Published On: September 19th 2025
Authored By: Abhinav Dwivedi
The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
Abstract
International organizations are striding into the world of digital development at an incredible pace. In this rapidly changing landscape, they are well-positioned to form significant parts of the rules regarding regulatory futures of the new world in view of advancing technology going hand-in-hand with regulatory standards for the new world. International organizations, such as the United Nations, International Telecommunication Union, and World Trade Organization, and regional organizations, including the European Union and NATO, all serve in unique places in shaping global policies on digital governance. The study discusses critical issues of the above organizations related to cybersecurity, data privacy, internet governance, and digital inclusivity with regard to the challenge of normalization between national regulatory differences and geopolitics. A comprehensive analysis of this study reveals growing fragmentation in digital governance, casting an illuminating light on the complexity of innovation and regulation balance. It looks at these efforts further in developing partnerships for cooperation among multi stakeholders, promoting equitable access to digital technologies, and creating shared global standards. The study concludes with strategic policy recommendations aimed at strengthening international cooperation, harmonization of digital governance frameworks, and ensuring that policies regarding digital technologies are inclusive, secure, and adaptable to the fast pace of technological change characteristic of the 21st century.
Keywords: Digital governance, international organizations, cybersecurity, global policies, data privacy, digital economy.
Introduction
Global digital governance is about creating rules, standards, and practices in regulating the digital ecosystem. Transformative technologies like AI, blockchain, and Internet of Things are integrated with unprecedented opportunities related to innovation, economic growth, and societal progress. [1]These benefits, however, come with tough issues: advanced cybersecurity threats, propaganda/ disinformation campaigns, differential access to internet and other digital resources, and protection of privacy. Efforts to address these issues demand harmonized and all-encompassing frameworks for governance that will respect individual national sovereignty. The digital space totally transformed the mechanisms of societies. Smart devices now abound in nearly every place, high speed internet access is common, and digital technologies are part of the critical infrastructure in most aspects of society. This makes societies and nations highly interdependent across the world. This connectedness has increased vulnerabilities, however. Cyberattacks, data breaches, and all manner of malicious activities perpetrated on digital platforms have gathered a storm over the security and stability of the digital ecosystem. According to the International Telecommunication Union, a 2022 report also indicates that cybercrime was expected to result in losses of over $6 trillion annually in the world by 2025[2]. The need for robust governance mechanisms is obvious.
International organizations have recently emerged as critical actors in shaping global digital governance policies. These organizations are a mid-stage and standard-setting body that enables cross-border cooperation but also seeks to address common challenges faced globally through the creation of norms, frameworks, or regulations. Their influence cuts across cybersecurity, digital trade, privacy and data protection, and ethical issues regarding emerging technologies. It was the UN that pioneered initiatives for the norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace, and the EU that, through its General Data Protection Regulation, set a global benchmark for data protection.[3]Digital governance therefore transcends legal control over technology to bigger questions of social and moral concerns. Ensuring a more balanced online-to-offline flow, bridging the digital divide, and promoting fair access to opportunities through this digital domain falls under governance. Still, for most people, around 3 billion, this web of advantage does not reach them; they are the ones residing in the developing regions of the world. Global organizations, governments, and private enterprise have to fill this gap.
