The United Nations General Assembly has recently approved a new international treaty aimed at combating cybercrime, which has sparked significant controversy due to its implications for child protection laws. This treaty, finalized last Friday after three years of deliberations, has been introduced largely at the behest of European nations but has drawn criticism from many conservative countries.
As cybercrime concerns grow globally, the UN member states have worked on this new treaty, which ostensibly targets various aspects of online criminal activities. However, it has been criticized for potentially legalizing certain forms of child pornography that were previously deemed illegal. The treaty includes provisions for the criminalization of the creation, distribution, and possession of materials deemed to involve “child sexual abuse,” yet it also contains exceptions supported by the United States and the European Union. These exceptions have led to concerns about the legalization of specific forms of child pornography.
Numerous delegations, including those from Nicaragua, Niger, Djibouti, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Iraq, Guatemala, Mali, Tanzania, Venezuela, Thailand, Syria, Burkina Faso, Paraguay, Senegal, Morocco, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, and Zimbabwe, have voiced their dissatisfaction with the treaty’s provisions. They argue that the legal exceptions could undermine efforts to protect children and create significant loopholes.
The U.S.’s support for these controversial provisions is notable, given its previous strong stance against child pornography. Just 25 years ago, the U.S. played a leading role in establishing stringent anti-child pornography measures in the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which set important standards for combating child sexual exploitation.
This is not the first time that the UN has faced criticism over its approach to child protection issues. In the past, UNICEF faced backlash for a report that controversially suggested “porn can be good for children,” which was later retracted under intense pressure.
Proponents of the treaty’s exceptions argue that they will not harm children and criticize the convention for mandating the criminalization of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. They contend that the new standards should allow for certain consensual and private exchanges, framing the debate around personal rights and privacy rather than solely child protection.
Critics, however, are alarmed by the treaty’s shift away from prioritizing child integrity and instead focusing on consensual and privacy aspects. They argue that the treaty’s approach could undermine existing safeguards and open the door to new forms of exploitation.
A representative from the Austrian delegation defended the treaty, stating that adolescents over 14 should have the autonomy to engage in consensual relationships and share images within those relationships. The representative argued that such images, if part of a legal and voluntary relationship, should not be criminalized.
The treaty’s implications are far-reaching, potentially allowing minors to create, distribute, and possess visual, written, or audio content depicting child sexual abuse, as long as it does not involve actual children or genuine abuse. This shift could result in a fragmented approach to child protection, varying significantly between countries.
As the global community grapples with these changes, the controversy surrounding the treaty highlights ongoing debates about child protection, privacy, and the evolving landscape of international cybercrime legislation.