Which countries lack laws specifically criminalizing possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as of 2025?
Executive summary
There is no single, up‑to‑date global list in the provided reporting that names every country that lacks specific laws criminalizing possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM); major reviews show substantial gaps and variation across jurisdictions [1] [2]. INHOPE’s 2024 legislative mapping covers 61 countries and highlights inconsistencies — including places where CSAM is not explicitly illegal or legality “depends on context” — but does not present a comprehensive world list of non‑criminalizing states [3] [4].
1. What the big data projects actually say: partial inventories, not a world map
Authoritative projects track national CSAM law but none of the sources provided publishes a definitive list of all countries that do not criminalize possession. ICMEC’s Model Legislation review tallies presence and absence across 196 countries and reports that many countries still lack adequate CSAM laws; it documents that of the 62 countries surveyed in a category, large proportions do not criminalize possession independent of distribution or define CSAM clearly [1] [2]. INHOPE’s Global CSAM Legislative Overview maps 61 countries and flags legal discrepancies and six EU member states where “such material is not illegal” according to its EU‑focused review, but that is not the same as a global list of non‑criminalization [3] [4].
2. Legal gaps are often about definition and scope, not an absolute “legal vacuum”
Many states have laws that address some CSAM‑related conduct while omitting other elements: ICMEC finds that among its coded sample, 51 of 62 countries did not specifically define CSAM, 25 did not address technology‑based offenses, and 38 did not criminalize mere possession regardless of intent to distribute [2] [1]. That means the absence most commonly lies in narrow drafting — outdated terms, exclusions for digital or AI‑generated images, or possession requiring proof of distribution intent — rather than every country lacking any prohibitions at all [1] [2].
3. European Union nuance: member states differ, and EU proposals won’t instantly harmonize law
Recent EU negotiations over an EU‑level Child Sexual Abuse Regulation drew attention to national differences; INHOPE’s EU materials note six member states where “such material is not illegal” in certain readings (Austria, Finland, Hungary, Denmark, Romania, Slovakia) and several where legality “depends on context” [4]. Council positions in late 2025 strip mandatory scanning requirements but do not alter the fact that national criminal law remains the primary mechanism for outlawing CSAM possession — and any EU regulation will take time and inter‑institutional bargaining to change national criminal codes [5] [6].
4. Why simple headlines mislead: different metrics and purposes
Reports serve distinct aims: ICMEC’s Model Legislation provides a menu for lawmakers and measures “adequacy”; INHOPE’s overview supports hotlines and cross‑border takedown cooperation; EU press pieces focus on regulatory tools such as platform scanning [1] [3] [5]. Comparing their numbers without accounting for methodology produces contradictory impressions. For example, a headline that “X countries lack CSAM possession laws” may conflate countries that lack any prohibition with those whose statutes are narrow, outdated, or limited to distribution — a distinction the sources emphasize [2] [1].
5. What reporters can reliably say — and what remains unconfirmed
From available sources you can reliably say: global monitoring projects find many countries with incomplete or inadequate CSAM laws; significant numbers do not define CSAM clearly or criminalize possession irrespective of distribution intent [2] [1]. What the sources do not provide is a complete, sourced list naming every country that entirely lacks a criminal prohibition on CSAM possession in 2025 — that specific global roster is not in the cited materials [1] [3].
6. Policy implications and competing viewpoints
Advocates for stronger harmonized laws press for clearer definitions, possession offenses, and technology‑aware drafting; privacy and civil‑liberties groups worry about intrusive enforcement measures such as mandatory scanning that could erode encryption and privacy [2] [7] [8]. EU state debates illustrate this tension: member states recently backed away from forcing platforms to perform mandatory scanning while continuing efforts to tighten protections and victim support — showing both consensus on the problem and sharp disagreement over enforcement tools [5] [8].
Limitations: these conclusions rest solely on the supplied sources; they do not attempt an independent, country‑by‑country legal survey beyond what ICMEC and INHOPE report. Available sources do not mention a single, authoritative global list enumerating countries that lack CSAM‑possession criminalization in 2025 [1] [3].