Ad Hoc Consultation: Wednesday 7th February, Afternoon session

Arguments

Albania appreciates and is optimistic about the chair’s efforts for a conclusion

Supporting facts:

• Albania joins the member states in appreciation of the chair’s efforts

Topics: diplomacy, international relations

---

Albania supports Articles 5, 23, and 24

Supporting facts:

• Explicit support for specific articles

Topics: legislation, international law

---

Albania supports the European Union’s proposal for Article 35

Supporting facts:

• Alignment with the EU’s stance on Article 35

Topics: international cooperation, EU integration

---

Albania strongly supports the New Zealand proposal for addition to an article

Supporting facts:

• Strong endorsement of New Zealand’s proposed addition

Topics: international support, policy addition

---

Albania is open to discussing the Canadian proposal for Article 59.3

Supporting facts:

• Willingness to discuss modifications suggested by Canada

Topics: legislation amendment, international debate

---

Albania does not fully support Article 5Bs but is willing to join consensus

Supporting facts:

• Reluctant acceptance for the sake of consensus

Topics: consensus building, diplomatic compromise

---

Report

In its role within the international community, Albania has adopted a notably collaborative and positive stance, evident in various diplomatic engagements, as demonstrated by its appreciation for the chair’s leadership towards a productive conclusion. This commendable sense of diplomacy is enhanced by Albania’s explicit support for certain legislative articles, showing a clear intention to strengthen the legal framework within international relations.

Further illustrating its collaborative approach, Albania has aligned with the European Union, supporting the EU’s proposal for Article 35 and reinforcing its alliance within the global sphere. Additionally, Albania’s robust support for New Zealand’s suggestion indicates a willingness to embrace innovative ideas and policy additions that contribute to the development of international law.

While Albania generally expresses positive sentiment, its open attitude towards considering Canada’s recommendation for Article 59.3 displays an admirable neutrality and a readiness to explore various perspectives. This readiness for dialogue underscores Albania’s commitment to thorough diplomatic discussion. Even in situations where Albania does not fully support proposals, such as with Article 5Bs, the country shows diplomatic maturity by exhibiting willingness to join consensus for the greater good.

This pragmatic acceptance is indicative of the compromises often necessary within international diplomacy. Moreover, Albania’s encouragement of discussion and consensus on divisive articles demonstrates its dedication to SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and build accountable institutions.

The active calls for ongoing dialogue to resolve disagreements highlight an investment in conflict resolution and preference for negotiations over discord. In conclusion, Albania’s engagement in international dealings is proactive and conciliatory, fostering cooperation, dialogue, and consensus. Through positive diplomacy and occasional concessions to collective decisions, Albania advocates for discussions to reconcile different viewpoints.

Albania’s efforts epitomize its role as a collaborator and mediator in shaping progressive and inclusive legislative outcomes in international relations.

Arguments

Algeria appreciates the Chair’s efforts and the proposal as a basis for discussion.

Supporting facts:

• Algeria acknowledges the challenging task of accommodating different positions.

Topics: International Cooperation, Cybercrime Convention

---

Algeria supports Article 3 and stresses the importance of international cooperation.

Supporting facts:

• Article 3 is supported as drafted in the revised package.

• The delegation underlines the significance of sharing electronic evidence.

Topics: International Legal Framework, Cybercrime

---

Human rights law must be respected in implementation, as governed by Article 5.

Supporting facts:

• Algeria emphasizes the guiding role of Article 5 concerning human rights.

Topics: Human Rights, Cybercrime Convention

---

Agrees with Article 24 inclusion for necessary safeguards.

Supporting facts:

• Understands the importance of Article 24 in ensuring safeguards.

Topics: Legal Safeguards, Cybercrime Convention

---

Supports the new paragraph’s addition in the draft resolution regarding evolving nature of cybercrime.

Supporting facts:

• New paragraph reflects the balance of negotiation and acknowledges the dynamic cybercrime landscape.

Topics: Cybercrime Evolution, Adaptive Legislation

---

Report

Algeria is actively contributing to the international discourse on the development of a unified legal framework to combat cybercrime, showing a generally positive stance towards collaborative efforts for establishing measures that are both cooperative and focused on human rights. Their stance is evidenced by their agreement with the Chair’s proposals, reflecting a spirit of collaboration and an affirmation of the draft discussions as a solid foundation for continued deliberation.

Specifically, Algeria highlights the essential role of Article 3, relating to the transnational sharing of electronic evidence. The positive sentiment here is reinforced by a firm argument that such international cooperation is vital for tackling cybercrime effectively. Additionally, they stress the fundamental importance of human rights in the enforcement of these measures, referencing the crucial role of Article 5.

Human rights underscore the Algerian support, indicating a commitment to ensuring that these rights are not overlooked in the rush to fortify international legal tools. This consideration for human rights is mirrored in their approach to Article 24, where Algeria advocates for the inclusion of necessary legal safeguards within the cybercrime framework.

Their positive sentiment is evidenced by a recognition of the importance of establishing a balanced and protective legal landscape. However, a point of contention arises with Article 35, where Algeria expresses a mixed sentiment. While they endorse the first two sub-articles, they reject the third, referring to consensus with other delegations.

This rejection indicates Algerian concern for specific provisions and points to the intricacy involved in attaining unanimous consent for all components of the legislation. Moreover, Algeria suggests omitting part 3 of Article 59, emphasising a preference for consensus and a readiness to amalgamate this section with Article 5.

The mixed sentiment once again signals their commitment to integrating human rights seamlessly into the cybercrime legislation, displaying flexibility and a drive towards achieving a consensus aligned with universal values. Algeria’s progressive and adaptable position is further underscored by their endorsement of a new paragraph that addresses the shifting landscape of cybercrime.

Their positive sentiment towards the draft resolution’s flexibility highlights Algeria’s recognition of the necessity for the legal framework to be dynamic and responsive to ongoing changes in the cyber domain. In summary, Algeria’s involvement and viewpoints during international negotiations reveal their attempt to strike a delicate balance between robust international legal collaboration, the protection of human rights, and the facilitation of a dynamic response to the evolving nature of cybercrime.

Their postures illustrate a desire to combine practical efficiency with a principled commitment to human rights, a challenging yet crucial task for creating a coherent and lasting framework to counter global cybercrime.

Arguments

Angola supports the compromise package as a balanced proposal on sharing electronic evidence and human rights safeguards.

Supporting facts:

• Angola appreciates the balance between electronic evidence sharing and human rights.

• Angola acknowledges the efforts towards consensus and the intervention of the Dominican Republic.

Topics: Electronic Evidence Sharing, Human Rights

---

Report

Angola has expressed a positive stance on the delicate issue of electronic evidence sharing in the context of human rights, endorsing a compromise package that seeks to strike a balance between enabling cross-border sharing of electronic evidence and safeguarding fundamental human rights.

This stance underlines Angola’s acknowledgement of the complex interplay between advances in technology and the imperative to protect civil liberties in the digital age. The nation has commended the consensus-building efforts in this domain, particularly highlighting the intervention by the Dominican Republic as a constructive move, suggestive of Angola’s investment in collaborative international diplomacy.

Aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 16, aiming for peace, justice, and strong institutions, Angola concurs with the notion of broadening the scope of electronic evidence sharing for tackling and prosecuting all forms of serious crime and not limited to cybercrimes. This reflects a concerted effort to bolster the capabilities of law enforcement globally and is in line with the perspectives advocated by the United States.

Angola’s supportive position on these developments points towards its dedication to strengthening international legal frameworks that must evolve with technological progress while protecting individual rights. In sum, Angola’s position illustrates its commitment to contributing constructively to international dialogues on justice and human rights, underscoring its role as a proactive participant in shaping a progressive and adaptable international justice system in alignment with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Arguments

Armenia commends the draft text and believes consensus is possible with more flexibility

Supporting facts:

• Armenia thanks the chair and team for drafting the text

• Armenia highlights the potential to reach a convention by the end of the week

Topics: Diplomacy, International Cooperation

---

Armenia emphasizes the significance of human rights safeguards in the articles

Supporting facts:

• Armenia strongly supports Article 5 and Article 24

Topics: Human Rights, International Law

---

Report

In a series of positive affirmations, Armenia has articulated an encouraging stance on several key issues affecting diplomacy, international cooperation, and the pursuit of peace, justice, and strong institutions. Central to these discussions is Armenia’s commendation of the draft text under consideration, with specific gratitude extended to the chairperson and team responsible for its drafting.

Emphasising the constructive dialogue, Armenia recognises the potential for the realisation of a consensus on a convention, provided there is increased flexibility among the negotiating parties. Armenia enhances this hopeful perspective by specifically addressing the articles of the proposed text that have significant implications for human rights.

The unequivocal support for Articles 5 and 24 reflects a consensus on the fundamental role that human rights safeguards hold within international law. Through this advocacy, Armenia’s support serves as a testament to the nation’s alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 16, which champions the creation of inclusive societies underpinned by fair and robust judicial frameworks.

Further underscoring its proactive engagement, Armenia not only supports but has also reaffirmed its backing for the reformulated Canadian Proposal 3.3, contained within Article 59. The initial enthusiasm for the Canadian Proposal positions Armenia among the early advocates for forward-thinking amendments. This initiative is indicative of a broader commitment to SDG 17, which aims to revitalise global partnerships for sustainable development.

This consistent pattern of support from Armenia underscores a strategic and collaborative approach to international policy-making, reflecting a country deeply committed to the principles of constructive engagement and multilateralism. By considering all available information and the pronounced positive sentiment, Armenia emerges as a cooperative partner in international affairs, resolute in its dedication to advancing united objectives that seek to forge a more peaceful and equitable global order.

The summary provided reflects accurate UK spelling and grammar and maintains the high quality of analysis from the main text, incorporating long-tail keywords such as international cooperation, peace and justice, strong institutions, human rights safeguards, international law, and global partnerships for sustainable development.

Report

The Australian representative commenced by conveying gratitude to the Chair for their diligent efforts in mediating and finding common ground among the variety of opinions on pivotal issues within the convention, which are essential for the completion of the body’s work.

The delegate highlighted the importance of the conclusion of the convention and proceeded to address specific concerns. Concerning Article 35, the Australian delegate emphasised the necessity of precisely defining the parameters of international cooperation. Australia supported the last phrase in Article 35(1C), advocating for the limitation of such cooperation to United Nations conventions and protocols enacted at the time of adopting the current convention.

This limitation ensures that future treaty negotiations can decide independently whether to include provisions from the existing convention without affecting protocols adjunct to it. The term ‘serious crimes’ in the same article prompted concern from Australia due to the lack of specific qualifiers, which would facilitate negotiations.

In addition, Australia was anxious about resolution paragraph 5 bis, advocating for extended discussions and an ad hoc committee to consider further protocols, as it could influence the convention’s criminalisation scope by potentially encompassing additional crimes. Australia also praised the safeguards in Paragraph 3 of Article 35, which ensure that the requested state can uphold their obligations under the convention with the same protections they apply domestically—a point of significance to the Australian delegate.

Turning to Article 59, despite acknowledging the drafting attempts, the Australian delegate expressed reservations about its efficacy and whether it met its intended objectives. The delegate noted that Article 59’s function was markedly different from that of the earlier-discussed Article 3.3, which set out definite parameters specific to cybercrime and its distinct risks.

Consequently, Australia supported the Canadian amendment proposed on the same day that more accurately addressed the original aims. Furthermore, Australia voiced concerns about the proposal to remove the anti-discrimination clause from the convention, fearing it would create a ‘practical gap’.

Thus, Australia endorsed New Zealand’s proposition to incorporate an anti-discrimination provision directly into Article 35 to effectively influence the operation of international cooperation and expressly prevent discrimination. In sum, the Australian intervention underscored their dedication to clear definitions and safeguards within the convention, particularly regarding international cooperation, criminalisation scope, anti-discrimination protection, and the nuanced approach to cybercrime issues.

The focus was on the pragmatic and principled consequences of the discussed articles, reflecting Australia’s position on protecting national interests while ensuring the precision and effectiveness of the convention’s tenets. The summary uses UK English spelling and grammar.

Report

In the address to the Chairperson, the speaker commenced by extending an apology for the earlier technical difficulties that hampered their prompt participation in the discussion. They continued by recognising and lauding the Chairperson’s unwavering dedication to fostering consensus among the diverse parties involved, whilst understanding the complexities entailed in this endeavour.

However, the speaker conveyed a forthright perspective, voicing their disappointment that the spirit of cooperation displayed by their delegation had not been met with equal openness in the latest provisions of the cybersecurity Convention. It was evident there was frustration that their specific issues and demands appeared to have been disregarded.

Reaffirming their dedication to a collaborative approach in tackling the multifaceted challenges of cybercrime, the speaker asserted their alignment with positions held by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They pinpointed provisions, particularly Article 59.3 and Article 35.3, which they advocated should be removed, positing that the commitment to human rights was already adequately embedded in Article 5 and the preamble of the Convention.