The multistakeholder nature, which characterizes the digital ecosystem, requires diverse actors, such as governments, private companies, NGOs, and civil society. It therefore becomes a system requiring much broader, more open, transparent, and adaptive governance models. For instance, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), launched by the UN as a dialogue and cooperation avenue involving different stakeholders, 5 serves as an example of this multi stakeholder approach. Initiatives such as these prove the importance of collaborative work to address the various issues and complexities surrounding digital governance.Historical development has informed the way digital governance has evolved. One of the earliest stages in modern governance frameworks was marked by the establishment of the ITU in 1865 for international telecommunications. On the threshold of the 20th century, the emergence of the internet raised entirely new dimensions in governance, with the creation of institutions such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for overseeing critical internet infrastructure. The World Summit on the Information Society in 2003 and 2005 again emphasized further international cooperation in addressing the opportunities and challenges to be taken up by the information society.[4]Despite these, much is yet to be done. Differences in regulatory requirements in areas, as well as political and geographical issues, all contribute to the rate at which the technology evolves and forms barriers for a more united management. For instance, in extolling it for the panoramic view on data protection, the GDPR also brings to the fore of light the challenge of reconcile law at different regional levels with different legal and cultural backgrounds. [5]Similarly, on the rise of technologies in geopolitics, wherein U.S.-China competition of who is in control of this high ground in the quest for technological supremacy has brought more dimensions of complexity in governance efforts.[6]
This paper addresses the influence of international bodies on policies of digital governance along mediators, norm-setters, and enablers of global cooperation. It starts with proposing a discussion over history of the global governance of digital issues, delving into key milestones and significant developments that have shaped it. It goes further to trace specific contributions of leading international organizations, such as the UN, ITU, WTO, EU, and NATO, highlighting efforts in matters such as cybersecurity, digital trade, and data privacy. It has also narrowed down on some of the big hurdles facing governance frameworks harmonization and gives insight into what the future strategy offers to foster more inclusive and cohesive global governance.
Historical Context of Global Digital Governance
Early Efforts at Digital Policy Coordination
Emergence of digital technologies in the late 20th century changed communication, commerce, and governance around the globe. The change was transformative, but it raised questions related to data security, privacy, and jurisdictional differences.[7] These challenges were the precursors of early efforts at coordination over digital policy, which focused on collaboration between governments, businesses, and international organizations in forming frameworks for managing the digital domain.
Initial Challenges
The decentralized and borderless nature of the internet presented several difficulties for policymakers. Governance mechanisms designed for physical territories could hardly be applied to a virtual environment where information flows are freely allowed across borders. The discussion was dominated by issues including intellectual property protection, cybersecurity issues, and cross-border data flows.[8] Governments understood the need for international cooperation to avert fragmentation of regulatory approaches, which would only serve rights-related litigation instead of the intended facilitation of innovation and global trade.
OECD and International Standards
One of the oldest multilateral initiatives has come from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which published its Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data in 1980. These guidelines included some basic principles for data privacy, such as individual consent and data minimization, and were drawn upon by other national laws, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.[9]
The OECD equally played a marvelous role in handling issues to do with cybersecurity. To begin with, at the beginning of the 1990s, the institution gathered experts with an aim of formulating principles on information security management. Such measures would work to reinforce trust among burgeoning digital networks by compelling states to honor best practices without imposing much regulation that would strangle innovation.
United Nations and Digital Inclusion
The UN also framed the initial phases of digital policy coordination, perhaps most importantly with the WSIS in 2003 and 2005.[10] WSIS aimed to bridge the digital divide by promoting access to ICTs in developing countries; it also addressed critical issues around internet governance, underlining the importance of inclusive and equitable participation in managing global digital resources.
Roles of Regional Organizations
Regional organizations also moved toward digital policy coordination. The European Union, for example, took the lead in setting up integrated digital frameworks like early directives on e-commerce and regulations on data protection. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, established initiatives on secure electronic transactions and data flows across borders while consulting with member economies.
Public-Private Partnerships
The private sector would come to play an important role in its development and maintenance. Early policies focused on public-private partnerships. Companies such as Microsoft and IBM took part in international discussions around cybersecurity and data governance.[11] Organizations such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) showed the multistakeholder model at work – bringing governments, businesses and civil society together to manage the critical internet infrastructure[12].
Legacy and Lessons
These early efforts laid the basis for the policy frameworks existing in contemporary digital times. The frames not only could strike a balance between issues of privacy, security, and access but also lay down the foundation for more complex agreements in the digital age.[13] However, they also pointed out long-lasting challenges for which range from an attempt at global accord to struggles relating to national sovereignty in the face of international cooperation.
