Plenary 6

Hashtag: #eurodig_pl6

A secure and non-fragmented cyberspace: rule of law in a cross-border environment

Referring to proposal no.: 11, 16, 20, 27, 28, 50, 56, 71, 75, 88
Find here the list of submitted proposals

Organising team / focal point: Oliver J. Süme, EuroISPA

Key participants:

Moderator: Oliver J. Süme, EuroISPA

Reporter:  Tatiana Tropina, Max-Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law

Remote participation moderator: Farzaneh Badii, Hamburg University

Description / key focus:

  • Handling cybersecurity in a multi-stakeholder manner
  • Intermediaries and law enforcement
  • Rule of law and other frameworks

The issue of fighting cybercrime and maintaining cybersecurity nowadays goes far beyond the discussion on how to investigate or prevent crime in a digital environment. An extremely complex ecosystem of securing cyberspace includes constantly growing number of international and national actors (both public and private) linked to the information infrastructure networks and services. The new emerging threats and legal, technical and policy responses to the cybersecurity problems in a cross-border environment raise broader concerns on how to avoid fragmentation of Internet along national boundaries to cope with those challenges.The session is going to consider cybersecurity from this broader perspective of universal, secure and non-fragmented cyberspace.

The key issues to be discussed at the Plenary 6 are:

  • Institutional frameworks for cybersecurity (including multi-stakeholderism)
  • Rule of law and legal frameworks, including self- and co-regulatory frameworks in a cross-border environment, law collision
  • The issue of intermediaries (including ISPs, global service providers, platforms and others) in a cybersecurity ecosystem
  • Universality of Internet and non-fragmentation
  • Safeguards and human rights



…find out more on the WIKI here


  1. Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime provides a good basis to avoid conflicting legal frameworks for cybersecurity and the fragmentation of the Internet. It can be considered as a starting point for a global multi-stakeholder dialogue to achieve global commitments on fighting cybercrime. Internet governance therefore could be seen as one of the keys to continue promoting the Convention on Cybercrime and encourage more governments to support and sign this important framework.
  2. Though Cybercrime Convention is a potentially good instrument for harmonizing fragmented approaches, capacity building in a multi-stakeholder environment is one of the key challenges in cross-border cyberspace. Collaboration between public and private parties shall go beyond the issues of the role of the ISPs in fighting cybercrime and consider all possible intermediaries, including platforms, global service providers, e-commerce provides and other entities.
  3. Proper and harmonised legal frameworks, capacity building and confidence building measures should complement each other. It also should be taken into account that some issues, such as illegal content removal, are still very far from the point where consensus can be reached, and there are no legal instruments for real harmonization of approaches. Thus, to avoid the fragmentation of the cyberspace, all the stakeholders involved should work together on how to handle the issues when national legal frameworks differ significantly.

Read the transcript here!