This emphasis on eliminating redundancy underscores a desire for a concise and effective legal text. Moreover, the speaker insisted on amending Article 24 to mirror the conventions to which member states are already signatories, reflecting a strategy to harmonise the new framework with pre-existing international agreements, thereby preventing potential legal inconsistencies or conflicts.

Details of the proposals put forth by New Zealand and Canada, along with the reasons for their rejection by the speaker, were not elaborated upon in the communication. Concluding the address, the speaker, in spite of the stated objections and calls for significant amendments, displayed a readiness to engage in further discussions.

The delegation committed to pursuing language that would encapsulate the various concerns of all participating countries in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, indicative of their adherence to multilateralism and inclusion within international treaty-making processes. In essence, the address underscored the intricate interplay international negotiations entail, when balancing national interests with the collective pursuit of universal cybersecurity objectives, always mindful of the imperative to safeguard human rights and respect established national legal frameworks.

This narrative serves as a reflection of the elaborate processes required to achieve consensus in international cybersecurity law formulation.

Report

The speaker commenced by acknowledging the Chair’s significant efforts to foster a compromise in the Ad Hoc Committee session, yet conveyed a notable disappointment. The dissatisfaction stemmed not from the draft convention on preventing crimes involving ICTs itself, but rather from the Committee’s failure to fully realise its mandate to bring the convention to fruition.

The original aspiration for an extensive convention tackling the prevention of ICT-related crimes gave way to a narrower focus on cybercrime, leading to the creation of an instrument centred on legal assistance for cybercrime issues with a pronounced consideration for human rights.

Highlighting the fluid and evolving nature of ICT crimes, the speaker supported the introduction of paragraph 5bis, advocating for a protocol to proactively address emerging challenges, seen as vital in keeping abreast with technological advancements in ICT crimes. Aligning with the Russian Federation, the speaker argued for the inclusion of ‘prevention’ in the convention’s title to emphasise its importance and advocated for its presence throughout the convention, particularly citing Articles 23 and 35, which pertain to general and procedural matters and international cooperation, respectively.

The speaker questioned the necessity of the term ‘specific’ in Article 23 and voiced opposition to paragraph C of Article 35, fearing it might curtail the convention’s broader applicability by anchoring it to existing agreements. The speaker suggested a departure from the constrained approach of limiting the convention to pre-established frameworks, hinting that this would not meet the delegates’ objectives or address the urgent issues at hand.

Regarding Articles 60 and 59, opposition was voiced due to the belief that Article 5 already adequately covers the principles within these articles. The speaker recommended referencing not the general term ‘international law’, but the provisions in conventions to which individual states are party.

In closing, the speaker emphasised the necessity for the convention to adapt to the intricacies of ICT crimes with a preventive focus, while appealing for an ambition that transcends current conventions. The session concluded with words of encouragement for the Chair’s success in steering the session to a productive culmination.

This expanded summary accurately reflects the overarching themes in the speaker’s address, stressing a progressive and comprehensive approach. It maintains a balance between commendation for the Chair’s mediation efforts and constructive critique of the encountered limitations, all while adhering to UK spelling and grammatical conventions.

Arguments

The UK delegation cannot accept the revised package.

Supporting facts:

• The UK has consistently sought a focused list of crimes in exchange for broader scope of international cooperation.

• There is concern about committing to negotiate additional protocols before the main Convention is in force.

Topics: International Cooperation, Legal Safeguards, Convention Negotiations

---

The UK emphasizes the need for adequate legal safeguards in the Convention.

Supporting facts:

• The proposed Article 59 is seen as merely repeating international human rights law without capturing the intent of the original safeguard proposal.

• The UK previously proposed applying safeguards to all of international cooperation, supported by a range of Member States.

Topics: Human Rights, Legal Safeguards, International Law

---

The UK delegation appreciates efforts towards compromise but prioritizes legal safeguard quality.

Supporting facts:

• The UK sees current safeguards in the revised package as inadequate.

• The legal effect is crucial for the UK’s agreement on the Convention.

Topics: Legal Safeguards, Quality of Law, Compromise in Negotiation

---

The UK is supportive of other proposals that ensure the Convention focuses on a set of serious crimes with consensus.

Supporting facts:

• The UK is open to flexibility and to other proposals as long as they capture the intent of focusing only on serious crimes.

• UNTOC’s approach of qualifying the concept of a serious crime is cited as an example.

Topics: Consensus Building, Serious Crimes, International Agreement

---

The UK proposes the non-discrimination clause should be applied more broadly, supported by precedent in UN Conventions.

Supporting facts:

• The non-discrimination provision is agreed language already used in Article 37 of the Convention.

• Example given is Article 15 of the UN Convention on Terrorist Financing, applying non-discrimination to both extradition and mutual legal assistance.

Topics: Non-Discrimination, International Law, Precedent in UN Conventions

---

South Africa supports the compromise package that seeks a balanced resolution among delegations.

Supporting facts:

• South Africa has followed discussions closely and acknowledges the package’s balance.

• They encourage avoiding perfectionism and endorse the package’s aim for consensus.

Topics: Consensus Building, International Cooperation

---

South Africa backs specific articles in the package.

Supporting facts:

• South Africa expresses direct support for Articles 3, 5, 23, 24, and 35.

• They welcome the inclusion of Paragraph 1C in Article 35 due to its wider scope of cooperation.

Topics: International Law, Convention Adoption

---

South Africa expresses concern about potential limitations in Article 35.

Supporting facts:

• The delegation is worried about the phrase ‘in force at the time of adoption of the Convention’ as a limitation.

• They advise against additional conditionalities that might hinder the convention’s efficacy.

Topics: Legal Framework, Limitations of International Agreements

---

South Africa urges caution on divisive proposals regarding Article 59.

Supporting facts:

• South Africa advises against insisting on divisive proposals.

• They stress the importance of preserving the progress achieved thus far in the discussions.

Topics: Consensus Decision-Making, Diplomatic Negotiations

---

The country supports the ad hoc committee’s consideration of a draft protocol as per Article 5B.

Supporting facts:

• South Africa agrees with the approach to consider a draft protocol supplementary to the Convention.

• The Ad Hoc Committee would recommend actions on the draft protocol to the Conference of State Parties.

Topics: Protocol Drafting, Ad Hoc Committee Deliberations

---

South Africa remains hopeful for consensus in the final stages of deliberations.

Supporting facts:

• The delegation expresses hope for reaching consensus as discussions conclude.

• They remain committed to the shared goal of agreement through international cooperation.

Topics: Diplomatic Resolution, International Consensus

---

India has concerns regarding the inclusion of certain phrases related to human rights in the draft which they find out of context.

Supporting facts:

• India finds the phrase ‘which shall provide for the protection of human rights’ in Article 24, Clause 1 and ‘right to effective remedy’ in Clause 2 unnecessary.

• India believes these phrases are either out of context or implied in other parts of the draft.

Topics: Human Rights, Legislative Drafting

---

India disagrees with certain sentences and additions in Article 35 regarding existing laws and serious crimes.

Supporting facts:

• India opposes the sentence starting with ‘in force at the time of adoption of this Convention’ in Article 35, Clause 1, sub-clause c.

• India does not support the addition of Clause 3 in Article 35.

Topics: Serious Crimes, Convention Adoption, Legal Text Interpretation

---

India observed flexibility and willingness to reach consensus despite disagreements.

Supporting facts:

• India expressed that they have shown flexibility by agreeing to the compromised language in Article 59, even though they find it unnecessary.

Topics: Diplomatic Negotiations, Consensus Building

---

India opposes the unilateral introduction of new language into the draft, particularly regarding human rights.

Supporting facts:

• India considers the new language related to human rights as an attempt to sabotage the near consensus.

Topics: Human Rights, Legislative Drafting, Consensus Disruption

---

India seeks to retain the definition of ‘serious crimes’ as present in the draft, stressing its importance.

Topics: Legal Definitions, Serious Crimes

---

India endorses the Chair’s proposal as the right way to forge a consensus.

Supporting facts:

• India has affirmed their belief in the Chair’s proposal to reach a consensus.

Topics: Consensus Building, Diplomatic Leadership

---

Japan expresses deep appreciation for the Chair’s efforts towards consensus.

Topics: Diplomacy, International Cooperation

---

Japan supports the Chair’s proposal for specific articles in the Convention.

Supporting facts:

• Articles 3, 5, 23, 24, 35, and 60-Bis are supported by Japan.

Topics: International Law, Convention Proposals

---

Japan is open to EU proposals on amendment of articles.

Supporting facts:

• Proposals made by the European Union to amend Articles 35C and 60-Bis are acknowledged.

Topics: International Law, EU Amendments

---

Japan emphasizes the importance of human rights safeguards in the Convention.

Supporting facts:

• Support for anti-discrimination clause in Article 35.

Topics: Human Rights, International Cooperation

---

Japan shows interest in discussions around Article 59.3 and wishes to be constructively involved.

Topics: Legislative Discussions, Article 59.3

---

Japan advocates for the Ad Hoc Committee’s mandate extension based on the Chair’s proposal.

Supporting facts:

• Openness to extension for submitting recommendations to the Conference of States Parties.

Topics: Ad Hoc Committee, Mandate Extension

---

Japan has made significant concessions on criminalization and confiscation issues.

Supporting facts:

• Concession on the criminalization of the conduct of accessing to CISAID and confiscation of crime proceeds.

Topics: Crime Prevention, Legal Compromises

---

Venezuela seeks a satisfactory text that is agreeable to all parties.

Supporting facts:

• Efforts to find a satisfactory text for all parties

• Conscious of the limited time to reach an agreement

Topics: International Relations, Diplomacy

---

Venezuela finds certain safeguard provisions in Article 59 unacceptable.

Supporting facts:

• Believes that safeguards may prejudice and undermine Convention’s operability

• Views Article 59 as restrictive and unprecedented

Topics: Cybersecurity, Legislation

---

Venezuela is supportive of Cuba’s proposal.

Supporting facts:

• Venezuela expresses gratitude towards Cuba’s proposal

• Considers the proposal to have sufficient merit for consideration

Topics: International Collaboration, Legislative Proposals

---

Venezuela suggests deleting the last part of Article 35 Subparis C.

Supporting facts:

• Constriction of future operation of the convention is a concern

• Suggestion made by other delegations as well

Topics: Policy Amendment, Cyber Governance

---

Venezuela emphasizes the necessity of the protocols section in the Convention.

Supporting facts:

• Stresses on the essential nature of protocols in the context of the Convention

Topics: Cyber Conventions, Regulatory Protocols

---

Albania supports Article 5, 23, and 24

Supporting facts:

• Expressed direct support for specific articles

Topics: Policy Support, International Cooperation

---

Albania supports the European Union proposal for Article 35

Supporting facts:

• Aligns with EU’s position on specific policy

Topics: Policy Alignment, International Relations

---

Albania supports the New Zealand proposed addition and considers it very important

Supporting facts:

• Strong endorsement for New Zealand’s proposal

Topics: Policy Endorsement, International Endorsement

---

Albania is open to discussion on the Canadian proposal for Article 59.3

Supporting facts:

• Willingness to discuss Canada’s prior proposal

Topics: Policy Discussion, Openness to Negotiation

---

Albania is not fully supportive of Article 5Bs but will side with consensus for the sake of agreement

Supporting facts:

• Prefers consensus over individual stance

Topics: Policy Compromise, Consensus Building

---

Tanzania is committed to reaching consensus and has made concessions for a balanced text accommodating all concerns.

Supporting facts:

• Tanzania expresses overall satisfaction with the revised text, views sharing electronic evidence in relation to serious crimes as critical.

• Willingness to make concessions for the Committee to adopt the text.

Topics: International Cooperation, Consensus Building

---

Tanzania supports the inclusion of comprehensive human rights safeguards in international cooperation.

Supporting facts:

• Believes peculiar nature of the Convention calls for unprecedented human rights measures.

• Accepts Article 35’s formulation which includes conditions and safeguards provided for under domestic laws.

Topics: Human Rights, International Law

---

Algeria appreciates the Chair’s efforts and supports the revised proposal as a basis for discussion.

Supporting facts:

• Algeria expressed explicit appreciation towards the Chair and support for the revised package.

Topics: International Cooperation, Cybercrime Convention

---

Algeria supports retaining Article 3 and emphasizes the importance of sharing electronic evidence through international cooperation.

Supporting facts:

• Article 3 pertains to a fundamental aspect of the convention, presumably on cooperation and evidence sharing.

Topics: International Legal Framework, Cybersecurity

---

Algeria disagrees with part 3 of Article 35 and asks for its deletion, aligning with other delegations.

Supporting facts:

• Algeria joins several delegations in objecting part 3 of Article 35.

Topics: Cybercrime Convention Amendments, Diplomatic Consensus

---

Algeria finds Article 5 crucial for ensuring human rights law is respected within the convention’s implementation.

Supporting facts:

• Article 5 provides overarching provisions for respecting human rights.

