The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Fragmentation of International Cybercrime Law
Abstract
Cybercrime is global. But legal approaches to combating cybercrime have been fragmented. The first such multilateral legal mechanism, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, was launched in 2001 and positioned by its primarily Western drafters as a global instrument. But it has struggled to achieve full international uptake. Instead, many states have used regional organizations to create their own legal mechanisms addressing cybercrime and cybersecurity threats. More recently, the UN Convention on Cybercrime has emerged as an alternative to this fragmented landscape. But the emergence and significance of this “convergent” option cannot be understood without the context of the deep fragmentation that preceded it. This Article examines that fragmentation. In doing so, it also offers the first law review analysis of all regional cybercrime conventions together. Through this comparative legal analysis of the texts, this piece establishes that multilateral mechanisms for governing cybersecurity and cybercrime are divergent. It then categorizes the approaches taken, providing structured ways of viewing differences between the conventions’ details. Three distinct views of cybercrime and cybersecurity emerge: an ordinary crimes approach, a high politics approach, and a domestic management approach. The Article argues that each region leverages its chosen approach in service of the concept of sovereignty its member states prioritize in the international system, both online and offline. These broader political goals help explain the high degree of fragmentation in this issue area. These cybercrime conventions were never just about cybercrime. The stakes are higher: these conventions are tools in contesting the broader political global order, a contestation that informs what is now happening at the United Nations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In classifying internet regulations as restrictive, I take a broad approach based on reports by CSOs, which may be particularly cautious of new government interventions in cyberspace.118”
From Legalizing control: the rise of restrictive internet regulation in sub-Saharan Africa (2026) · cites this paper as [118]
Citations
Cites
1 INT'L ORG. 513
(n.d.)
Unresolved10 AM. J. INT'L L. 425
(n.d.)
Unresolved10 J. NAT'L SEC. L. & POL'Y 677
(n.d.)
Unresolved10 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REv. 369
(n.d.)
Unresolved103 GEO. L. J. 317
(n.d.)
Unresolved103 IOWA L. REv. 985
(n.d.)
Unresolved107 Nw. U. L. REv. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved11 PACE INT'L L. REV. 309
(n.d.)
Unresolved110 AM. J. INT'L L. 425
(n.d.)
Unresolved117 YALE L.J. 1236
(n.d.)
Unresolved128 YALE L. J. 328
(n.d.)
Unresolved128 YALE L.J. F. 818
(n.d.)
Unresolved137 HARv. L. REV. 2
(n.d.)
Unresolved15 EUR. J. INT'L L. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved15 INT'L J. CONST. L. 671
(n.d.)
Unresolved15 LEIDEN J. INT'L L. 553
(n.d.)
Unresolved16 EUR. J. INT'L L. 369
(n.d.)
Unresolved16 NEw CRIM. L. REv. 203
(n.d.)
Unresolved16 OHIO ST. TECH. L. J. 395
(n.d.)
Unresolved160 U. PA. L. REV. 995
(n.d.)
Unresolved2 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L L. 61
(n.d.)
Unresolved2 J. CONFLICT RESOL. 3
(n.d.)
Unresolved20 BRITISH J. POL. & INT'L REL. 239
(n.d.)
Unresolved2001 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 103
(n.d.)
Unresolved23 CRIM L.F. 275
(n.d.)
Unresolved25 MICH. J. INT'L L. 849
(n.d.)
Unresolved25 MICH. J. INT'L L. 963
(n.d.)
Unresolved26 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 225
(n.d.)
Unresolved27 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 279
(n.d.)
Unresolved28 YALE L. J. 328
(n.d.)
Unresolved29 J. AFRICAN L. 72
(n.d.)
Unresolved3 ASIAN J. INT'L L. 237
(n.d.)
Unresolved3 CRIM L.F. 275
(n.d.)
Unresolved3 OSGOODE HALL L. J. 171
(n.d.)
Unresolved3 U. DAYTON L. REV. 201
(n.d.)
Unresolved3 VA. J. INT'L L. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved3 YALE J. INT'L L. 63
(n.d.)
Unresolved30 INT'L ORG. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved32 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L L. 61
(n.d.)
Unresolved33 YALE J. INT'L L. 63
(n.d.)
Unresolved34 EUR. J. INT'L L. 7
(n.d.)
Unresolved36 INT'L ORG. 325
(n.d.)
Unresolved37 CAN.-U.S. L.J. 405
(n.d.)
Unresolved37 HARv. L. REV. 2
(n.d.)
Unresolved38 WORLD POL. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved4 AM. J. INT'L L. 866
(n.d.)
Unresolved4 EUR. J. INT'L L. 7
(n.d.)
Unresolved4 WORLD POL. 466
(n.d.)
Unresolved4 YALE J. INT'L L. 115
(n.d.)
Unresolved40 INT'L ORG. 753
(n.d.)
Unresolved40 MONASH U. L. REV. 698
(n.d.)
Unresolved40 STAN. J. INT'L L. 211
(n.d.)
Unresolved40 STAN. J. INT'L L. 283
(n.d.)
Unresolved42 J. CONFLICT RESOL. 3
(n.d.)
