• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Harmonisation and Cybercrime Jurisdiction: Uneasy Bedfellows? An analysis of the jurisdictional trajectories of the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention 
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Harmonisation and Cybercrime Jurisdiction: Uneasy Bedfellows? An analysis of the jurisdictional trajectories of the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Harmonisation and Cybercrime Jurisdiction: Uneasy Bedfellows? An analysis of the jurisdictional trajectories of the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Harmonisation and Cybercrime Jurisdiction: Uneasy Bedfellows? An analysis of the jurisdictional trajectories of the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention

    View/Open
    PhD final (2.139Mb)
    Publisher
    Queen Mary University of London
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This thesis examines the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention and suggests there is a structural imbalance: while improving the procedures for investigating cybercrimes, it has failed to address the prosecutorial complexities and disputes resulting from multijurisdictional cybercrimes, by following the usual trend of ‘suppression’ conventions. This trend is to expand the procedural mechanisms through which States can acquire evidence in relation to the ‘suppressed’ offences, while suggesting that State Parties adopt broad rules in relation to criminal jurisdiction. These procedural powers have provided powerful tools for policing cybercrime, and the Convention has been innovative by developing mechanisms for facilitating networking interactions between law enforcement, and on most interpretations, even providing for directly contacting foreign service providers for data. The traditional limitations of enforcement jurisdiction are gradually being transformed, but the resulting difficulties for jurisdictional concurrency are not appreciated. Given the malleability of the concept of ‘territoriality’, and the flexibility afforded in international law in its interpretation, seizures of jurisdiction over many cybercrimes have sometimes been on the most tenuous of grounds. This results in a problem of concurrent jurisdiction on a scale previously unseen in the context of other transnational offences. It is often assumed that once substantive criminal harmonisation occurs, jurisdictional conflict between States dissipates, but I highlight three areas where concurrency is beginning to generate difficulties: investigatory and prosecutorial negotiations, cybercrime extraditions, and the law relating to ne bis in idem. I argue that these problems are only going to be exacerbated given the inroads that are being made in investigative powers and enforcement jurisdiction, coupled with the global reach of cybercrime which brings more and more States into play. I provide both the theoretical and practical case for more refined approaches towards the concept of territoriality, and consider some of the potential mechanisms for dealing with these uneasy bedfellows in the Cybercrime Convention.
    Authors
    O'Flynn, Micheál Aaron
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/9548
    Collections
    • Theses [3831]
    Copyright statements
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.