Topics: Human Rights Law, Cybercrime Convention Compliance

---

Algeria supports the inclusion of Article 24 for necessary safeguards and is open to merging part 3 of Article 59 with Article 5 to reach consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Inclusion of Article 24 is seen as important for safeguards, and Algeria is willing to negotiate on Article 59 part 3.

Topics: Legal Safeguards, International Consensus

---

Algeria endorses the new paragraph to be added to the draft resolution, emphasizing the evolution of cybercrime.

Supporting facts:

• Algeria supports new additions that recognize the evolving nature of cybercrime in the draft resolution.

Topics: Cybercrime Evolution, Legislative Development

---

Armenia appreciates efforts in drafting text and sees potential for consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Armenia commends the draft text and suggests more flexibility could lead to consensus.

• Believes in the possibility of having a convention by the end of the week.

Topics: Diplomacy, International Relations

---

Armenia emphasizes the importance of human rights safeguards in the articles.

Supporting facts:

• Supports Article 5 and Article 24 for their human rights safeguards.

Topics: Human Rights, International Law

---

Armenia reaffirms support for the Canadian proposal as shown in Article 59.

Supporting facts:

• Armenia was an initial supporter of the Canadian Proposal 3.3.

• Armenia supports the revised proposal made by Canada.

Topics: Human Rights, International Cooperation

---

Kenya supports the compromise text for the Convention.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya acknowledges that the current text is a step toward reaching consensus and supports the balance of the compromise.

Topics: International Convention, Cybersecurity, Consensus Building

---

Kenya believes Article 5 provides adequate human rights safeguards.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya agrees with the previously stated position of Zimbabwe that Article 5 gives guidance to states on human rights in the use of ICT for criminal purposes.

Topics: Human Rights, Cybersecurity Convention, Legal Framework

---

Kenya calls for the deletion of Article 59, paragraph 3.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya joins other delegations in suggesting the removal of Article 59, paragraph 3, indicating alignment with positions taken by Nigeria, Egypt, and others.

Topics: Convention Amendments, Policy Deletion

---

Kenya opposes the inclusion of Article 5bis and believes the focus should be on finalizing the current Convention.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya recommends concentrating efforts on completing the existing Convention before considering additional protocols, resting on the understanding that Article 61, Paragraph 1 addresses Article 5bis concerns.

Topics: Convention Protocol Elaboration, ICT Policy, Legal Prioritization

---

Kenya concludes that concerns regarding Article 5bis are sufficiently covered by Article 61, Paragraph 1.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya’s stance is that the issues raised by Article 5bis are effectively dealt with by Article 61, Paragraph 1, negating the need for Article 5bis.

Topics: Convention Article Relations, Cybersecurity Legal Framework

---

Kiribati emphasized the importance of strong human rights safeguards in the cybercrime convention

Supporting facts:

• Kiribati recognized the intrusive potential of the convention

• Support for New Zealand’s proposal on overarching safeguards

Topics: Human Rights, Cybercrime

---

Kiribati supports the proposal from Canada for additional provisions

Supporting facts:

• Kiribati aligns with Canada for stronger safeguards

• The convention should not suppress human rights

Topics: International Cooperation, Cybercrime

---

Vanuatu appreciates the Chair’s effort in seeking consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Commendation for the Chair’s consensus-building with compromise text

• Acknowledgment of Vice-Chairs’ efforts in consensus pursuit

Topics: Diplomacy, International Relations

---

Vanuatu emphasizes the need for a convention that is equitable and implementable by all parties.

Supporting facts:

• Importance of fair and effective implementation

Topics: International Law, Global Cooperation

---

Concerns over broad criminalization scope and intrusive measures within the convention.

Supporting facts:

• Vanuatu expresses wariness about the convention’s potential repercussions

Topics: Human Rights, Privacy, International Law

---

Support for New Zealand’s proposal on international cooperation safeguards.

Supporting facts:

• Proposal to migrate Article 37, Paragraph 17 into Article 35

• Desire for clear safeguards in international cooperation

Topics: International Law, Diplomatic Relations

---

Vanuatu aligns with specific positions of other delegations on convention articles.

Supporting facts:

• Alignment with European Union’s stance on Article 59

• Support for Canada’s revised amendments in Article 3.3

Topics: International Cooperation, Law Amendments

---

Vanuatu disagrees with the discussion of future protocols at this stage.

Supporting facts:

• Preference to focus on finalizing the primary instrument of the convention

• Perception of future protocols consideration as premature

Topics: International Negotiations, Legal Protocols

---

Mali supports the achievement of a consensus on important document

Supporting facts:

• Mali welcomes efforts by the Secretariat

• Mali supports the statements made by Burkina Faso, Egypt, Nigeria

Topics: Diplomacy, International Consensus

---

Mali proposes elimination of amendments in paragraph 3 of Articles 35 and 59

Supporting facts:

• Mali aligns with Burkina Faso, Egypt, Nigeria

• Reasons for elimination have been previously laid out

Topics: Legislative Amendments, International Agreements

---

Angola supports the compromise package for sharing electronic evidence with human rights safeguards

Supporting facts:

• Angola considers the proposal very balanced.

• Angola acknowledges the need for compromise between effective sharing of electronic evidence and human rights protections.

Topics: Electronic Evidence Sharing, Human Rights

---

Angola endorses the extension of the scope of sharing electronic evidence to prosecute serious crimes

Supporting facts:

• Angola supports the approach for international cooperation.

• Angola aligns with the United States’ idea on extending the scope for sharing electronic evidence.

Topics: International Cooperation, Crime Prosecution

---

Thailand commends the Chair for efforts in negotiating the convention, including the drafting of the revised proposal.

Supporting facts:

• Thailand recognizes the Chair’s tireless efforts throughout the negotiation process

Topics: International Relations, Diplomatic Negotiations

---

Thailand is generally flexible with the proposal elements, supporting the spirit of consensus.

Topics: International Cooperation, Consensus Building

---

Thailand suggests moving elements of Article 59.3 to Article 5 to align with general principles for convention obligation implementation.

Supporting facts:

• Article 59.3 is believed by Thailand to fit better within the context of Article 5, concerning general principles

Topics: International Law, Convention Policy Amendment

---

Belarus expresses disappointment with the Ad Hoc Committee’s inability to fully deliver on its mandate

Supporting facts:

• Committee was expected to deliver a comprehensive convention on the prevention of crimes using ICTs

Topics: Ad Hoc Committee, Cybersecurity

---

Belarus supports the inclusion of ‘prevention’ in the name and articles of the convention

Supporting facts:

• Belief in the importance of highlighting prevention in the convention

Topics: Cybercrime Prevention, Convention Naming

---

Belarus opposes the limitation to conventions currently in force, as stated in Article 35

Supporting facts:

• Concern over being constrained by existing conventions

Topics: International Law, Convention Limitations

---

Belarus views ICT crimes as dynamic and advocates for the potential of establishing a protocol today

Supporting facts:

• Recognition of the fast-evolving nature of ICT crimes

Topics: ICT Crime Dynamics, Protocol Establishment

---

Belarus does not support the inclusion of Articles 59 and 60, preferring a reference to specific conventions

Supporting facts:

• Preference for a more direct referencing system to existing conventions

Topics: Article Inclusion Debate, Convention References

---

Report

The UK delegation adopts a critical perspective during the crime convention negotiations, voicing concerns about the sufficiency of legal safeguards and their reluctance to discuss additional protocol agreements prior to the main convention’s establishment and effectiveness. The UK emphasises the necessity of a clear list of crimes for international cooperation and staunchly prioritises the integrity of legal safeguards, considering those proposed as inadequate.

South Africa demonstrates a largely constructive attitude, commending the balance achieved in the compromise package and promoting a shift away from a perfectionist outlook to support consensus-building objectives. The delegation backs certain articles that broaden cooperation, albeit with reservations about potential limitations affecting the convention’s effectiveness.

South Africa advocates for both current and future considerations of the supplementary draft protocol to the Convention and remains hopeful for consensus in the concluding discussions. Japan appreciates the Chair’s efforts to build consensus and emphasises commitment to human rights safeguards and international cooperation within the convention.

While open to EU amendment proposals, Japan stresses the significance of consensus and encourages flexibility from other member states. India presents a nuanced stance, displaying adaptability in agreeing to compromised language but objecting to specific inclusions perceived as counter to the near consensus, especially on human rights matters.

India insists on retaining the definition of ‘serious crimes’ unchanged and advocates for the preservation of existing provisions that adequately address their concerns. Venezuela seeks a text that achieves collective agreement and expresses misgivings about safeguard provisions that might impair the convention’s functionality.

Proposing revisions to Article 35, Venezuela stresses the necessity of protocols, cautioning against premature protocol discussions and potential constraints on the convention’s future operation. Albania’s participation reflects a commitment to multilateral consensus, aligning with EU and New Zealand on specific policies and showing a willingness to discuss Canada’s proposal.

Despite not wholly endorsing Article 5bis, Albania leans towards consensus for the sake of agreement. Tanzania demonstrates a generally positive but cautious stance, expressing a readiness for concessions while opposing the introduction of qualifiers for ‘serious crimes’. The delegation disapproves of amendments proposed by New Zealand and Canada, favouring the current draft’s retention without changes.

Nevertheless, Tanzania is willing to consider a compromise on contested articles in line with their commitment to international cooperation and support for Article 35, Paragraph 3. Kiribati and Vanuatu amplify the discourse on human rights within the convention, emphasising flexibility for consensus yet underscoring the need for robust human rights protections and equitable, privacy-respecting implementation.

They exhibit caution regarding broad criminalisation and potential intrusive measures in the convention. In summary, the negotiations highlight a robust demand for an equilibrium between upholding human rights and enabling effective international cooperation against cybercrimes. While nations like the UK maintain firm stances on legal safeguards, others, including South Africa and Albania, are inclined towards compromise and consensus despite particular reservations.

The collective sentiment points to a shared aspiration for a comprehensive, equitable, and implementable convention, with recurring calls for pliancy and extensive discussions to harmonise divergent views and enhance the convention’s overall solidity.

Report

To provide a thorough review and editing of the text, a specific “main analysis text” would be required. As you haven’t provided the original content to reference, I’ll edit the general framework for an expanded summary that I previously formulated, incorporating UK spelling and grammar: Edited Extended Summary Framework: The examination of “The President” offers a detailed exploration of the multifaceted role of the President, encompassing the sphere of political manoeuvres, policy innovations, and the consequential effects these have on domestic and global platforms.

Key Points and Arguments: – The President’s significant role in crafting the legislative agenda is analysed, along with the strategic application of executive authority to steer policy direction. – The report delves into the President’s diplomatic endeavours and assesses their potency in cultivating international relations and alliances.

– Critical evaluation of paramount policy initiatives inaugurated by the President, pinpointing their targeted objectives, as well as the triumphs or obstacles encountered during their rollout. – Insights into the President’s distinctive leadership approach, methods of public engagement, and the frameworks guiding decision-making processes are provided.

Evidence: – Inclusion of empirical data reflecting the President’s economic influence, such as shifting employment rates, GDP growth metrics, or trade imbalances. – Passages from orations and declarations that encapsulate the President’s ideologies and stance on sociopolitical issues. – Perspectives from political analysts, lawmakers, and citizens, which offer a rich, multifaceted perspective on the President’s administrative performance.

– Analyses of specific instances or crises under the President’s remediation, detailing the strategic responses and consequences thereof. Conclusion: – A meticulous summation pondering the efficacy of the President in realising the administration’s aspirations. – Discussion regarding the enduring impact of the President’s term on the political paradigm and the establishment of precedents for subsequent administrations.

– Reflections on the impending historical interpretation and the enduring legacy of the President’s leadership. Additional Observations: – Incisive observations concerning the President’s sway over their party, examining whether the tenure has augmented unity or incited division. – Analysis of the societal and cultural repercussions stemming from the President’s policy frameworks and discourse, noting any paradigm shifts in public conversation.

– Forecasts or conjectures regarding the forthcoming electoral cycle, with speculation on the prospective contenders to succeed the President. In order to refine this summary to accurately mirror the original analysis, the actual text must be provided. Additionally, while incorporating long-tail keywords can enhance searchability, it should not compromise the integrity or coherence of the summary.

Once the main text is available, I can ensure precision in mirroring content and appropriately incorporate long-tail keywords seamlessly within the context.

Report

Madam Chair and the Secretary have received commendations from the Colombian delegation for their assiduous efforts during negotiations. Colombia has actively contributed to fostering a consensus on the proposed text for the new convention, signalling their near-acceptance of the compromise on the table.

Within the discussions, Colombia has emphasised the importance of human rights, advocating for robust safeguards that enhance cooperation against considerable threats. The current drafts of Articles 5 and 24 are seen to strike a prudent balance, embodying Colombia’s concessions from their initial goals, thus reflecting a degree of compromise.

