The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime,¹ referred to as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, has been diffused globally, and is serving as a benchmark or a ‘model law’ for drafting national cybercrime legislation in many countries worldwide. This paper argues that, through the mechanism of ‘state socialization’ combined with incentives, e.g. assistance in building law enforcement capacity, the diffusion of the Budapest Convention has had a profound influence on the development of cybercrime legislation in a number of Pacific Island Countries (PICs).² Some PICs have expressed their great interest in acceding to the Convention and ‘imported’ several provisions from the Convention. This article, nevertheless, contends that these PICs do not seem to consider carefully whether the ‘imported’ law is applicable to their existing law enforcement capacity. It is evident that various domestic factors, such as lack of resources, have deterred the enforcement of cybercrime laws in these countries. As the result, although those PICs would have adequate cybercrime laws ‘on the books’, ‘law in action’ is still feeble.

欧洲理事会公约关于网络犯罪，¹简称布达佩斯网络犯罪公约，已在全球扩散，并作为标杆或起草全球许多国家的国家网络犯罪立法“示范法”。本文认为，通过“国家社会化”机制与激励措施相结合，例如在建立执法能力方面的援助，《布达佩斯公约》的传播对许多太平洋岛国的网络犯罪立法的发展产生了深远的影响（ PIC）。²一些事先知情同意组织对加入《公约》和从《公约》“引进”一些条款表示了极大的兴趣。但是，本文认为，这些事先知情同意似乎并未仔细考虑“进口”法律是否适用于其现有的执法能力。显然，各种国内因素，例如缺乏资源，已经阻止了这些国家执行网络犯罪法律。结果，尽管这些PIC在账簿上拥有适当的网络犯罪法律，但“行之有效的法律”仍然微不足道。