Legal Aspects of Cybersecurity Artur Appazov

6.4
 
Harmonization of Laws 
Many countries have elements of the legal enabling environment addressing cybersecurity 
and cybercrime, but these national legal frameworks vary widely in terms of the manner in 
which these issues are addressed.
138
In today’s globalized world, the law consists of a 
multitude of national, regional and international legal systems. Interactions between these 
systems occur at multiple levels. As a result, provisions sometimes contradict each other, 
leading to collisions of law, or fail to overlap sufficiently, leaving jurisdictional gaps. These 
differences between national laws lead to the question of whether, and if so, how far, 
national legal differences in cybercrime laws can and should be reduced. In other words, 
how important is it to harmonize cybercrime laws? This can be undertaken in a number of 
ways, including through both binding and non-binding international or regional initiatives. 
The basis of harmonization may be a single national approach (with all others revising 
their laws in line), or, more often, common legal elements identified in the law of a number 
135
Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime xxiii-xxiv. 2013. 
136
B
RENNER
, Cybercrime and the Law: Challenges, Issues, and Outcomes 127-138. 2012. 
137
Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime xxiv. 2013. 
138
Satola & Judy, W
ILLIAM 
M
ITCHELL 
L
AW 
R
EVIEW
, 1758 (2011). 

---

41 
of states, or expressed within a multilateral instrument – such as a treaty or non-binding 
international standard.
139
One of the main arguments in favor of unification of laws across jurisdictions is to avoid 
safe havens and penalty havens for perpetrators. Thus, if harmful acts involving the 
internet are criminalized, for example, in State A, but not in State B, a perpetrator in State B 
can be free to target victims in State A via the internet. In such cases, State A cannot, on its 
own, effectively protect against effects from such transnational activities. Even where its 
criminal law allows the assertion of jurisdiction over the perpetrator in State B, it will still 
require consent or assistance from State B – either regarding the gathering of evidence, or 
the extradition of the identified perpetrator. In order to protect persons within its own 
jurisdiction, State B is unlikely to assist where the conduct is not also criminalized in its 
own country.
140
Harmonization can also allow for global evidence collection. The harmonization of 
procedural law is a second indispensable requirement for effective international 
cooperation. In the above example, if State B does not have the necessary procedural power 
for expedited preservation of computer data, for instance, then State A will not be able to 
request this facility through mutual legal assistance. In other words, a requested state can 
only provide assistance within its territory, to the extent that it could do so for an 
equivalent national investigation.
141