Regarding Article 35, Colombia stresses the importance of language addressing serious maritime crimes, endorsing the proposal put forth by New Zealand and highlighting their concurrence on this issue. Colombia also recognises Canada’s concerns on Article 59 but is open to further dialogue based on the Chair’s proposal, indicating an earnest search for a consensual solution amidst existing divergences.

A heavy emphasis is placed by Colombia on the practical enactment of the convention, linking its efficacy to the protection and upholding of human rights standards – a testament to Colombia’s dedication to both the convention’s objectives and global human rights ideals.

Conclusively, the Colombian stance favours dedicating efforts to the existing convention rather than diluting focus with the creation of new protocols, suggesting that a robust, self-contained convention could be more beneficial currently, leaving the possibility for supplemental protocols open for the future.

In summary, Colombia exhibits a readiness to adapt and find middle ground, underpinned by steadfast commitments to human rights, law enforcement collaboration at sea, and the judicious use of resources in the crafting of international frameworks.

Report

Madam Chair, the Costa Rican delegation extends sincere respect and appreciation to you, your team, and the Secretary for your dedicated efforts in harmonising the varied stances during our discussions. Costa Rica has been a staunch advocate for strong safeguards within our collective agreement against cybercrime, upholding the protection of human dignity as a core principle.

We’ve emphasised that commitment to human rights must be woven throughout any globally applicable legal framework. Costa Rica supports the draft proposal as a starting point but wishes to formally note its backing for the amendments proposed by Canada in Article 3.3 and New Zealand in Article 35, believing that their acceptance will significantly improve the clarity and applicability of the text.

Additionally, our delegation aligns with the European Union on the amendment of Article 60. On the matter of extending the mandate, Costa Rica takes a divergent stance, seeing no necessity for it at present. We argue that the Conference of States Parties should be entrusted with the authority to deal with emerging issues once the treaty is in force.

This body should be allowed to devise further protocols as needed, allowing the treaty to adapt to the evolving nature of cybercrime without the constraints of a prolonged mandate. In closing, our delegation urges that we finalise our collective efforts swiftly and effectively, highlighting the pressing need for action and the promising prospects that the establishment of these global norms will unfold.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present our definitive position on these vital issues.

Arguments

Eritrea appreciates the Chair’s efforts and remains positive and committed to consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Eritrea commends the Chair’s efforts in advancing the text negotiation.

• Eritrea is optimistic and dedicated to finding a consensus.

Topics: International Cooperation, Diplomacy

---

Eritrea supports avoiding caveats in international cooperation chapter.

Supporting facts:

• Eritrea advocates for straightforward terms to foster international cooperation on ICT criminal use.

Topics: International Law, Cybersecurity

---

Eritrea endorses Cuba’s proposal to unify language in relevant articles.

Supporting facts:

• Cuba’s proposal looks to harmonize Articles 5 and 59 for better implementation.

Topics: International Agreements, Cybercrime

---

Eritrea advocates for additional protocols to address critical offenses.

Supporting facts:

• Eritrea wants to address offenses not considered in the current text, supporting Article 5B.

Topics: Cybercrime, International Negotiations

---

Report

Eritrea has proactively participated in international dialogue regarding the issue of cybercrime, advocating for the creation of solid legal frameworks and institutions. The country’s stance is supportive, demonstrating a commitment to bolstering global cooperation in line with SDG 16, which focuses on establishing peace, justice and strong institutions, as well as SDG 17, aimed at strengthening global partnerships for sustainable development.

Eritrea has expressed a positive sentiment, commending the Chair’s leadership in drafting negotiation texts and indicating a dedicated resolve to achieve consensus among involved parties. This approach reflects Eritrea’s optimism and commitment to collaborative problem-solving in the realm of international diplomacy.

On the front of cybercrime legislation, Eritrea has favoured straightforward language to promote international cooperation in tackling the unlawful use of ICT. The country suggests avoiding convoluted phrases with subjective interpretations that could potentially undermine the effectiveness of collective measures against cybercrime.

By endorsing Cuba’s proposal for harmonising Articles 5 and 59, Eritrea has demonstrated support for streamlining international agreement implementations. The aim is to achieve a seamless integration of legal texts, ensuring consistency across jurisdictions and enhancing the efficacy of these agreements in combatting cybercrime.

Further, Eritrea has championed an expansion of legal protocols to address the ever-evolving nature of cybercrime, highlighting the necessity for comprehensive legislation inclusive of emerging offenses – an endorsement clearly reflected in its advocacy for the addition of Article 5B. Echoing the views of countries like Nigeria, Eritrea encourages the adoption of clear and unequivocal language in international cooperation chapters, minimising opportunities for misinterpretation and bolstering straightforward cross-border collaborations against cybercrime.

Reinforcing its supportive position, Eritrea also favours the continuation of the Ad Hoc Committee’s mandate under General Assembly Resolution 74/247. This resolution advocates for developing additional protocols to include significant offenses that the current framework might overlook, further underpinning Eritrea’s commitment to a wider-reaching legal structure.

In summary, Eritrea’s contributions to cybercrime discussions have been unequivocally positive and encouraging, with the nation championing a balanced consensus to enhance the efficacy of international law. This dedicated advocacy is in harmony with the goals of advancing sustainable development, promoting justice, peace, and robust institutions, while nurturing the spirit of partnership and international cooperation.

Arguments

Georgia appreciates the Chair’s efforts and acknowledges progress in the draft package.

Supporting facts:

• Georgia can lend full support to the text of Articles 3, 5 and 24.

Topics: International Relations, Diplomacy

---

Georgia insists on reconsidering New Zealand’s and Costa Rica/EU proposals for Article 35.

Supporting facts:

• New Zealand’s proposal pertains to discrimination-motivated prosecutions as ground for refusal.

• The EU and Costa Rica proposal regards a political offences exception.

Topics: International Law, Cybercrime

---

Georgia supports robust safeguards for extending powers to fight cybercrime.

Supporting facts:

• Safeguards are necessary to balance law enforcement needs and individual rights.

• They assert that significant support was seen for these safeguards from other states.

Topics: Human Rights, Cybersecurity, Digital Privacy

---

Georgia is ready to support paragraph 3 of Article 59 for consensus despite reservations.

Supporting facts:

• Georgia is dissatisfied with the downgraded text of the original proposal by Canada.

Topics: International Cooperation, Legal Frameworks

---

Georgia opposes immediate negotiations over a new protocol.

Supporting facts:

• Georgia rejects the proposal on any immediate negotiations over a new protocol.

• They do not support paragraph 5B of the draft resolution.

Topics: International Negotiations, Protocol Development

---

Report

Georgia has demonstrated an active and nuanced stance in discussions on various draft articles, reflecting a multifaceted approach to international relations and diplomacy. The sentiment put forward by the country is predominantly positive towards the Chair’s efforts in elaborating the legal texts, with a particular endorsement of Articles 3, 5, and 24 aligning with Georgia’s own priorities within the fields of international law and diplomacy.

Nonetheless, Georgia’s support is conditional. The nation has pressed for a thorough re-evaluation of New Zealand’s and Costa Rica/EU’s proposals regarding Article 35 related to cybercrime, highlighting its resolve to ensure that legislative measures in this area do not disregard the importance of individual rights and the necessity for robust safeguards, reflecting a broader commitment to human rights, cybersecurity, and digital privacy.

Georgia has shown a willingness to compromise, as seen in its readiness to support paragraph 3 of Article 59, despite holding reservations about the diluted text. This demonstrates Georgia’s commitment to maintaining international cooperation and legal frameworks, signalling a readiness to make concessions, provided they don’t undermine its core principles.

Contrastingly, Georgia firmly opposes the commencement of immediate negotiations for a new protocol, rejecting paragraph 5B of the draft resolution. This position underscores a prudent approach to international negotiations and protocol development, suggesting a preference for thorough and considered discourse over hasty, potentially unsound progress.

Georgia’s diverse responses—rendering full support for certain articles, demanding amendments to others, and expressing opposition to precipitated protocol negotiations—depict a strategically engaged nation in the international community. Its conduct showcases the complex balancing act countries often face, striving to safeguard national interests while partaking in collective endeavours to establish international legal standards and conventions.

Arguments

Iceland appreciates the efforts for a consensus-driven document

Supporting facts:

• Thanked the chair for shaping the document

Topics: International Cooperation, UN Treaty

---

Iceland supports the Canadian proposal within the convention

Supporting facts:

• Willing to be flexible on language and placement

Topics: International Relations, UN Convention

---

Iceland is nearing its limit on concessions for the draft articles

Supporting facts:

• Articles are on or close to the red line for Iceland

Topics: Diplomacy, Policy Drafting

---

Iceland agrees with the US on the unnecessary duplication of international cooperation and protocols

Supporting facts:

• Echoes the US view on scope of international cooperation

Topics: International Cooperation, Protocol Duplication

---

Iceland supports Norway’s statement on Article 35

Supporting facts:

• Endorses the comprehensive statement from Norway

Topics: Criminal Treaty, Article 35

---

Iceland endorses the inclusion of New Zealand’s proposal in Article 35

Supporting facts:

• Supports the particular New Zealand’s proposal

Topics: Legislation, Article 35

---

Iceland emphasizes the importance of safeguards and human rights in a criminal treaty

Supporting facts:

• UN Treaty powers need to be balanced with responsibilities

Topics: Human Rights, Criminal Treaty Safeguards

---

Report

Iceland has expressed a range of stances on matters related to UN treaties and international cooperation, underscored by a strong emphasis on human rights and the need for a balance between treaty powers and responsibilities. Initially, Iceland exhibited positive sentiments towards the chair’s efforts to forge a consensus-oriented document, signifying appreciation for cooperative and inclusive policy formation on the international stage.

The Icelandic delegation’s gratitude towards the chair for shaping the document is indicative of satisfaction with the collaborative nature of the proceedings. Moreover, Iceland has also shown support for the Canadian proposal within the UN Convention, demonstrating flexibility on language and placement issues.

This adaptability suggests a constructive disposition and readiness to engage in international dialogue that facilitates reaching mutual agreements. Concurrently, Iceland has expressed concern, indicating that certain articles in policy drafts are pushing the limits of its acceptable concessions. This signals that, although Iceland is amenable to negotiation, there are fundamental principles from which it will not waver, affirming that its support has clear boundaries.

Aligned with the United States’ outlook, Iceland has voiced concerns regarding the unnecessary duplication of international cooperation efforts and protocols. This shared stance with another key international actor reflects Iceland’s preference for efficiency and simplicity in international cooperation practices. Iceland has also been proactive regarding specific articles within criminal treaties, notably endorsing Norway’s comprehensive statement on Article 35 and favouring the inclusion of New Zealand’s proposal in the same article.

Such endorsements show agreement with fellow UN member states on nuanced details of international criminal law, bolstering partnerships and underscoring a preference for joint decision-making in these areas. On the topic of human rights within international treaties, Iceland has been particularly vocal and steadfast, highlighting the importance of stringent safeguards and a dedication to human rights.

This firm stance is a reminder that, while treaties offer significant potential for international collaboration, they must not encroach upon fundamental freedoms and should be framed with due responsibility. In summary, Iceland has navigated its involvement in UN treaty negotiations by being a collaborative yet principled member state.

It has upheld a delicate balance between cooperation and firm adherence to its core values, illustrating a strategic approach that prioritises human rights within the realm of international agreements. This engagement reflects Iceland’s unique role on the world stage: an advocate for cooperation that does not compromise on the integrity of human rights and sovereignty in international treaty negotiations.

Report

The opening of the speaker’s address conveys gratitude towards the team for their concerted effort in creating a well-rounded package aimed at achieving a consensus. Nonetheless, the speaker promptly raises specific issues with the proposed draft, pinpointing sections where the language is considered inappropriate or redundant.

Concerns are voiced regarding particular phrases within the draft, such as ‘protection of human rights’ cited in Article 24, Clause 1, and ‘right to effective remedy’ in Clause 2. The speaker argues these terms are either out of context or implicitly covered by existing provisions in the document, suggesting their inclusion might lead to complexity or confusion.

The language employed in Article 35, Clause 1, sub-clause c, especially the sentence pertaining to the Convention’s adoption time, is critiqued, alongside a manifest disapproval for the addition of Clause 3 to the same Article. The speaker prefers the earlier clauses as they were without the suggested modifications.

Acknowledging the effort to consider various viewpoints and to make concessions, the speaker highlights a readiness to compromise in the interest of progressing towards unity. However, any consensus already approached is endangered by the recent insertion of new language concerning human rights, which is regarded as counterproductive and akin to sabotage, with a strong stance against such unilateral insertions.

Article 59 comes under reevaluation, noting the speaker’s consistent objection to part 59-3 across preceding dialogues. This part is deemed unnecessary due to the existing coverage in Articles 5 and 35. Nevertheless, there is a willingness to accept it for the sake of advancing the discourse.

The combination of Articles 5 and 59 is considered ample for addressing human rights concerns without the need for injecting new terminology. The retention of the definition of serious crimes located within Article 35, Clause 1c, is underscored as a point of particular significance, advocating that it be left intact in the final draft.