While the early years of digital policy coordination were undoubtedly disparate and fragmented approaches, they did highlight a critical necessity: that dialogue and cooperation at all levels form the best way to manage the manifold complexities of this interdependent world. Digital policies today continue to evolve and build on these foundational efforts while navigating a constantly changing global landscape.
Different forms of International organizations and its analysis
1. Milestones in International Collaboration
International cooperation has been an integral part of mastering the complex, borderless problems created by digital technologies. Over these years, there has been a long series of milestones on the landscape of coordinated global action on digital policy, from the cybersecurity framework to models of inclusive internet governance.
The OECD Guidelines on Privacy (1980)
The OECD published its Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data in 1980. These established fundamental principles for protecting personal data, as well as cross-border transfers of data. They became the model for national laws, among which are the European Union’s directives on data protection.[14]
Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (2001)
The Council of Europe adopted the Convention on Cybercrime, more popularly known as the Budapest Convention, in 2001. It is the first international treaty that defined a number of crimes including hacking, fraud, and child exploitation by means of computer and telecommunication networks. It established cooperation between countries in investigation and prosecution.[15]
World Summit on the Information Society (2003–2005)
It staged the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in two phases: bridging the digital divide and an inclusive internet. From this, we get the Geneva Declaration of 2003, which points out access to information and communication technologies as the driver for development, and then the Tunis Agenda of 2005, which introduced multistakeholder internet governance[16].
Creating the Internet Governance: ICANN (1998)
In 1998, ICANN was established to oversee internet infrastructure-critical resources, such as top-level domain names and IP addresses. It also implemented a multistakeholder approach that brings governments, businesses, and civil society together on internet technical standards to yield global cooperation.[17]
European Union General Data Protection Regulation (2016)
The GDPR, passed in 2016, marked a new phase in global data protection policy. Although a EU law, its extra-territorial reach ensured that any organisation processing the data of EU citizens was within scope, so their best practice across the world was affected.[18]
Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace (2018)
In 2018, France initiated the Paris Call to develop international rules for security in cyberspace, including against malicious cyber activities and building trust amongst nations. It reflected the commitment of states, private sector players, and civil society organizations in a collaborative framework[19].
The United Nations Open-Ended Working Group on Cybersecurity (2019)
This was an initiative under the UN with the aim of institutionalizing norms and confidence building measures in cyberspace. It was, however, a huge stride in pushing for international consensus on issues such as cyber sovereignty and state responsibility in cyberspace.[20].
2. Shift Toward Multistakeholderism
Digital technologies sparked a new change in governance methods leading to the adoption of a multistakeholder approach. This involves cooperation between governments, private sector actors, civil society, and technical communities on policies applicable to the digital ecosystem. Multistakeholderism came forth from the dynamic challenges of managing a borderless internet and equal participation in governance.
Origin of Multistakeholder Governance
An offshoot of this concept was the formation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in 1998, which ended the internet’s domain name system combined with its technical management. [21]This corporation had integrated into its structure input from diverse stakeholders; it was no longer the control of governments only. Such a governance model meant finding a way to balance technical efficiency with inclusivity.
Tunis Agenda and WSIS (2005)
The multistakeholder approach was officially recognized in 2005 by the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, an important outcome of WSIS. [22]It explicitly recognizes the roles of governments in public policy, the private sector in technical and economic development, and civil society in promoting inclusiveness and accountability. Such an agenda provides a foundation upon which to discuss internet governance through internet governance forums like the IGF.
Establishing the Internet Governance Forum (2006)
The IGF was conceived in 2006 as a multi stakeholder platform for dialogue on internet governance issues under the auspices of the United Nations. It is not like a treaty-based organization because it has no binding authority and produces open discussions among governments, businesses, technical experts, and civil society. It is an important place to advance the multistakeholder principles.[23]
Private Sector and Civil Society
The private sector was the key driving force behind multistakeholder governance, particularly with regard to technical standards and cybersecurity practice. ISOC and standards-setting bodies like the IETF were the embodiment of consensus-based multistakeholder principles in practice. [24]Organizations that fell into this category included Access Now and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, representing active efforts on behalf of user rights, digital inclusion, and privacy protection.
