's

response. China Law Review (1):214-226.

Zhang, L.Y. & Gong, W.C. 2020. National positions on

legal issues related to the United Nations Convention

against Cybercrime. China Information Security (9):

85-88.

Dilemmas and Dispute Resolution of Human Rights Guarantees in the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime: From the

Perspective of the Scope of Criminalisation