In summing up, the speaker suggests that, despite the expressed disagreements, the present proposal remains the most viable route towards consensus. Committed to collaborating within the proposed framework, albeit with expressed reservations, the speaker is ready to engage with the proposals as presented, indicating a penchant for concession in the interest of harmony.

Gratitude is extended to the Madam Chair both at the commencement and conclusion of the speech, underlining respect and recognition for her facilitative role in the discussions.

Arguments

CARICOM appreciates efforts to advance the negotiation process and finds balance in the package proposal.

Supporting facts:

• Sincere gratitude expressed for the work of the Chair and Secretariat.

• The package proposal seeks to balance interests and priorities in respect to the scope of the instrument.

Topics: International Cooperation, Legislative Negotiation

---

Report

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has expressed a broadly positive stance on collaborative efforts in shaping international cybersecurity legislation and crafting robust legal frameworks, actions that resonate with Sustainable Development Goal 16’s aspiration for peace, justice, and strong institutions. CARICOM has lauded the balanced nature of the package proposal and the Chair and Secretariat’s roles in advancing the negotiation process, demonstrating an appreciation for an approach that carefully considers diverse national interests and priorities within international cooperation.

Regarding specific articles of the legislation, CARICOM supports Articles 3, 23, 24, and 35 unequivocally, citing their integral role in facilitating comprehensive legal cooperation while preserving national sovereignty. This support underlines CARICOM’s insistence on maintaining domestic legal autonomy amid international collaboration. On a constructive note, CARICOM has proposed integrating elements of Article 5 with Article 59 to eliminate duplicative content and efficiently address human rights considerations in the cybersecurity context.

This recommendation signifies the importance CARICOM places on a clear and cohesive legal framework. Additionally, the endorsement of the inclusion of Article 35, Paragraph 4, demonstrates CARICOM’s commitment to legal clarity, particularly in relation to the application of the dual criminality principle across various jurisdictions.

CARICOM has also conditionally supported Article 5bis, contingent on achieving broad consensus among member states, indicating a willingness to compromise to ensure collective progress. In summary, CARICOM’s positions highlight its dedication to international legal cooperation, legislative negotiation, and mutual legal assistance, always with a view to balancing national sovereignty with the necessity for a harmonised approach to the complex challenges posed by cybersecurity.

This engagement underscores CARICOM’s pivotal role in promoting strong, effective institutions that uphold peace and justice through international cooperation. In the review of the summary, UK spelling and grammar conventions have been maintained. The content accurately reflects the substance of the main analysis and incorporates relevant keywords such as ‘international cybersecurity legislation’, ‘robust legal frameworks’, ‘Sustainable Development Goal 16’, ‘peace, justice, and strong institutions’, ‘international legal cooperation’, ‘legislative negotiation’, ‘dual criminality principle’, and ‘mutual legal assistance’, while ensuring the integrity and quality of the summary are preserved.

Arguments

Japan expresses appreciation for the Chair’s efforts towards consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Commendation of the Chair’s proposal

• Recognition of the attempt to respond to concerns of different Member States

Topics: Diplomacy, International Relations

---

Japan supports the Chair’s proposal for certain articles as they stand.

Supporting facts:

• Support for Articles 3, 5, 23, 24, 35, and 60-Bis

Topics: International Law, Cybersecurity

---

Japan is comfortable with the European Union’s amendments if agreed by consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Comfort with proposals to amend Articles 35C and 60-Bis

Topics: International Cooperation, Legislative Amendments

---

Japan stresses the importance of human rights safeguards in the Convention.

Supporting facts:

• Promotion of international cooperation through appropriate human rights safeguards

• Support for an anti-discrimination clause as proposed by New Zealand

Topics: Human Rights, International Agreements

---

Japan is actively involved in discussions around Article 59.3 and seeks consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Japan’s interest in the direction of discussion on Article 59.3

• Willingness to be actively and constructively involved

Topics: International Negotiations, Consensus Building

---

Japan’s basic stance is that protocol negotiations should happen at the Conference of States Parties.

Supporting facts:

• Negotiations on the additional protocol proposed to occur in accordance with Article 57, paragraph 5g

Topics: International Protocols, Conferences

---

Japan is open to considering the Chair’s proposal to extend the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Supporting facts:

• Interest in the proposal for extension as part of a compromise package

Topics: Ad Hoc Committees, Mandate Extension

---

Japan has made significant concessions to reach consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Concessions on the criminalization of conduct in accessing CISAID

• Concessions on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime

Topics: Compromise, International Negotiations

---

Japan urges other member states to exercise flexibility in negotiations.

Supporting facts:

• Japan’s call to others to be flexible

• Aim to reach consensus based on the Chair’s package

Topics: International Cooperation, Diplomacy

---

Report

Japan has emerged as a proactive and constructive participant in the sphere of international diplomacy, keenly focused on fostering consensus and exhibiting admirable flexibility regarding various legislative proposals central to the furtherance of Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions as championed by Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.

Japan has publicly commended the Chair’s endeavours to achieve a consensus amidst the divergent viewpoints of Member States. This commendation is evident in Japan’s positive response to the Chair’s proposed changes, demonstrating appreciation and support for specific articles, which indicates a favourable sentiment towards the trajectory of diplomatic negotiations.

Highlighting its dedication to human rights, Japan has advocated for the integration of human rights safeguards within international treaties, endorsing cooperation and emphasising the need for anti-discrimination clauses, as proposed by New Zealand. This position reflects Japan’s commitment to both SDG 10 and 16, acknowledging the interconnected efforts required to ameliorate inequalities and establish robust, just, and effective institutions.

In terms of legislative amendments, Japan has adopted a neutral yet willing stance, open to considering the European Union’s proposals provided they achieve consensus among Member States. This approach exemplifies Japan’s predilection for diplomacy, showing an eagerness to identify common ground while emphasizing the significance of unanimous agreement.

With respect to international negotiations and building consensus, Japan has shown its readiness to engage actively and constructively. Japan has expressed a particular interest in discussions regarding Article 59.3 and has asserted that protocol negotiations should be conducted within the Conference of States Parties.

Japan’s openness to compromises is further highlighted by its willingness to contemplate the extension of the Ad Hoc Committee’s mandate as part of a broader compromise package. Japan’s significant concessions on critical issues, such as the criminalisation of accessing CISAID and the seizure of crime proceeds, highlight its pursuit of consensus via a spirit of shared understanding and compromise.

Conclusively, Japan’s diplomatic strategy calls for other Member States to adopt flexibility and accommodation to reach a consensual agreement, per the Chair’s package. These efforts have been acknowledged, with Japan’s flexibility seen as crucial in the collective goal of advancing international cooperation.

In conclusion, Japan’s actions, marked by a diplomatic ethos that weighs respect for human rights and the rule of law with the necessity for flexibility, position it as an instrumental entity in the global quest for harmony, aligning with the values encapsulated by the Sustainable Development Goals.

Arguments

Kenya supports the current compromise text of the Convention, considering it a step towards consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya acknowledges the balance in the compromise text.

Topics: Consensus Building, ICT Regulation

---

Kenya believes Article 5 provides necessary human rights safeguards in the Convention.

Supporting facts:

• Article 5 is viewed as an overarching framework for human rights within the context of the Convention.

Topics: Human Rights, ICT Regulation

---

Kenya supports the deletion of Article 59, paragraph 3, aligning with other delegations.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya joins Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Egypt in objecting to Article 59, paragraph 3.

Topics: Convention Amendments, ICT Regulation

---

Kenya calls for the deletion of Article 5bis.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya suggests that member states focus on finalizing the present Convention.

Topics: Convention Amendments, ICT Regulation

---

Kenya thinks concerns regarding Article 5bis are addressed by Article 61, Paragraph 1.

Supporting facts:

• Kenya sees Article 61, Paragraph 1 as adequate for issues raised concerning Article 5bis.

Topics: Convention Amendments, ICT Regulation

---

Report

Kenya’s engagement in the Convention concerning Information and Communication Technology (ICT) regulation is marked by a thoughtful stance that combines recognition of progress with critical evaluation of specific clauses. The country acknowledges the efforts made towards consensus in the compromise text, highlighting the importance of balance in fostering agreement among stakeholders.

Furthermore, Kenya sees Article 5 of the Convention as fundamental in providing a framework for upholding human rights within the ICT regulatory context. However, Kenya’s perspective is not without reservations. The nation, alongside others like Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Egypt, has vocalised opposition to Article 59, paragraph 3, advocating for its removal.

This stands as evidence of their collective insistence on revising content considered unsuitable. Additionally, Kenya’s request to delete Article 5bis is based on the assertion that Article 61, Paragraph 1 sufficiently covers the concerns Article 5bis was intended to address, advocating for the simplification and avoidance of duplicative provisions.

Moreover, Kenya promotes a systematic approach to the Convention’s development, suggesting that member states should prioritise finalising the current Convention before deliberating on any additional protocols. This strategy indicates Kenya’s preference for a methodical and clear process, ensuring that a firm foundation is laid out before expanding the regulatory framework.

In essence, Kenya displays a multifaceted position that balances progression towards a consensual agreement with the need for legal precision within the Convention. The stance is one that encourages reaching a mutual understanding, guaranteeing the protection of human rights, and fostering thoroughness and focus in amending processes of international frameworks such as the ICT regulation.

Kenya’s insights are crucial in the ongoing discourse surrounding ICT regulation, as they underscore the significance of achieving consensus, maintaining legal clarity, and establishing robust baseline agreements. The text has been reviewed to ensure the use of UK spelling and grammar is maintained throughout, with no grammatical errors, sentence formation issues, or typos present.

The summary retains high quality while incorporating as many pertinent long-tail keywords as possible without compromising the summary’s clarity or precision.

Report

Madam Chair, the Kiribati delegation has expressed gratitude for the dedication shown in revising the text of the convention. Kiribati has demonstrated a flexible approach to achieve consensus among participants. Their main concern lies in the incorporation of stringent human rights safeguards to counterbalance the extensive powers granted by the convention to address cybercrime.

Kiribati has set out clear expectations, insisting on definitive and robust mechanisms for human rights protection. Their concerns stem from the potential abuse of power, stressing that the convention’s authority should solely serve the purpose of combatting cyber threats. To enhance these protections, the delegation supports New Zealand’s suggestions, particularly the strategic repositioning of Article 37, Beta 15 to Article 35.

This shift is crucial for guiding international cooperation, and for Kiribati, any standard below this would be inadequate and could compromise human rights protection. The delegation aligns with Canadian concerns, advocating for Canada’s proposed safeguarding measures. Kiribati’s stance showcases their dedication to maintaining a balance between the enforcement powers within the convention and the fundamental need to safeguard human rights, avoiding any potential for these powers to be misused.

While Kiribati has tentatively accepted the current draft in the spirit of collaboration, they maintain that consensus on the convention’s core provisions is necessary before considering an expanded role for the ad hoc committee. They are open to further discussions, aiming for a unanimous decision by the week’s end.

In summary, Kiribati is keen to participate cooperatively, but emphasises the necessity of solidifying the convention’s fundamental elements and establishing strong human rights safeguards. Their focus on protective measures signals a wider issue, as nations strive to align national security with the preservation of civil liberties in the digital era.

The Kiribati delegation’s contributions are pivotal in navigating the complexities of formulating international law – requiring a harmonious balance between varied interests towards shared goals. Their input is influential in developing a fair and just convention structure that respects human rights while effectively tackling cybercrime challenges.

Arguments

Libya supports the deletion of Paragraph 3 of Article 59

Supporting facts:

• Article 5 covers the content of Paragraph 3 of Article 59

Topics: Diplomatic Negotiation, Legal Text Review

---

Libya supports the deletion of Paragraph 3 of Article 35

Supporting facts:

• No supporting facts provided for this specific stance

Topics: Diplomatic Negotiation, Legal Text Review

---

Libya does not support the proposal of New Zealand

Supporting facts:

• No supporting facts provided for this specific stance

Topics: International Relations, Policy Disagreement

---

Report

Libya has consistently displayed a negative sentiment in diplomatic negotiations, concerning the scrutiny of legal texts, a stance which is related to SDG 16’s emphasis on peace, justice, and strong institutions. Libya’s positions play a crucial role within the context of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions, given the goal’s stress on reinforcing such pillars at all levels.

The nation has made a clear call for the removal of Paragraph 3 in both Article 59 and Article 35 but has failed to provide substantive supporting facts for these arguments. The linkage made to Article 5 as a point of contention in the case of Article 59 does not come with further explanation or justification, leaving the precise motives of Libya’s opposition ambiguous.

Likewise, the absence of factual backing in Libya’s stance against Paragraph 3 of Article 35 adds to the opaqueness of the argument. Libya’s negative perspective also extends to a specific proposal put forth by New Zealand, highlighting potential policy differences or deeper diplomatic disagreements within the sphere of international relations.