NetMundial Declaration (2014)
The NetMundial conference in São Paulo, Brazil, was a great landmark in codifying multistakeholderism. In the declaration it agreed on, it stated that governance of the internet should be inclusive, collaborative, and transparent. It strengthened the roles of all stakeholders involved in the shaping of global digital policies, especially in relation to privacy, security, and human rights.[25]
Multistakeholderism in Global Cybersecurity Norms
The idea continued into cybersecurity, where multistakeholderism shapes initiatives such as the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace (2018). The Paris Call encourages a diverse array of stakeholders in order to establish voluntary norms and prevent malicious cyber activities and build trust in cyberspace.
The Role of Key International Organizations
There have been important international organizations that have contributed to the establishment of digital policy, along with some specific advice and influence that each may carry. Their contributions have been applied in internet governance, cybersecurity, and data protection.
United Nations (UN)
The United Nations has played its role in providing much dialogue and general principles on digital governance. WSIS was a two-phase event, 2003 and 2005, addressing the global digital divide in information terms by ensuring broad participation in internet governance.r̥[26] The WSIS mandate established the Internet Governance Forum, further institutionalizing multistakeholderism. In addition to this, the UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on cybersecurity has moved closer to building a set of agreed-upon norms for state activity in cyberspace.Because it is a specialized UN agency, ITU plays a critical role in the technical and regulatory aspects of digital communication. These include developing global standards for telecommunications, spectrum allocations, and access to ICTs in developing countries.[27] The ITU’s Global Cybersecurity Agenda, introduced in 2007 would initiate international cooperation on areas of cybersecurity policy development.The OECD has taken a leadership role in establishing principles for privacy, data protection, and cybersecurity. Its Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1980) were indeed among the first global frameworks for data privacy.[28] The OECD has also published cybersecurity guidelines on a “culture of security” for its member states.
Council of Europe
The Budapest Convention of 2001 is the only international treaty to date with respect to cybercrime. It also provides minimum standards for national legislation and cooperation for prosecuting cybercrimes[29].ICANN oversees the internet’s DNS and the allocation of IP addresses and therefore is at the heart of internet governance. Its multistakeholder strategy has been emulated by a multitude of organizations as the standard model of collaborative governance[30].APEC has also prepared frameworks on the protection of cross border data flows in security. Its Privacy Framework (2005) provides interoperability for privacy laws among the member economies while fostering trade and innovation.[31]
European Union (EU)
The EU has been leading the world in policy on issues relating to the digital and particularly issues of personal data and privacy. The General Data Protection Regulation implemented in 2016 has been used as a template globally to influence laws and practices beyond Europe.[32]
Every international organization has played a part in the development of digital policy with its unique mandates and domains of expertise. They tapestry an initiative and framework to defeat challenges posed by the multifaceted complexity of the digital age.
Key Challenges in Global Digital Governance
The borderless nature of the internet, the speed of technological change, and the diversity of geopolitical, economic, and social interests challenge governance in the digital realm. These appear to be manifested in sovereignty, cybersecurity, data privacy, access, and jurisdiction, thus complicating efforts to create cohesive global frameworks.
Sovereignty and Jurisdiction
International law is based on the sovereignty principle, but the digital environment challenges this traditional exercise of territorial jurisdiction. States are no longer able to take control of activities such as data flows, cyberattacks, or intellectual property violations spread across borders[33]. For instance, competing demands over the application of laws like the United States’ Cloud Act and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in cases outside a state’s borders reflect tensions between national sovereignty and global interoperability.[34]
Cybercrime
Cybercrime is increasing in its instances and by the complexity level, in which there are malicious activities like ransomware attacks, cyber espionage, and critical infrastructure targeting. The international frameworks, such as Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, are put in place to discuss cybercrime; however, the inability to come to a consensus agreement with regards to what state action should be in cyberspace, makes it difficult to effectively govern.[35] United Nations Open-Ended Working Group and the Group of Governmental Experts yet cannot come to an agreement on binding norms with regard to responsible state activities in cyberspace.
