Which countries have no specific laws criminalizing possession of child sexual abuse material in 2025?
Executive summary
Two recent global reviews disagree on the headline count but converge on the core finding: as of the most recent public reports, a small minority of countries still lack laws that specifically criminalize child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and a much larger number either lack clear definitions or do not criminalize mere possession irrespective of distribution intent [1] [2]. The sources do not publish a country-by-country list in the supplied excerpts, so precise identification of which states lack specific possession laws cannot be confirmed from the provided material [1] [2].
1. What the question is asking and why it matters
The user asks which countries do not have specific laws criminalizing possession of child sexual abuse material in 2025; that is a request for a country-level inventory of legal gaps focused on possession (as distinct from production, distribution or generic child sexual abuse laws), a distinction that matters because many statutes target production/distribution while leaving possession ambiguous or unaddressed [1] [3].
2. What the major, recent reviews report
The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) reported that only 10 countries “still do not have legislation dealing specifically with CSAM” in its global review summary, and it also noted that among countries with partial laws many lack precise definitions, technology-specific provisions, or criminalization of simple possession [1]. Another presentation of the same project or related RESPECT summary reports a different headline—saying 16 countries lack legislation that deals specifically with CSAM—while repeating the finding that many countries with some laws fail to define CSAM or criminalize simple possession [2].
3. Important nuance: possession versus related gaps
Both sources stress that counting “laws against CSAM” masks three distinct problems: some countries have no CSAM-specific statute at all; some have statutes that fail to define CSAM or address online/technology-enabled offenses; and many criminalize distribution but not simple possession regardless of intent—ICMEC’s data indicate dozens of countries fall into these latter categories (for example, among the subset of countries with some legislation, a substantial share did not criminalize simple possession) [1] [2]. Independent summaries and legal surveys published earlier also document historical waves of legislative change—showing improvements since the 2000s but persistent variation across jurisdictions [4] [3].
4. Why the headline numbers diverge and why a definitive 2025 list is not provided here
Discrepancies between “10” and “16” reflect differences in methodology, the cutoff date for law changes, and whether reviewers count generic pornography/child abuse statutes that are not CSAM-specific; the supplied excerpts do not include a country-by-country annex or the legal criteria used to classify each state, so the supplied sources cannot be used to produce a reliable, up-to-date list of the exact countries lacking possession offenses in 2025 [1] [2] [5]. Additionally, regional and international instruments push states to criminalize possession, but ratification and domestic implementation timelines vary, and some sources group together “possession” with other offences, obscuring clarity [3].
5. Bottom line and what reliable follow-up requires
Based on the provided reporting, a small number of countries—on the order of roughly 10–16 as of the cited global reviews—lack CSAM-specific legislation, and many more do not criminalize mere possession or do not define CSAM clearly; however, the exact names of those countries are not available in the excerpts given, so generating an authoritative, current list for 2025 would require accessing the full ICMEC/RESPECT country annexes or comparable up-to-date legal surveys [1] [2] [4]. Readers should treat headline counts as indicators of scale and consult the primary datasets or national legal texts for jurisdictional certainty.