The lack of supporting evidence renders the rationale behind Libya’s opposition to these legal provisions and proposals opaque. The possibility of strategic information withholding, a misalignment between Libya’s diplomatic goals and the objectives of the legal articles, or internal political dynamics influencing the country’s international posture all arise as potential explanations for the observed positions.

Moreover, the challenge of harmonising national interests with the universally-targeted Sustainable Development Goals becomes apparent. From the data provided, it is clear that Libya is engaged in a complex interplay of international legal negotiations, while trying to maintain a firm grip on its national viewpoint.

These actions bear significance for the nation’s diplomatic ties and may have repercussions for the strength and integrity of institutions that SDG 16 aims to empower. In need of further investigation are the motivations and consequences of Libya’s diplomatic actions. This would require a more detailed grasp of how Libya’s domestic policies are interwoven with its international objectives.

In sum, Libya’s involvement in these negotiations reflects a strategic attempt to negotiate the intricacies of international policy-making, with the potential to influence the global pursuit of peace, justice, and institutional efficacy as outlined by the SDGs.

Report

Madam Chair, the delegation commends the efforts of your office and the Secretariat in seeking a consensus on the critical document under review by the Member States. The delegation echoes the opinions and standpoints presented by the representatives of Burkina Faso, Egypt, and Nigeria.

The delegation supports the call to reject the proposed amendments in paragraph 3 of Articles 35 and 59, citing two principal reasons that align with the extensive deliberations of the aforementioned nations. First, there is a consensus on the necessity to maintain the document’s integrity, with the consensus being that the amendments could compromise the balance and initial purpose of the agreements.

It has been recognised that the current wording is the result of meticulous consideration of the varied views and needs of the Member States. Second, practical concerns regarding the amendments were extensively discussed. The noted fears pertain to the potential increase in complexity and administrative burden that may arise from the proposed changes.

The delegation from Burkina Faso noted the possibility of these amendments causing complications during the implementation phase, potentially reducing the document’s effectiveness. In conclusion, the delegation advocates for the retention of the existing format and content of paragraph 3 in Articles 35 and 59, asserting that this approach will facilitate a smoother adoption and application of the document’s provisions.

The delegation appreciates the collaborative spirit and clarity of the proceedings. [Note: The original text did not contain grammatical errors, sentence formation issues, typos, or missing details, and UK spelling and grammar were used throughout. Thus, no corrections were necessary.]

Report

Mozambique played a constructive role in the discussions about the compromise package presented by Madam Chair, which seeks to build consensus on key international issues. The Mozambican delegate commenced by showing appreciation for the diligent work of the Chair and her team, aligning Mozambique’s stance with that of fellow African countries like Nigeria, Tanzania, and South Africa, as well as with other supporting members, signifying collective backing for the proposal with some necessary amendments.

Specific reservations were highlighted by Mozambique concerning the text within Paragraph 3 of Article 59 and Paragraph 3 of Article 35. The concerns indicated a potential misalignment with Mozambique’s position and those of similar nations, although the exact details were not disclosed in the statement.

Mozambique strongly endorsed the consolidation of Article 5 with Paragraph 3 of Article 59, a move supported by Zimbabwe, CARICOM, and others, focusing on the emphasising of human rights within the convention. This merge aimed to reinforce the human rights framework, echoing the shared objectives of the involved states.

When addressing the draft resolution, Mozambique adopted a practical stance, signalling readiness to back the concluding efforts while remaining open to further discourse to incorporate more text if the majority of the member states deem it necessary. This highlighted Mozambique’s adaptable and reconciliatory manner, demonstrating an allegiance to consensus-building and effective collaboration.

On the wording of Article 35, Paragraph 3, Mozambique communicated a concern, again without detailing specifics, suggesting a possible contentious implication of the text. Despite this, the delegate expressed a willingness to move forward with the adoption of the text, emphasising Mozambique’s dedication to consensus and effective international negotiation.

The Mozambican envoy’s closing remarks stressed the importance of the convention for a developing country like Mozambique, highlighting the expectation that the convention would facilitate addressing the challenges posed by cybercrime. The delegate underscored the need for international cooperation and the exchange of electronic evidence as crucial to Mozambique’s proactive approach in enhancing global cybersecurity measures.

In summary, Mozambique’s intervention showcased its commitment to diplomatic consensus-building, the protection of human rights, pragmatic international legislative engagement, and the pursuit of fair global cooperation to combat cybercrime. This approach mirrors the needs and capabilities of a developing nation keen on contributing to and benefitting from a secure international environment against cyber threats.

Report

In her address, the Namibian delegate praised Madam Chair for her unwavering commitment to steering the development of a compromise package aimed at effectively tackling cybercrime. The Namibian delegation welcomed this initiative with open arms, affirming their wholehearted support. It was noted that the delegate’s points might resonate with those previously expressed due to the collective apprehension shared by multiple delegations.

The main thrust of Namibia’s argument centred around the critical need for a wide-ranging convention to battle cybercrime zealously. Namibia championed a convention expansive in scope, free from limiting conditions that could stifle international cooperation, signalling their dedication to a cohesive global strategy against cybercrime.

A particular focus of the Namibian address was Article 5, which deals with upholding human rights within the convention’s framework. Namibia unswervingly backed the inclusion of Article 5, echoing the disposition of countries such as Egypt, Cuba, and Zimbabwe. The delegate indicated a readiness to integrate language suggested by Cuba into Article 5, aiming for a thorough consideration of human rights.

Contrastingly, Namibia’s delegation recommended excising Article 59 from the draft, asserting that its substance was sufficiently covered in Article 5, thus making it superfluous. In addition, the Namibian delegate conveyed objections to proposals by New Zealand and Canada, opting not to endorse these articles due to a misalignment with Namibia’s vision for the convention, especially regarding human rights safeguards and an extensive cybercrime approach.

In sum, Namibia endorsed the idea of an auxiliary protocol to complement Article 5, content with the present text pertaining to this section. This emphasises Namibia’s prioritisation of firm, human rights-centred provisions within international cybercrime legislation. The address concluded with a heartfelt vote of thanks to Madam Chair, expressing gratitude for the chance to contribute to the formative discourse.

Report

The Nicaraguan delegation commenced by recognising the strenuous efforts of the chairperson, her team and the secretariat, commending their commitment to achieving consensus through the discussions. They expressed their support and appreciation for the unwavering dedication shown during the intricate deliberative process.

The delegates addressed specific elements of the convention under scrutiny, asserting the comprehensiveness of Article 5’s language, which they believed covered the entire scope of the convention, including the human rights implications. Aligning with the positions of delegations from Egypt, Pakistan and Iran, they argued that Article 59 was superfluous and advocated for its elimination from the convention.

Concern was raised regarding Article 35, particularly paragraph 3, which they requested be deleted. According to the Nicaraguan representatives, this paragraph threatened the convention’s capacity for future expansion and flexibility. These constraints, in their view, would inhibit international cooperation, thereby undermining the convention’s primary objective to counteract criminal activities orchestrated through information and communication technologies.

They highlighted the additional implementation challenges that could potentially face developing countries like Nicaragua in the absence of vigorous international support. In a constructive vein, Nicaragua showed readiness to explore alternative solutions, suggesting a consensus-building approach by merging the content of Article 5 and paragraph 3 of Article 59, in line with a proposal made by Cuba.

Furthermore, the Nicaraguan delegation pronounced their backing for the addition of paragraph 5-bis to Article 9. This pertains to the development of further protocols, illustrating their recognition of the importance for the convention to remain versatile and capable of evolving with supplementary agreements.

The delegation rounded off by reaffirming their dedication to a consensual negotiating process, emphasising their willingness to be flexible and negotiate in good faith. Their ultimate goal was articulated as striving for a mutually acceptable resolution, one that no member state would feel coerced into accepting.

In summary, Nicaragua’s stance is firmly rooted in their pursuit of a broadly inclusive and malleable convention, which eschews restrictive measures on international cooperation, deemed essential for the effective implementation of the convention, particularly for developing nations. Open to engaging with alternative proposals, their dedication to a consensus-driven outcome is testament to their diplomatic disposition throughout the ongoing negotiations.

Arguments

Niger supports the proposal of Nigeria regarding the compromise text.

Supporting facts:

• Niger thanked the Chair for efforts aimed at reaching the compromise text.

• The draft includes sufficient human rights safeguards in various articles.

Topics: International cooperation, Human rights safeguards, Criminal justice

---

Niger believes existing human rights safeguards are adequate.

Supporting facts:

• Human rights safeguards are encompassed in articles 5, 24, and 35.

• Additional guarantees against extradition are provided in article 36.3 and 37.15.

Topics: Human rights, Legal safeguards

---

Niger sees no need for a new Article 59-3.

Supporting facts:

• New Zealand’s proposed text exists in article 37.15, which Niger finds specific to extradition.

• The inclusion of a new article is perceived as unnecessary since it mirrors existing International Covenant provisions.

Topics: Legal redundancy, Convention protocols

---

Report

Niger has been actively engaged in dialogues regarding a consensus-building text proposed by Nigeria, which focuses on strengthening international cooperation, criminal justice, and safeguarding human rights. Niger has lauded the Chair’s efforts for achieving a balanced draft, expressing a generally positive sentiment and acknowledging the thorough human rights protections incorporated within various articles of the draft.

The central arguments put forth by Niger pertain to the sufficiency of existing human rights safeguards within the legal framework. Specifically, Niger has cited articles 5, 24, and 35 in the draft as encapsulating robust safeguards. Additional safeguards against extradition, as outlined in articles 36.3 and 37.15, are considered by Niger to reinforce the current legal framework adequately.

In contrast to these affirmations, Niger opposes the introduction of new articles like New Zealand’s suggested Article 59-3, which they deem unnecessary and legally superfluous. They argue that the article’s provisions, which pertain specifically to extradition, are adequately covered in article 37.15.

Niger views the proposal as duplicating existing International Covenant stipulations and questioning the need for its inclusion, highlighting concerns about legal redundancy. Niger’s stance against the introduction of new provisions when existing ones are deemed sufficient is underpinned by a commitment to uphold established international law and procedures for amending protocols.

They refer to the precedents set by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), recommending that these guiding principles be adhered to in the current efforts to amend protocols, thereby promoting consistency and effectiveness within international law.

To conclude, while Niger supports initiatives to ensure international frameworks for cooperation and the upholding of human rights remain robust, they underscore the importance of avoiding needless amendments to the legal framework. Their position favours maintaining a conservative and efficient approach to international law, indicative of their wider strategy and diplomatic approach in international negotiations.

They prioritise a streamlined, effective, and rights-respecting international legal order, reflecting a nuanced balance between legal progress and the potential for unnecessary complexity within international legal instruments.

Report

The Republic of Panama has formally agreed with the Chair’s proposal, affirming that it successfully summarises the collective ideas and positions of the delegations involved in the discussions. The Panamanian delegation has particularly endorsed the elements of the proposal concerning human rights and the essential safeguards, underlining their significance in the context of framing cybercrime legislation.

Additionally, Panama has highlighted the pivotal importance of international collaboration to effectively tackle cybercrime. The country perceives the proposed convention not as an all-encompassing legal instrument but as a basic structure, acknowledging that it should serve as the groundwork for nations to develop more comprehensive and specific laws that are in harmony with their own legal systems and cultural norms.

Panama has demonstrated its willingness to contribute towards the objectives of the session. However, this is tempered with the recognition that some countries remain unconvinced by the proposal, having voiced substantial reservations. Although the details of these reservations are not detailed in the summary, they are likely related to issues of national sovereignty, the extent of law enforcement cooperation, data privacy, and the protection of civil liberties, which are commonly debated in negotiations of international treaties on cyber security and crime prevention.

Panama’s acknowledgement of these reservations indicates an understanding that consensus will necessitate further discussions and potential amendments to the proposal to alleviate differing concerns. Despite these challenges, Panama’s dedication to the session’s goals suggests a positive stance towards reaching an agreement that will be acceptable to all, emphasising their active involvement with the international community on the pressing issue of cybercrime combat.

Report

In the expanded summary, the speaker commences by expressing gratitude towards the Chair and their team for their consummate dedication to promoting consensus regarding the topic under discussion. This expression of thanks underlines the paramount importance of teamwork and unanimity within such deliberations.

The speaker then moves on to articulate unwavering support for the draft document at hand, indicating that it meets and surpasses their expectations. This endorsement not only signifies acceptance but also a sense of satisfaction, marking a readiness to progress without the need for further adjustment or divisive argumentation.

The emphatic support suggests that the nation the speaker represents views the document as a commendable framework for subsequent action or policy-making. A specific focus is given to the handling of grave offences in the text. The speaker maintains that references to such serious crimes should be absolute, thereby advocating for a stringent and inflexible stance towards crime prevention and the administration of justice.

This firm viewpoint reflects a fundamental belief in strict law enforcement and the importance of accountability without providing opportunities for evasion that could undermine efforts against criminal activities. The speaker also reiterates enduring backing for the position initially adopted by Canada.