Data Privacy and Protection
Exponential growth in data collection and processing puts significant questions before the users regarding privacy and security.The regulatory framework is largely jurisdiction-specific, varying extensively in different regions. While the European Union has rather stringent regulatory frameworks in the form of GDPR, other regions like the United States rely on a sectoral approach. It makes such across-the-border businesses and the individuals operating them face many difficulties.[36] There have been few success stories for the harmonization of data protection laws. This is because these laws and rules contain characteristics of different cultural and political philosophies.
Access and the Digital Divide
Global disparities in access to information and communication technologies heightened inequality between developed and developing countries. The future of equity in internet access remains with financial, infrastructure, and policy gaps under the impetus of those initiatives taking the lead on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The efforts of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) created the emphasis for inclusivity, but huge hurdles still exist in achieving equitable participation in the digital economy[37].
Fragmentation of Internet Governance
Because there is no single, overarching governing authority over the internet, it is difficult to avoid fragmentation in which diverse interests often find their way to conflicting regulatory regimes.This trend is reinforced by diverging approaches to internet governance, with some states favoring multi stakeholder models like that of ICANN and others advocating for state-centered control, such as ITU proposals.[38]
Problems in the Process of Developing and Implementing Normativity
Global digital governance frameworks depend heavily on voluntary agreements and soft law mechanisms, like the NetMundial Principles and the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace.[39] While there is a push toward cooperation, in a nonbinding sense, such initiatives are notably less enforceable than one might like. Geopolitical tensions have a tendency to fuzz the norm-setting on top of this: the major powers often diverge on approaches to such forums, either between the United Nations and the G20, or even within one, depending on the level of leadership.
The development of a practical and integrative digital governance framework remains a challenging project. Relations between national interests and the global status of the internet create further challenges for international actions in this area.
Emerging Trends and Policy Recommendations
International organizations are increasingly shaping global digital governance, responding to technological evolution, geopolitical shifts, and rising cyber threats. These organizations influence digital policy by developing norms, promoting cooperation, and addressing challenges such as cybersecurity, privacy, and access inequities.
Emerging Trends
● Expansion of Multistakeholder Models
The multistakeholder approach, championed by organizations like ICANN and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), is expanding into broader areas of digital policy, including cybersecurity and digital inclusion. This model emphasizes collaborative governance involving states, businesses, civil society, and technical experts. Notably, the *NetMundial Principles* and the IGF’s annual meetings reflect efforts to embed inclusivity and transparency in governance discussions.[40]
● Fragmentation of Internet Governance
The internet governance landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented as nations assert sovereignty over digital spaces. Initiatives such as China’s Great Firewall and Russia’s Sovereign Internet Law challenge the global, open nature of the internet.[41] This trend has spurred debates in forums like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) over state versus multistakeholder control of the internet.
● Focus on Cybersecurity Norms
Global cybersecurity efforts have gained momentum, with frameworks like the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime serving as a foundation. However, there is a push for new norms addressing state-sponsored cyberattacks, critical infrastructure protection, and cross-border cooperation. The United Nations Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) and Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) have facilitated important discussions on these issues[42].
● Rising Influence of Regional Organizations
Regional organizations, such as the European Union and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), are increasingly shaping global digital norms. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has influenced privacy laws worldwide, while APEC’s Privacy Framework supports cross-border data flows in the Asia-Pacific region[43].
● Integration of Development Goals
Digital governance is being aligned with sustainable development initiatives, particularly the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.[44] Access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) is recognized as essential for achieving global equity, fostering economic growth, and bridging the digital divide.
