A/CONF. 187/3 40. Another problematic crime trend brought about by 43. Few if any countries could accept the erosion of many of these technologies is the fact that transnational national sovereignty inherent in applying the conventional activities are no longer limited to"organized crime"in the rule of law elements on an international basis, but there traditional sense. New technologies are generally limited have been some attempts to move in that direction. Recent to large and affluent organizations at first, but usage agreements for the transnational control of drug-trafficking becomes more widespread as the technologies become and the ongoing negotiations on a convention against established and the costs decrease. This will make it easier transnational organized crime are attempts to ensure that for individuals to commit transnational crimes. This can pre-existing, clear, comprehensive legal rules will be already be seen in the use of telephones, fax machines and available to deal with transnational offenders. The goal is the Internet to commit fraud and other economic crimes. to ensure that, in dealing with a particular transnational Computers and the Internet have also made it possible to crime problem, all jurisdictions have effective offences create, conceal and transmit information that is the subject that offenders cannot avoid liability and that rules are of domestic criminal offences because of its offensive sufficiently consistent in all places to deter offenders from content. Some of these crimes involve traditional choosing jurisdictions on the basis of the lowest risks or organized crime" but many do not, and this trend is likely highest potential rewards. International standards and to continue in the future norms for law enforcement, prosecutors and judges also 41. These trends in transnational crime are problematic represent an attempt to ensure that all States adopt because new opportunities for such crime have been relatively consistent practices with respect to the created and the costs and risks to offenders have generally independence ofjudges and other officials, equality before decreased, although the costs and obstacles facing trans- the law and the protection of legal and other rights in the national investigations and prosecutions have not. The criminal p of new technologies by large organized crime groups can 44. These efforts are a significant step forward, but the be dealt with, albeit at some cost, by committing additional are likely to face several major challenges in the future investigative resources to the problem and forging better Firstly, while transnational crime control mechanisms such systems for international cooperation in major cases. The as legal assistance and extradition are being modernized commission of larger numbers of less serious transnational they are based on the assumption that caseloads will be offences by individuals and smaller groups could pose a small compared with purely domestic prosecutions. These more serious problem because countries and agencies may systems may be difficult to adjust if in future a larger be unwilling or unable to commit the resources required for proportion ofcrime involves transnational elements. There such things as mutual legal assistance and extradition in are compelling reasons why formal cooperation must go hose cases through central authorities, for example, but this adds to 42. This raises a number of implications for the rule of delays and limits the volume of cases that can be dealt with law in criminal justice systems. In the strict sense outlined without increasing resources. As new technologies make above, the rule of law does not exist as a crime control the commission of transnational crimes by bothindividuals mechanism at the international level 3 there is no inter- and groups easier, an increase in volume is likely to occur national legislation that creates conventional offences and 45. Secondly, technological development tends to create criminal procedures applicable to individuals in the same new criminal opportunities, and hence new forms ofcrime sense as domestic criminal laws do. International agree- quickly and unpredictably. The fast evolution of crime has lents perform a legislative function to some degree, but already generated pressure on domestic legislators to this is generally directed only at individual criminality ensure that criminal laws keep pace, and the same pres- after interpretation and implementation by domestic legal sures will arise in the international community. Interna authorities. Governments retain the ultimate right to repu- tionally, however, the logistical and political difficulties diate agreements and have the choice, subject to negotia- are greater. Where domestic legislatures usually have clear tion of reservations, to opt out of provisions they find and reasonably efficient powers, making international law particularly problematic. In individual cases, such things requires achieving near consensus on new measures among as extradition and mutual legal assistance are also a large number of disparate countries. The amendment of generally subject to State discretion, which is ultimately existing measures is also more difficult and time- ercised on political, not legal ground consuming at the international level. These factors will make it much more difficult for the international com-A/CONF.187/3 10 40. Another problematic crime trend brought about by many of these technologies is the fact that transnational activities are no longer limited to “organized crime” in the traditional sense. New technologies are generally limited to large and affluent organizations at first, but usage becomes more widespread as the technologies become established and the costs decrease. This will make it easier for individuals to commit transnational crimes. This can already be seen in the use of telephones, fax machines and the Internet to commit fraud and other economic crimes. Computers and the Internet have also made it possible to create, conceal and transmit information that is the subject of domestic criminal offences because of its offensive content. Some of these crimes involve traditional “organized crime” but many do not, and this trend is likely to continue in the future. 41. These trends in transnational crime are problematic because new opportunities for such crime have been created and the costs and risks to offenders have generally decreased, although the costs and obstacles facing trans￾national investigations and prosecutions have not. The use of new technologies by large organized crime groups can be dealt with, albeit at some cost, by committing additional investigative resources to the problem and forging better systems for international cooperation in major cases. The commission of larger numbers of less serious transnational offences by individuals and smaller groups could pose a more serious problem because countries and agencies may be unwilling or unable to commit the resources required for such things as mutual legal assistance and extradition in those cases. 42. This raises a number of implications for the rule of law in criminal justice systems. In the strict sense outlined above, the rule of law does not exist as a crime control mechanism at the international level.3 There is no inter￾national legislation that creates conventional offences and criminal procedures applicable to individuals in the same sense as domestic criminal laws do. International agree￾ments perform a legislative function to some degree, but this is generally directed only at individual criminality after interpretation and implementation by domestic legal authorities. Governments retain the ultimate right to repu￾diate agreements and have the choice, subject to negotia￾tion of reservations, to opt out of provisions they find particularly problematic. In individual cases, such things as extradition and mutual legal assistance are also generally subject to State discretion, which is ultimately exercised on political, not legal grounds. 43. Few if any countries could accept the erosion of national sovereignty inherent in applying the conventional rule of law elements on an international basis, but there have been some attempts to move in that direction. Recent agreements for the transnational control of drug-trafficking and the ongoing negotiations on a convention against transnational organized crime are attempts to ensure that pre-existing, clear, comprehensive legal rules will be available to deal with transnational offenders. The goal is to ensure that, in dealing with a particular transnational crime problem, all jurisdictions have effective offences, that offenders cannot avoid liability and that rules are sufficiently consistent in all places to deter offenders from choosing jurisdictions on the basis of the lowest risks or highest potential rewards. International standards and norms for law enforcement, prosecutors and judges also represent an attempt to ensure that all States adopt relatively consistent practices with respect to the independence of judges and other officials, equality before the law and the protection of legal and other rights in the criminal process. 44. These efforts are a significant step forward, but they are likely to face several major challenges in the future. Firstly, while transnational crime control mechanisms such as legal assistance and extradition are being modernized, they are based on the assumption that caseloads will be small compared with purely domestic prosecutions. These systems may be difficult to adjust if in future a larger proportion of crime involves transnational elements. There are compelling reasons why formal cooperation must go through central authorities, for example, but this adds to delays and limits the volume of cases that can be dealt with without increasing resources. As new technologies make the commission of transnational crimes by both individuals and groups easier, an increase in volume is likely to occur. 45. Secondly, technological development tends to create new criminal opportunities, and hence new forms of crime, quickly and unpredictably. The fast evolution of crime has already generated pressure on domestic legislators to ensure that criminal laws keep pace, and the same pres￾sures will arise in the international community. Interna￾tionally, however, the logistical and political difficulties are greater. Where domestic legislatures usually have clear and reasonably efficient powers, making international law requires achieving near consensus on new measures among a large number of disparate countries. The amendment of existing measures is also more difficult and time￾consuming at the international level. These factors will make it much more difficult for the international com-