Such reaffirmation points to a consistency in policy approach and intimates that the perspectives or values endorsed by Canada have substantial resonance with those of the speaker’s own nation. The continued support also implies that there has been an effective diplomatic exchange and policy concordance between the two countries on the matters at hand.

Regarding human rights, the speaker notes and welcomes newly introduced additions that integrate human rights considerations into the conversation. This gesture acknowledges the increasing global inclination towards aligning policies and strategies across various domains, including crime prevention, with the norms of human rights.

By embracing these new inclusions, the speaker showcases their acknowledgement of the crucial role human rights play in reaching a fair and balanced consensus. To conclude, the speaker reiterates the initial comments on the significance of human rights within the framework and commends the inclusive approach taken by the proposals.

The overall tone of the address brims with appreciation and optimism, signalling a collective readiness to endorse the document and an anticipation of achieving widespread agreement among the delegates. Such a tenor suggests that the negotiations have been successful, paving the way for expected concordance between the participating entities.

Throughout the summary, UK spelling and grammar have been meticulously adhered to, ensuring an accurate representation of the provided analysis. The summary has been crafted while maintaining quality and incorporating relevant long-tail keywords for inclusivity and detail.

Report

The expanded summary emphasises the critical integration of stringent safeguards as a fundamental aspect of the convention, underscoring the importance of these measures in guaranteeing comprehensive protection and effectiveness of the agreement’s provisions. There was a clear initial preference for the Canadian proposal regarding Article 3.3, which likely presented a more substantial framework or particular measures favourable to the proposing nation.

However, in pursuit of consensus among the involved parties, this preference was set aside in favour of supporting Article 59.3 as an alternative. This compromise indicates that Article 59.3 represents the minimum standard acceptable to all, which aligns with the main goals, albeit not as extensively as the original Canadian proposal might have.

In the same spirit of cooperation and collective enhancement, the adoption of New Zealand’s proposal relating to Article 35 reflects an agreement with its perspective or goals. The European Union’s amendment to this article was also accepted, suggesting that this alteration by the EU is perceived as an improvement to New Zealand’s initial proposal.

The explicit endorsement of the EU amendment implies that it adds clarity, efficiency, or applicability to Article 35, thereby contributing towards a more effective convention. The summary concludes by reinforcing the ethos of compromise and joint advancement, with a definitive commitment to specific articles within the convention.

The formal support stated serves as an acknowledgment of the diplomatic endeavours and constructive contributions of the various parties involved. Review of the narrative suggests a complex negotiation process, with strategic concessions being key to the promotion of shared interests.

It reflects a diplomacy where backing certain proposals is as much about nurturing relationships and achieving agreement as it is about the substance of the proposals themselves. The adoption of proposals and amendments indicates a thorough debate where clauses are critically examined and adapted to accomplish a treaty that is balanced and satisfactory for all parties involved.

Report

The Russian delegation began by reiterating its concerns about the modifications to the framework convention, particularly focusing on the shift in language from “developing” to “considering the development of” a protocol in paragraph 5bis. The Russians believe this alteration allows for the possibility of no action being taken towards a protocol, thus not guaranteeing progress beyond the convention.

Russia emphasised there was sufficient time to deliberate on protocols once the convention’s primary text was adopted, suggesting that it was premature to concern themselves with this aspect. They advocated for a universal convention with a well-defined scope to be agreed upon in the near term, expressing objections to clauses that linked the convention to subjects intended for future protocols, claiming it compromises the clarity and universality of the convention.

The delegation highlighted that the current draft does not meet the level of thoroughness outlined in Resolutions 74, 247, and 75282 and suggested that a future protocol could serve as a means to refine cooperation between states. Russia pointed out that despite making substantial compromises, for example, reducing the proposed articles on criminalisation from fifteen to one, their constructive attitude had been repeatedly overlooked.

There was growing frustration with what they viewed as exclusion from discussions on additional protocols, questioning the authenticity of the negotiation process. Highlighting the need for law enforcement to have the capacity to prevent ICT crimes proactively, Russia proposed amendments to strengthen provisions in Articles 3, 23, and 35 by including the term “prevent.” Unfortunately, they felt this suggestion was dismissed.

They also raised specific issues with the draft text, critiquing the inclusion of “specific” in Article 23 and arguing for its removal. Additionally, they called for the deletion of a restrictive reference in Article 35, paragraph C, which they believed contradicted the principles in Article 60.

This linked to concerns with Article 60’s second paragraph, which they deemed unnecessary and limiting in the context of gathering evidence for serious crimes. Overall, Russia conveyed a notable sense of frustration at ignored proposals, a firm insistence on a more definitive commitment to a protocol, and a demand for recognition of states’ rights to participate in additional, optional protocols.

Their statement underlined the necessity for genuine engagement with their positions to ensure the negotiations reflect a truly collaborative effort made in good faith.

Report

The Sierra Leone delegation has offered praise for the collective efforts that have led to a compromise in the recent amendments to the Convention, recognising the general consensus that the delicate balance achieved is satisfactory. They have emphasised the importance for the Convention’s scope to be distinctly clear, as such lucidity is crucial for Member States to fully understand their responsibilities before formulating any formal commitment.

Sierra Leone has given explicit support to Articles 5 and 24, as proposed by the Chair, in line with their staunch dedication to international human rights laws. These Articles, the delegation believes, contain the necessary provisions and mirror the country’s advocacy for a human rights framework within the Convention.

Nonetheless, the delegation has reservations concerning the necessity of Article 59.3 in the Convention, viewing it as unnecessary. Their stance is based on the belief that Article 59.3 simply repeats the content already covered in Articles 5 and 24, leading them to propose its elimination to prevent redundancy and to make the Convention’s wording more concise.

While demonstrating an openness to the development of additional protocols, Sierra Leone advises that the immediate focus should be on finalising and implementing the Convention. They argue that a robust foundational agreement will more effectively achieve the Convention’s aims before attempting to broaden its scope through further protocols.

To summarise, the Sierra Leone delegation is prepared to continue supporting the refinement of the Convention, pinpointing areas of agreement and offering suggestions for enhancement. Their approach is both pragmatic and principled, seeking to advance human rights through explicit commitments and efficient legal frameworks.

Their acknowledgment of the Chair’s work reflects an understanding of the collective nature of international negotiations and expresses gratitude for the leadership that has guided Member States towards agreement. In closing, the Sierra Leone delegation renews its pledge to contribute constructively to the Convention’s ongoing development.

Arguments

South Africa supports the compromise package aimed at consensus.

Supporting facts:

• Supports Articles 3, 5, 23, and 24

• Welcomes the inclusion of Paragraph 1C in Article 35

Topics: International Cooperation, Convention Adoption

---

South Africa advocates for effective implementation of the Convention without added limitations.

Supporting facts:

• Concerned with limitations in Paragraph 1C of Article 35

• Urges against additional conditionalities in Article 59

Topics: International Cooperation, Crime Prevention

---

Supports the provision allowing for consideration of a supplementary protocol to the Convention.

Supporting facts:

• Support for Article 5B and the committee’s role in considering additional protocols

Topics: Legal Framework Enhancement

---

Report

South Africa has demonstrated a commendable stance on promoting international cooperation while ensuring effective implementation of the Convention. They offer their wholehearted support for the compromise package that facilitates international consensus, particularly endorsing Articles 3, 5, 23, and 24. This support reflects their belief in the importance of cohesive cooperation in international legal frameworks.

Moreover, South Africa welcomes the addition of Paragraph 1C to Article 35, indicating a positive sentiment towards fostering a robust yet flexible approach for international collaboration. This demonstrates their commitment to striking a balance in the legal mechanisms that govern international cooperation.

Despite their overall supportive stance, South Africa presents concerns regarding potentially restrictive provisions in the Convention. They express wariness about the implications of limitations within Paragraph 1C of Article 35 and strongly advise against the implementation of extra conditions as outlined in Article 59.

These concerns are indicative of their vigilance in maintaining the efficacy and practical applicability of the Convention to prevent unnecessary impediments to crime prevention efforts. In terms of enhancing legal frameworks, South Africa is in favour of Article 5B, indicating an endorsement of the Convention’s legal structures, including the committee’s role in discussing additional protocols.

This position suggests South Africa’s advocacy for a dynamic and evolving legal instrument capable of adapting to new challenges. In summary, South Africa’s contributions reflect their dedication to international cooperation and legal framework enhancement in line with SDGs 16 and 17.

They are actively engaged in the dialogue to create a conducive legal environment for cooperation while ensuring the utility and integrity of international conventions are preserved. South Africa’s approach is strategic, advocating for the necessary balance between cooperative spirit and the practical effectiveness of legal instruments within the international community.

After correcting for UK spelling and grammar, the summary accurately reflects the analysis, integrating key phrases such as “international cooperation,” “compromise package,” “effective implementation of the Convention,” “restrictive provisions,” “crime prevention efforts,” and “legal framework enhancement” without compromising the quality of the summary.

Report

The speaker begins by commending the Chair’s endeavours to mediate differing perspectives in order to establish a substantive convention aimed at addressing crimes facilitated through information and communication technology (ICT). They emphasise the need for an international framework that enhances collaboration amongst nations to tackle these crimes efficiently.

Central to the discussion is the convention’s objective of combatting ICT-related criminal activities. The speaker contends that the convention should define the scope of criminal actions it addresses and outline the mechanisms for international cooperation. Importantly, they assert that these guidelines should be integrated into a broader framework that is consistent with national initiatives while respecting sovereign authority and equality, thus not infringing upon domestic methods of law implementation.

The speaker also believes that the convention, dedicated to ICT criminality, should not overemphasise human rights protections in this sphere, as these are safeguarded under established international norms. Domestic laws, as they argue, typically offer comprehensive protections applicable to all crimes, ICT-related or otherwise.

In crafting laws or conventions, the speaker views reiterating the emphasis on human rights as unnecessary, recommending instead that the convention make a general acknowledgment of human rights commitments based on existing agreements and state party participation. In this vein, they suggest revising Article 5 to incorporate a broad reference to human rights commitments.

Several nations, including Egypt, representing the Arab group, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran, concur with the speaker’s views. They advocate for the removal of particular sections within Articles 35 and 59 that they regard as limiting the convention’s ambit, likely due to their substantive content or approach.

The speaker aligns with these countries’ concerns regarding the draft’s overall coherence and argues for further refinement to make it more suitable for adoption. The speaker proposes the creation of an additional protocol to bolster and streamline multinational cooperation against ICT crimes, suggesting that the existing draft fails to cover cooperative measures adequately.

In concluding their remarks, the speaker touches upon the impact of political positions on the stances taken toward the convention. They call for setting political considerations aside to properly recognise the legal and cultural nuances of different nations, which may not align with certain proposed elements of the convention.

To conclude, the speaker underscores the necessity of revising the convention to honour each nation’s unique legal and cultural context, which is essential for the convention’s widespread acceptability and practical implementation. They urge for the re-examination and modification of sections of the convention identified as problematic while emphasising the need for the legislative process to remain distinct from political biases, to ensure its effectiveness in achieving its principal goal.

Arguments

Thailand appreciates the Chair’s efforts in the negotiation process.

Supporting facts:

• Thailand commends the Chair for tireless efforts in negotiation and drafting.

Topics: International Cooperation, Diplomatic Negotiations

---

Thailand is flexible and supportive of the revised proposal.

Supporting facts:

• Thailand shows flexibility towards the elements of the proposal.

Topics: International Relations, Consensus Building

---

Thailand suggests moving elements of Article 59.3 to Article 5.

Supporting facts:

• Proposal to relocate the content of Article 59.3 to the general principle in Article 5.

Topics: Legislative Amendments, International Law

---

Report

Thailand has been an active participant in international diplomatic efforts, consistently demonstrating a constructive and positive disposition towards fostering international cooperation and consensus-building. The nation has praised the Chair’s relentless commitment to the negotiation process and the meticulous drafting of proposals, aligning with the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

Furthermore, Thailand has exhibited commendable flexibility concerning the elements of the revised proposal, embracing an open stance indicative of a commitment to SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. This flexibility is key in building strong international relations and is foundational in achieving an equitable and effective consensus.

With respect to legislative amendments and the subtleties of international law, Thailand has adopted a neutral, yet proactive stance by recommending that the content of Article 59.3 be relocated to a more prominent position within Article 5. This suggestion aims to improve the coherence and general principles of the legislative text, striving for logical and accessible international conventions.

Through its flexible approach and proposed amendments, Thailand has demonstrated strategic advocacy for better structural organisation in international policies and conventions. Its willingness to adapt to current elements highlights a positive sentiment towards the revised international proposal, endorsing collaborative efforts and demonstrating a nuanced understanding of policy reform.

Thailand’s contributions to international discussions underline its role as a cooperative entity on the global stage, with a vested interest in the successful enforcement of internationally recognised standards for peace, justice, and solid institutional frameworks. In summary, Thailand’s diplomatic engagement exemplifies its commitment to shaping foreign policy that supports the international community’s goal of fostering a more peaceful, just, and organised global society.