Policy Recommendations
● Strengthen Multilateral Cooperation
International organizations should encourage collaboration among states and stakeholders through binding agreements and consensus-building forums. For instance, efforts like the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace could be expanded to include enforcement mechanisms[45].
● Harmonize Regulatory Frameworks
To mitigate fragmentation, international bodies should promote harmonized standards in areas such as data privacy and cybersecurity. The OECD’s guidelines on privacy and security offer a basis for developing interoperable frameworks that respect regional diversity while supporting global interoperability.
● Prioritize Capacity Building
Capacity-building initiatives should focus on developing digital infrastructure and governance capabilities in developing countries. This could include expanding ITU’s efforts to provide technical assistance and fostering knowledge-sharing through multistakeholder forums.[46]
● Enhance Accountability Mechanisms
International organizations should establish mechanisms to ensure compliance with digital governance norms. These could include peer review processes, public reporting, and financial incentives for adherence to standards.
● Encourage Public-Private Partnerships
Public-private collaborations should be expanded to leverage the technical expertise and resources of the private sector. Initiatives like ICANN’s multistakeholder model demonstrate the potential of such partnerships in addressing global challenges.
● Focus on Ethical AI Development
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes integral to global digital systems, international organizations must develop ethical guidelines. UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence is a starting point for global discussions on responsible AI use[47].
This structured analysis addresses the evolving influence of international organizations on global digital governance and offers practical recommendations for future policy-making.
Conclusion
As the digital landscape continues to transform at an unprecedented pace, international organizations are poised to play a critical role in crafting governance policies that not only balance innovation with regulation but also address the complexities of a highly interconnected world. The influence of these organizations in areas such as cybersecurity, data protection, internet governance, and equitable access to technology underscores their importance in creating frameworks that are robust, inclusive, and forward-looking.
While significant strides have been made in establishing foundational principles and fostering multilateral cooperation, challenges such as regulatory fragmentation, divergent national priorities, and escalating geopolitical tensions continue to impede cohesive global governance. The lack of uniformity in legal frameworks across jurisdictions, coupled with rising digital nationalism, threatens the open and interoperable nature of the internet. Addressing these issues demands a concerted global effort that not only navigates the intricacies of state sovereignty but also bridges the gaps between developed and developing economies.To effectively govern the digital realm, a multipronged approach is essential. Strengthening multistakeholder collaboration remains paramount, ensuring that voices from governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical communities are equally represented in decision-making processes. Harmonized standards must be prioritized to mitigate fragmentation, with international organizations playing a leading role in fostering interoperability while respecting regional diversity. Initiatives such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and frameworks like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provide valuable templates for creating adaptable and scalable solutions.
Moreover, capacity-building efforts should be intensified, particularly in regions that remain marginalized in the global digital economy. Ensuring equitable access to technology and fostering digital literacy are not just ethical imperatives but also strategic necessities for sustainable development. International organizations, leveraging their expertise and resources, are uniquely positioned to bridge these divides and foster a more inclusive digital ecosystem.
Through harmonized standards, inclusive policymaking, and sustained global cooperation, the international community can build a governance framework that not only safeguards the rights and security of individuals but also fosters innovation and economic growth in an increasingly digital world. This collective effort will be instrumental in realizing the vision of a secure, open, and equitable digital future.
References
[1] International Telecommunication Union, About ITU: History (2023), available at https://www.itu.int/en/about/.
[2] International Telecommunication Union, Global Cybercrime Losses Report (2022).
[3] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) [hereinafter GDPR].
[4] United Nations, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) (2005), available at https://www.itu.int/wsis/.
[5] Clyde Wayne Crews, U.S.-China Tech Rivalry and the Implications for Global Governance (2021).
[6] Clyde Wayne Crews, U.S.-China Tech Rivalry and the Implications for Global Governance (2021).
[7] Org. for Econ. Co-operation & Dev. [OECD], Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1980).
[8] Org. for Econ. Co-operation & Dev. [OECD], Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks: Towards a Culture of Security (2002).
[9] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU) (on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data).
[10] World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva Declaration of Principles, U.N. Doc. WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E (Dec. 12, 2003).
[11] See generally Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), https://www.icann.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
[12] Council Directive 2000/31/EC, 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1 (EC) (on electronic commerce).
[13] Milton L. Mueller, Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance 89–114 (2010).
[14] Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data* (1980)
[15] Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, E.T.S. No. 185.
[16] World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva Declaration of Principles, U.N. Doc. WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E (Dec. 12, 2003); Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, U.N. Doc. WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev.1)-E (Nov. 18, 2005).
[17] Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), https://www.icann.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
[18] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU).
[19] Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, Nov. 12, 2018, https://pariscall.international/en/.
[20] U.N. Open-Ended Working Grp. on Developments in the Field of Info. & Telecomms. in the Context of Int’l Sec., U.N. Doc. A/RES/73/27 (Dec. 5, 2018).
[21] Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), https://www.icann.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
[22] Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, U.N. Doc. WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev.1)-E (Nov. 18, 2005).
[23] U.N. Sec’y-Gen., Mandate for the Internet Governance Forum, U.N. Doc. A/60/112 (July 5, 2005).
[24] Eng’g Task Force [IETF], https://www.ietf.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024); Internet Soc’y [ISOC], https://www.internetsociety.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
[25] NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement, São Paulo, Brazil, Apr. 23–24, 2014, https://netmundial.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
[26] World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva Declaration of Principles, U.N. Doc. WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E (Dec. 12, 2003). – Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, U.N. Doc. WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev.1)-E (Nov. 18, 2005). – U.N. Open-Ended Working Grp. on Developments in the Field of Info. & Telecomms. in the Context of Int’l Sec., U.N. Doc. A/RES/73/27 (Dec. 5, 2018).
[27] Int’l Telecomm. Union [ITU], *Global Cybersecurity Agenda* (2007), https://www.itu.int (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
[28] Org. for Econ. Co-operation & Dev. [OECD], *Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data* (1980). – Org. for Econ. Co-operation & Dev. [OECD], *Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks: Towards a Culture of Security* (2002).
[29] Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, E.T.S. No. 185.
[30] Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), https://www.icann.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024)
[31] Asia-Pac. Econ. Cooperation [APEC], *APEC Privacy Framework* (2005).
[32] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU).
[33] Data Clarification Act to Lawful Cross-Border Transfer of Data, Pub. L. No. 115-141, § 103, 132 Stat. 348, 1213 (2018).
[34] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU).
[35] Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, E.T.S. No. 185.
[36] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU).
[37] World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva Declaration of Principles, U.N. Doc. WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E (Dec. 12, 2003).
[38] Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), https://www.icann.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024). – Federal Law No. 90-FZ, On the Sustainability of the Russian Internet, Apr. 24, 2019 (Russ.).
[39] NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement, São Paulo, Brazil, Apr. 23–24, 2014, https://netmundial.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, Nov. 12, 2018, https://pariscall.international/en/.
[40] NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement, São Paulo, Brazil, Apr. 23–24, 2014, https://netmundial.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
[41] Federal Law No. 90-FZ, On the Sustainability of the Russian Internet, Apr. 24, 2019 (Russ.).
[42] U.N. Sec’y-Gen., Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security, U.N. Doc. A/76/135 (July 14, 2021).
[43] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU).
[44] U.N. Gen. Assembly, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, U.N. Doc. A/RES/70/1 (Sept. 25, 2015)
[45] Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, Nov. 12, 2018, https://pariscall.international/en/.
[46] Int’l Telecomm. Union [ITU], *Global Cybersecurity Agenda* (2007), https://www.itu.int (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
[47] UNESCO, *Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence* (2021), https://unesdoc.unesco.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2024). Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