Unresolved43 OSGOODE HALL L. J. 171
(n.d.)
Unresolved43 U. DAYTON L. REV. 201
(n.d.)
Unresolved43 VA. J. INT'L L. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved44 WORLD POL. 466
(n.d.)
Unresolved44 YALE J. INT'L L. 115
(n.d.)
Unresolved46 INT'L ORG. 37
(n.d.)
Unresolved47 INT'L ORG. 387
(n.d.)
Unresolved47 YALE J. INT'L L. ONLINE 71
(n.d.)
Unresolved48 GEO. J. INT'L L. 735
(n.d.)
Unresolved48 STAN. J. INT'L L. 319
(n.d.)
Unresolved49 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REv. 351
(n.d.)
Unresolved49 HARv. INT'L L.J. 323
(n.d.)
Unresolved5 AM. J. COMP. L. 677
(n.d.)
Unresolved5 EUR. J. INT'L L. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved5 INT'L J. CONST. L. 671
(n.d.)
Unresolved5 TEMP. L. REV. 617
(n.d.)
Unresolved5 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 283
(n.d.)
Unresolved51 INT'L ORG. 513
(n.d.)
Unresolved52 B.C. L. REv. 1147
(n.d.)
Unresolved52 INT'L ORG. 887
(n.d.)
Unresolved52 VA. J. INT'L L. 839
(n.d.)
Unresolved54 BUFF. L. REV. 1013
(n.d.)
Unresolved55 AM. J. COMP. L. 677
(n.d.)
Unresolved55 VA. J. INT'L L. 291
(n.d.)
Unresolved55 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 283
(n.d.)
Unresolved58 INT'L ORG. 277
(n.d.)
Unresolved6 AM. J. INT'L L. 973
(n.d.)
Unresolved6 EUR. J. INT'L L. 369
(n.d.)
Unresolved6 FED. CoMM. L.J. 143
(n.d.)
Unresolved6 INT'L ORG. 325
(n.d.)
Unresolved6 INT'L ORG. 37
(n.d.)
Unresolved6 NEw CRIM. L. REv. 203
(n.d.)
Unresolved6 OHIO ST. TECH. L. J. 395
(n.d.)
Unresolved60 STAN. L. REV. 595
(n.d.)
Unresolved61 COLUM J. TRANSNAT'L L. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved61 HARv. INT'L L. J. 185
(n.d.)
Unresolved7 AM. J. INT'L L. 782
(n.d.)
Unresolved7 E. ASIA L. REV. 161
(n.d.)
Unresolved7 HARv. L. REV. 2
(n.d.)
Unresolved7 INT'L ORG. 387
(n.d.)
Unresolved7 Nw. U. L. REv. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved7 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 279
(n.d.)
Unresolved71 STAN. L. REV. 1509
(n.d.)
Unresolved73 EMORY L.J. 1215
(n.d.)
Unresolved75 IND. L.J. 809
(n.d.)
Unresolved76 FED. CoMM. L.J. 143
(n.d.)
Unresolved78 N.Y.U. L. REv. 1596
(n.d.)
Unresolved8 GEO. J. INT'L L. 735
(n.d.)
Unresolved8 INT'L ORG. 277
(n.d.)
Unresolved8 J. NAT'L SEC. L. & POL'Y 473
(n.d.)
Unresolved8 WORLD POL. 1
(n.d.)
Unresolved8 YALE L. J. 328
(n.d.)
Unresolved84 AM. J. INT'L L. 866
(n.d.)
Unresolved9 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REv. 351
(n.d.)
Unresolved9 HARv. INT'L L.J. 323
(n.d.)
Unresolved9 J. AFRICAN L. 72
(n.d.)
Unresolved9 J. INT'L CRIM. JUST. 1089
(n.d.)
Unresolved90 FORDHAM L. REV. 737
(n.d.)
Unresolved95 TEMP. L. REV. 617
(n.d.)
Unresolved95 TEX. L. REV. 145
(n.d.)
Unresolved95 TEX. L. REV. 1639
(n.d.)
Unresolved96 AM. J. INT'L L. 973
(n.d.)
Unresolved97 AM. J. INT'L L. 782
(n.d.)
Unresolved97 MINN. L. REv. 743
(n.d.)
Unresolved
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Legalizing control: the rise of restrictive internet regulation in sub-Saharan Africa
Schumann, M. P. (2026) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2025.2503370 · Cited by 3
Islam, M. S. (2026) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers15070432 · Cited by 1
Muhammad, G. R., Marwiyah, S., Paramitha, V. N., & Hamdani, F. (2026) · Begawan Abioso · doi:10.37893/abioso.v17i2.1430
Metadata
- Authors
- Fidler, M.
- Corresponding author
- Fidler, Mailyn
- ORCID
- Fidler, Mailyn
- Venue
- Utah Law Review
- Publisher
- S.J. Quinney College of Law
- Published
- 2025
- Volume
- 2025
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0042-1448 (ISSN-L)
- 1942-8529
- OpenAlex
- W7119492490
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 118
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 7.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Utah law review (publishedVersion)
- eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
- University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- cybercrime legislation, Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, cybersecurity governance, multilateralism, state sovereignty, international order, comparative law
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