The summary retains UK spelling and grammar throughout, ensuring an accurate reflection of the main text.

Arguments

Tonga supports the chair’s revised package seeking consensus with flexibility.

Supporting facts:

• Tonga praised the chair for efforts in balancing diverse views

• Maximum flexibility demonstrated by Tonga for consensus

Topics: International Negotiations, Cybercrime Convention

---

Tonga agrees with the inclusion of serious crimes within the package’s scope.

Supporting facts:

• Support for the scope of Article 5.3 and 35 was explicitly mentioned

Topics: International Legislation, Serious Crimes

---

Tonga accepts the safeguards incorporated into the package.

Supporting facts:

• Tonga appreciates careful incorporation of safeguards into articles

Topics: Legal Safeguards, Human Rights Protections

---

Report

Tonga has engaged positively in international negotiations surrounding the Cybercrime Convention, applauding the chair’s commitment to reconciling diverse perspectives. The nation’s approval focused on the chair’s adept handling of differing viewpoints, ensuring Tonga’s stance was in favour of reaching a consensus while remaining adaptable.

Such positive feedback aligns with the aims of SDG 16, which promotes peace, justice, and robust institutions, highlighting the chair’s successful negotiation tactics in uniting nations around shared goals. Particularly, Tonga has approved the inclusion of serious crimes in the convention’s framework, valuing the meticulous integration of human rights safeguards and legal protections.

Endorsing Article 5.3 and 35, Tonga aligns with the objective to strengthen international legislation against cybercrime, reflecting SDG 16’s wider goals. However, Tonga expressed reservations about extending the committee’s mandate, attributing hesitancy to its limited capacity signalled by its small delegation’s struggles to keep up with demanding negotiations.

This hesitance underscores challenges smaller states face in sustaining substantial contributions to international diplomacy, suggesting the necessity for adjustments to foster more inclusive and equitable dialogue. Consequently, Tonga highlights the relevance of bolstering operational support in line with SDG 17, which focuses on empowering nations via improved global partnerships and assistance structures.

In a conditional stance, Tonga signals its openness to the mandate’s extension if there’s an increase in assistance for developing countries. This pragmatic negotiation stance prompts those advocating for the mandate’s expansion to provide substantive support, reflecting a strategic negotiation approach that insists on sustainable and fair international framework advancements.

In sum, Tonga’s proactive involvement in global cybersecurity discussions, alongside careful consideration of its capacities, underscores the intricate nature of international governance. Committed to SDG 16 and SDG 17’s principles, Tonga’s sophisticated diplomacy underscores that collective security and justice pursuits need to be balanced with the requisite support to guarantee inclusive and effective global participation.

Arguments

The UK appreciates the chair’s efforts towards compromise

Supporting facts:

• The UK acknowledges the revised package and the discussions as positive steps.

Topics: International Cooperation, UN Instruments

---

The UK cannot accept the draft compromise package

Supporting facts:

• The UK opposes negotiations on additional protocols before the Convention is operational.

• They argue for a focused list of crimes in exchange for broader international cooperation.

• There is concern about the endless list of new crimes and the inadequate safeguard measures.

Topics: Convention Protocols, International Law

---

Report

The UK has displayed a multifaceted and discerning perspective on various proposals linked to international conventions and cooperative frameworks. This stance shines through in their contingent approval and specific recommendations for legislative refinement. Initially, the UK positively acknowledges the chair’s efforts as constructive steps forward in international cooperation, epitomising their dedication to collaborative diplomacy (related to UN Instruments and International Cooperation topics).

Nonetheless, alongside this commendable outlook, the UK harbours a definitive negative stance when it comes to hastening negotiations for additional protocols before the Convention becomes operational (pertaining to Convention Protocols and International Law topics). The UK insists that an expansive catalogue of crimes may weaken the effectiveness of international law and argues the current negotiations lack robust safeguard measures crucial for maintaining the integrity of international cooperation.

Conversely, the UK advocates for a broader scope of international cooperation with the proviso of incorporating fitting legal safeguards. They suggest safeguards should be universally applied to all facets of international collaboration, as indicated in their advocacy for Article 24 (under the topics of Legal Safeguards and International Cooperation).

However, they criticise the current draft’s safeguards in Article 59 for only echoing international human rights law and failing to enhance the protective measures originally intended. Despite these concerns, the UK takes a constructive approach, demonstrating openness to considering alternative proposals centred on internationally recognised grave crimes.

This illustrates their willingness to pursue functional solutions in line with the principles outlined in UNTOC and categorisation of crimes under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Moreover, the UK endorses the inclusion of New Zealand’s non-discrimination clause in Article 35 of a pertinent convention, reinforcing this stance with precedents from the UN Convention on Terrorist Financing.

This advocacy aligns with their commitment to fostering equality and fortifying legal frameworks, as envisioned in both SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. To conclude, the UK’s approach illuminates a comprehensive attitude towards international legal and cooperative mechanisms.

It highlights a preference for solid, principled frameworks that promote global peace and justice while exercising caution against precipitate or inadequately thorough legal infrastructures. The UK’s readiness to recommend amendments and support specific proposals showcases its dedication to contributing positively to the formation of effective and fair international legal norms.

Report

Madam Chair, the Tanzanian delegation is fervently committed to reaching a consensus on the revised text of the proposal, showcasing their dedication through their willingness to make substantial concessions. They are particularly intent on balancing a universally acceptable text with the sharing of electronic evidence in serious crime cases, indicating this as a high priority.

Content with the current drafts of Articles 3, 5, 23, and 24, the Tanzanians view them as a fair compromise between various interests and are staunchly opposed to any further amendments which could disrupt the established scope of these articles. They demonstrate a desire for a stable and definitive agreement, particularly in their acceptance of Paragraph 3 within Article 35, albeit with no further amendments, due to concerns of the novel extension of domestic law protections potentially encroaching upon national legal autonomy.

While they have rejected the amendments put forward by New Zealand and Canada, considering them to be counterproductive to the consensus, they share in the diplomatic precedents of previous international instruments on non-discrimination, aligning with the stance of the UK delegate.

They argue against the misuse of international cooperation mechanisms in criminalising certain rights, citing that the dual criminality safeguard in Paragraph 4 of Article 35 is already sufficient and supports a conduct-based approach, allowing states to decide independently on cooperation requests in adherence to their own legal standards.

The Tanzanian delegation is willing to consider amendments related to qualifications of serious crimes and the sharing of electronic evidence, as proposed by Australia. This illustrates their willingness to address concerns while maintaining their critical objectives in criminal justice. In human rights issues, Tanzania staunchly opposes Canada’s proposal for altering the current provision, favouring an alternative proposed by Cuba and Zimbabwe that better integrates Articles 5 and 59.3 with the established international legal consensus.

Moreover, they are in agreement with CARICOM for the inclusion of the provision in any part of the convention, specifically endorsing Paragraph 5b. In summary, Tanzania’s approach to the discussions has been constructive and pragmatic, ensuring a balance between flexibility and fundamental principles.

They advocate for a collaborative outcome that integrates critical protections whilst respecting the legislative sovereignty of each participating nation.

Report

Madam Chair, the delegation from Vanuatu commends your leadership and the Vice-Chairs in progressing towards a consensus on the convention text. We underscore the need for a balance that facilitates robust yet equitable implementation. Concerns about extensive criminalisation and possibly intrusive measures within the draft have been noted.

We stress the imperative for strong safeguards to mitigate risks and clarify the convention’s interpretations. We support New Zealand’s proposal to strengthen the international cooperation chapter by integrating safeguards from Article 37, Paragraph 17, into Article 35. Vanuatu endorses New Zealand, the EU, and Canada’s perspectives, specifically on Articles 59 and 60 and the revision of Article 3.3, praising Canada’s commitment to a collaborative compromise.

We caution against discussions on further protocols or proposals at this stage, advocating focus on finalising the current text. In closing, we thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair, and reaffirm our dedication to a globally agreed-upon convention that is just and implementable by all member states.

Thank you.

Report

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and esteemed delegates. I wish to commence by expressing our profound gratitude to you, Madam Chair, and your dedicated team, for their unwavering endeavours in drafting a text for the convention that takes into account the varied views of all involved parties.

The intricacies of this undertaking are recognised, particularly considering the time constraints we face. Nevertheless, there’s confidence in our united capability to deliver a text that gains universal endorsement. Examining the details of the proposed package, we encounter varied responses.

Certain elements, chiefly those concerning balance and the deployment of safeguards, have sparked reservations. They are perceived as precipitate and could hinder the Convention’s practical applicability, specifically in addressing offences within the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Article 59 stands out as being unprecedented and, to a great extent, redundant, given the comprehensive scope of safeguards in Article 5 and related articles.

While there are components of the proposal that merit a thorough review and potential revision, the necessity for compromise stands paramount during this final session. In this context, the alternative proposal from the Cuban delegation merits our attention. It presents a promising compromise and could serve as a unifying element among diverse stances.

Turning to the individual articles, Article 35 has stirred up lively discussions. There’s an appreciation for its specific reference to ‘serious offences’, but also a consensus, supported by various delegations, for the removal of the latter part of Subparagraph C. The worry is that this might restrict the Convention’s future applicability and adaptability to the ever-evolving nature of technology-related crimes.

Concerning the essential topic of protocols, there’s unanimity regarding their necessity within the convention. Given the specialised nature of cybercrime and our goals for this convention, protocols are not merely advantageous but imperative. They equip us with a definitive structure and guidance, facilitating the implementation and actualisation of the convention’s directives.

To sum up, this summary not only encapsulates the principal arguments and evidence presented but also mirrors the diplomatic ethos central to this process. It encompasses our gratitude towards the Chair’s guidance, the acknowledgement of building consensus, and the constructive analysis of specific articles.

This showcases our joint dedication to formulating a resolution that’s competent in tackling ICT crimes and considerate of the parties’ diverse interests. Thank you, Madam Chair, for spearheading this pivotal discussion.

Arguments

Yemen appreciates efforts made for consensus

Supporting facts:

• Yemen expressed thanks to the Chair for efforts in reaching consensus

Topics: Diplomacy, International Relations

---

Yemen identifies discrepancies between the convention text and domestic law

Supporting facts:

• The rule of law and national sovereignty are affected

• Some domestic laws have existed for years

Topics: National Sovereignty, Domestic Law and International Conventions

---

Yemen acknowledges respect for human rights but points out contextual differences

Supporting facts:

• States that all countries respect human rights

• Notes that some rights may be seen as violations in some countries

Topics: Human Rights, Cultural Differences

---

Yemen opposes certain paragraphs on human rights in the convention

Supporting facts:

• Wants deletion of paragraph 35.3 and 59.3

• Highlights the criminalization of publishing intimate pictures as important

Topics: Human Rights Legislation, International Conventions

---

Yemen suggests a legal solution to align domestic law and the convention

Supporting facts:

• Questions if discrepancies can be solved in the final provisions

• Asks for the adoption of a legal text to resolve conflicts

Topics: Legal Framework, Treaty Compliance

---

Report

Yemen has actively participated in sessions related to diplomacy, international relations and has showcased its commitment to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 16, which aims for peace, justice, and strong institutions. Initially, Yemen began on a positive note by thanking the Chair for their significant efforts in reaching a consensus, indicating readiness to cooperate constructively in international dialogues.

However, the nation raised concerns over the balance between national sovereignty and international conventions. Yemen expressed a negative sentiment about the convention text, drawing attention to the conflict between established domestic laws and the stipulations of international agreements. This reflects the challenge of upholding national legal systems while adhering to international treaty commitments.

On the topic of human rights and cultural differences, Yemen maintained a neutral stance by recognising the universal commitment to human rights and acknowledging that cultural variations may lead to different interpretations of these rights. This highlights the need for a nuanced approach in promoting human rights dialogue across diverse legal and cultural backgrounds.

Yemen has clearly objected to specific human rights legislation sections, particularly paragraphs 35.3 and 59.3, calling for their deletion. This opposition emphasises concerns about the compatibility of such provisions with Yemen’s domestic laws, particularly around the criminalisation of publishing intimate images.

Yemen’s stance echoes the broader challenge of aligning national legal frameworks with international human rights conventions. In a constructive manner, Yemen has suggested establishing a legal resolution to these discrepancies by calling for a legal text to be included in the convention’s final provisions, indicating a proactive and forward-looking approach to treaty compliance and legal reconciliation.

Yemen’s alignment with other countries seeking the deletion of the contentious human rights paragraphs underscores a collective pursuit of consensus during the session and the need for a unified interpretation and application of international legal standards. In summary, Yemen’s involvement in the sessions underscores the intricate relationship between cooperation and discord in the realm of international agreements, diplomacy, and human rights.

While Yemen values the consensus-building efforts, it also staunchly defends its national sovereignty and the importance of harmonising international conventions with its longstanding domestic legislation. The proposed legal solutions showcase Yemen’s intent to achieve international unity while respecting both global norms and local traditions.

The summary has been checked for UK spelling and grammar, and corrected accordingly.