Pavlina Pavlova, Christopher Painter
In July, the United Nations Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) reached consensus on a permanent mechanism to address responsible state behavior in cyberspace. Following six rounds of time-bound groups of governmental experts (GGEs) and two open-ended working groups (OEWGs), this new process under the First Committee—addressing disarmament and international security—will commence in March 2026 with an organizational session at the UN headquarters in New York.
The single-track “Global Mechanism” was agreed upon with relative ease after no delegation broke consensus on the third draft presented by the chair as a compromise package. The swift decision reached in the morning of July 11 stood in sharp contrast to several years of last-minute suspense preceding each interim report, created by Iran and Russia’s insistence that their views be featured more prominently.
At first glance, multilateralism defied the odds on the cybersecurity issue amid a challenging geopolitical situation. The surprise agreement recalled a similar moment less than a year ago, in which the Ad Hoc Committee successfully negotiated the first UN cybercrime convention.
Consensus agreements, though, come at a price. The underlying friction, caused by two competing proposals—the Programme of Action, led by France, and Russia’s call for a binding cybersecurity treaty—was largely left unresolved. The official name of the permanent mechanism is the “Global Mechanism on developments in the field of ICTs in the context of international security and advancing responsible State behaviour in the use of ICTs”—a mouthful even for senior diplomats. Similarly, the UN Convention against Cybercrime has an addition to its name: “strengthening international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of ICT systems and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crime.” These verbose titles are not accidental. Today, consensus-based decision-making at the UN arises not from a shared vision or reasonable compromise but, rather, from the accommodation of opposing views—often reflected in lengthy titles—that make the implementation of agreed commitments difficult, if not impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment