Combating Cyberbullying Among Children: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan

Abstract

The paper compares legal mechanisms addressing child cyberbullying in Kyrgyzstan (KG) and Kazakhstan (KZ). Using doctrinal and comparative methods, we analyze statutes, regulations, and institutional practices, along with recent survey evidence on prevalence, reporting behavior, and institutional trust. KZ has established a comprehensive framework: it defines bullying and cyberbullying, imposes administrative liability (including parental liability for minors), strengthens criminal penalties for sustained harassment, implements a rapid content takedown procedure, and mandates school prevention programs with helpline support. KG relies on general protections of honor, dignity, and health; has recently reintroduced administrative fines for online insults and defamation; and issues ministry guidelines on school prevention, but lacks a specific legal definition or unified protocol. We find low trust in school remedies and underreporting in both countries, especially KG, while KZ’s new measures improve visibility and early responses but raise implementation issues (e.g., proof of “systematic” conduct, due-process safeguards for removal, tailored measures for child offenders). Both systems require a balanced mix of sanctions, prevention, and support. We recommend that Kyrgyzstan codify clear definitions and enforcement procedures, and that Kazakhstan refine enforcement, transparency, and restorative options.

1. Introduction

The growth of digital technologies has led to the emergence of a new phenomenon—cyberbullying, i.e., harassment of children and adolescents via electronic communications. This phenomenon is particularly harmful because aggressors can harass victims anonymously, around the clock, and abusive publications may persist online for a long time (Nukusheva et al. 2024). Global data indicate that a substantial share of young people experience cyberbullying: according to the 2019 UNICEF U-Report survey conducted in 30 countries, more than one-third of the world’s youth have been targeted, and 22% have experienced it repeatedly (Hsieh et al. 2021; Mjid 2019). Victims often suffer serious mental health consequences, including stress, depression, decreased academic performance, low self-esteem, and, in severe cases, suicidal thoughts and self-harm attempts. For example, in Kazakhstan in 2025, 139 children died by suicide, and nearly one in five of these tragedies was provoked by school bullying (Aladjina 2025). The Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Kazakhstan notes that bullying by peers is a trigger in 22% of child suicides (Aladjina 2025).

Central Asian countries are no exception to this global trend. National surveys show that 17.5% of children in Kazakhstan are periodically bullied, and 6.8% experience bullying 2–3 times per month, according to the 2023 National Survey on Bullying among Children conducted by the Ministry of Health (Abdrakhmanova 2024). In Kyrgyzstan, official statistics indicate that children aged 10–18 regularly face insults or bullying online, with more than one-third of young people considering cyberbullying and hate comments among the most serious online threats. Adolescents aged 15–16 are particularly vulnerable (StopBullying.gov n.d.). A study conducted by the Ombudsman Institute in 2025 found that more than 70% of respondents in Kyrgyzstan have encountered hate speech on social media, while over 60% have experienced it in messaging applications, with the highest number of reported cases occurring on Facebook (Skaley 2023; Kabar News Agency 2025). More than 60% reported bullying in school chats or groups, but only 19% were willing to report it to a teacher, preferring instead to seek help from parents or friends. These findings indicate a structural lack of trust in school-based remedies and the often-hidden nature of bullying incidents (StopBullying.gov n.d.; Skaley 2023).

The problem of cyberbullying is interdisciplinary, but this article focuses on legal mechanisms to combat the phenomenon among minors. The international community increasingly recognizes the need for a legal response: in the United States, 49 of 50 states have adopted anti-bullying laws (often including cyberbullying), requiring schools to implement policies and respond to complaints (Cyberbullying.org n.d.). Similarly, countries such as Sweden have had special rules protecting children from bullying for many years, with prevalence rates reportedly low around 4% (Clark 2013). These examples demonstrate that regulatory and legal recognition of bullying is an important prerequisite for effective protection. However, legislation alone is insufficient to address this phenomenon; an integrated approach combining legal responsibility, prevention, and educational measures is necessary.

The purpose of the article is to conduct a comparative legal analysis of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan regarding anti-bullying and cyberbullying measures, and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing laws and practices. The selection of these two countries is methodologically grounded in a most-similar systems design, widely used in comparative legal research to examine institutional variation under comparable structural conditions. Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan share a common post-Soviet legal heritage, similar constitutional and administrative frameworks, comparable trajectories of digitalization, and the same core international obligations, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This structural similarity provides a controlled comparative baseline.

Within this shared context, however, the two jurisdictions demonstrate different levels of regulatory institutionalization in addressing bullying and cyberbullying. Kazakhstan has developed more explicit legislative and policy mechanisms, whereas Kyrgyzstan continues to rely largely on fragmented or general legal provisions. This divergence enables a controlled comparison of how variation in legal development and monitoring capacity affects the implementation of child-protection obligations. Accordingly, the comparison serves not merely as a descriptive juxtaposition of two national systems, but as an analytically structured inquiry into how emerging digital societies institutionalize legal responses to cyberbullying.

The research questions are: What legal mechanisms are used in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan to combat cyberbullying among minors? What are the similarities and differences? What reforms could improve child protection?

Conceptually, the article advances a socio-legal institutionalization perspective on digital child protection. It argues that the effectiveness of legal responses to cyberbullying depends not only on statutory provisions but also on the development of monitoring architectures capable of producing reliable, disaggregated, and standardized data. The presence or absence of such data infrastructures reflects differing stages of institutionalization and directly affects states’ capacity to fulfill their positive obligations under international human rights law. By integrating empirical prevalence analysis with legal evaluation of monitoring and accountability mechanisms, the study proposes a framework for understanding cyberbullying governance in emerging digital societies.

The study hypothesizes that Kazakhstan has advanced further than Kyrgyzstan in forming a dedicated regulatory framework, introducing clear definitions, sanctions, and procedural mechanisms. In contrast, Kyrgyzstan’s protection remains fragmented, relying on general norms for protecting honor and dignity, along with laws on information harmful to children (Nukusheva et al. 2024; Abdrakhmanova 2024). It is expected that Kazakhstan may encounter practical challenges in implementing new laws (limited liability for child aggressors), whereas Kyrgyzstan faces gaps in clear mechanisms for responding to bullying cases. Based on these findings, recommendations for improving legal measures will be proposed, drawing on school surveys and international experience.

Beyond mapping national legal norms, this study advances a socio-legal institutionalization framework for analyzing regulatory responses to cyberbullying in emerging digital societies. By integrating doctrinal legal comparison with empirical prevalence data, the article examines how states transition from fragmented protective measures to more coherent and systemically integrated regulatory regimes.

The comparison is analytically structured as a quasi-experimental examination of divergent institutionalization pathways, conceptualized as relatively proactive and reactive models of regulatory development. On this basis, the study proposes a three-dimensional model of digital child protection that distinguishes between punitive (sanctions), preventive (education), and restorative (support) interventions as complementary components of effective governance.

The article offers a scalable analytical framework for understanding how legal codification, monitoring capacity, and policy coordination interact in the institutionalization of digital child-protection systems. The study, therefore, contributes to broader debates on regulatory adaptation, state responsibility, and data-driven governance in transitional legal systems confronting digitally mediated harm.

The article is structured as follows: the introduction presents the relevance and problem statement; the methodology outlines research approaches; the theoretical framework defines bullying and cyberbullying and provides international legal guidelines; the main section analyzes legislation in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan; the discussion compares approaches and effectiveness; the conclusion summarizes findings and provides recommendations; finally, references are listed.

2. Methodology

The research is based on the comparative legal approach to analyze the legislation and regulatory acts of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Kazakhstan, addressing bullying and cyberbullying. The main methods used are formal legal analysis (interpretation of laws, codes, and by-laws) and comparative techniques to examine each jurisdiction’s norms. To assess the effectiveness of these norms in practice, empirical data are incorporated, including findings from a study conducted by the Ombudsman Institute in 2025 on the prevalence of bullying and reporting behavior, which helps identify trends and enforcement gaps. This combined approach—examining both the “letter of the law” and empirical evidence—allows not only a de jure comparison of legal frameworks but also an evaluation of whether legal mechanisms meet the real needs of child protection.

The comparison focuses on several criteria: (1) existence of statutory definitions of bullying and cyberbullying; (2) types of liability (criminal, administrative, civil) for harassment; (3) victim protection procedures (e.g., content takedown, protective orders, hotlines); (4) preventive measures mandated by law (school responsibilities, parental involvement, educational programs); and (5) institutional mechanisms (competent authorities handling complaints).

Terminologically, bullying is understood as systematic harassment of a child by peers, involving intimidation and humiliation, accompanied by a power imbalance. Cyberbullying is defined as similar harassment conducted via electronic means (social networks, messaging apps, forums). This distinction aligns with international standards and is reflected in the legislation of several countries, including Kazakhstan, which now legally distinguishes between bullying and cyberbullying. Both phenomena are considered together, as the boundaries between offline and online aggression are increasingly blurred in the digital age: school bullying often extends into cyberspace.

Methodological limitations relate to the fact that the formal existence of legal norms does not guarantee effective implementation. Therefore, the discussion also considers law enforcement practices and social factors, such as schools’ tendencies to silence bullying incidents or cultural attitudes that downplay youth offenses. Based on this analysis, the study emphasizes recommendations aimed at improving both legislation and practical measures for child protection.

3. Bullying and Cyberbullying as a Legal Problem

Although bullying has traditionally been studied in psychology and education, in recent decades it has increasingly been conceptualized as a socio-legal phenomenon. This shift reflects growing recognition that bullying is not merely an interpersonal conflict among children, but a form of violence that infringes fundamental rights and requires institutional and legal responses.

In the scientific literature, bullying is commonly defined as intentional, repeated aggression carried out by one student or a group of students against a less powerful peer, accompanied by physical or psychological harm, humiliation, and degradation of the victim’s dignity. A defining feature of bullying is the imbalance of power, which prevents the victim from effectively defending themselves (StopBullying.gov n.d.; Skaley 2023).

Cyberbullying is generally conceptualized as the electronic form of traditional bullying that retains its core characteristics—intentional harm, repetition, and power asymmetry—but is carried out through online platforms and digital communication technologies (StopBullying.gov n.d.; Skaley 2023). The virtual environment introduces several aggravating factors, including the anonymity of aggressors, reduced empathy during online interactions, an unlimited audience of observers, and the long-term persistence of humiliating content on the Internet (StopBullying.gov n.d.; Cyberbullying.org n.d.). As a result, cyberbullying significantly expands the scope of abuse: whereas traditional bullying was often limited to school premises, online harassment may continue 24 h a day, following the child even into their home through smartphones or computers. This results in a situation in which the victim lacks a secure environment free from harassment, and psychological pressure becomes constant rather than episodic (StopBullying.gov n.d.).

At the international level, there is no single universal treaty explicitly devoted to bullying. However, the child’s right to protection from all forms of violence is firmly enshrined in international human rights law. In particular, Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (United Nations 1989) obliges States Parties to protect children from “all forms of physical or mental violence,” including abuse occurring in the digital environment (Clark 2013). Bullying and cyberbullying clearly fall within the scope of mental (and, in some cases, physical) violence against children.

In addition, international organizations such as the United Nations and UNESCO have emphasized the importance of legal regulation in addressing school violence. UNESCO’s report Behind the Numbers: Ending School Violence and Bullying 2019 (UNESCO 2019) demonstrates that countries with national anti-bullying legislation or policies tend to show lower prevalence rates of bullying, highlighting the preventive role of legal frameworks. Many states have therefore adopted special anti-bullying laws or incorporated liability for bullying and cyberbullying into broader legislation on harassment, defamation, or online abuse. In jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and several EU countries, cyberbullying is regulated through general legal provisions on harassment and digital misconduct (Clark 2013). In the United States, for example, schools are legally required to respond to bullying complaints, which has increased institutional accountability and visibility of the problem (StopBullying.gov n.d.).

For a long time, bullying was perceived primarily as a pedagogical or psychological issue, to be resolved through educational measures within families or schools. However, the growing number of severe cases—including those resulting in self-harm or suicide—has forced a reconsideration of this approach. Researchers increasingly argue that legal recognition of bullying and cyberbullying is essential for effective prevention and response. The consolidation of these concepts at the legislative level allows such acts to be formally recognized as unlawful, enables the application of sanctions, and provides victims with enforceable protection mechanisms (Clark 2013). Moreover, legal regulation creates a basis for interinstitutional cooperation, including the involvement of educational authorities, law enforcement bodies, child protection services, and cooperation with Internet service providers to remove harmful content.

At the same time, current scholarship emphasizes the importance of a balanced and non-exclusively punitive approach. Excessive reliance on repression may be counterproductive, as aggressor children themselves often require psychological support and behavioral correction (The Village Kazakhstan 2025). Consequently, contemporary anti-bullying strategies increasingly rely on an integrated model that combines:

(1) legal sanctions for the most serious cases and to prevent impunity; (2) preventive and educational measures, aimed at fostering a culture of intolerance to violence and training all participants in the educational process in nonviolent interaction; and (3) institutional support mechanisms, such as school mediation services, psychological counseling, helplines, and restorative practices.

Such a three-pronged approach is reflected in the anti-bullying policies of a number of countries, particularly in Europe, where disciplinary measures are combined with restorative justice practices (mediation sessions and reconciliation circles) and active involvement of students in addressing school violence.

Bullying has outgrown the boundaries of a private or purely educational problem and has become an object of legal regulation, as it directly affects children’s fundamental rights to dignity, safety, health, and a secure educational environment. Against this background, it is particularly important to examine how different legal systems respond to this challenge. The following sections, therefore, analyze the legislative approaches to combating bullying and cyberbullying in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan—two neighboring states with similar socio-cultural conditions but increasingly divergent legal frameworks, especially given Kazakhstan’s recent introduction of explicit legal liability for bullying.

4. Prevalence of Bullying and Cyberbullying Among Children in the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan—Empirical Evidence and Legal Implications

4.1. Kazakhstan

Recent national data confirm that bullying and cyberbullying constitute a significant and persistent challenge for child protection systems in Kazakhstan. According to official statistics published by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 17.5% of children report experiencing bullying on an occasional basis, while 6.8% of adolescents are subjected to bullying two to three times per month. In addition, 14.1% of children aged 11–15 acknowledge having engaged in bullying behavior themselves, highlighting the bidirectional nature of peer violence in school environments (Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2023).

With respect to digital environments, national media reports and UNICEF-supported studies indicate that approximately one in five children in Kazakhstan, around 20–21%, has experienced cyberbullying, including harassment, humiliation, or intimidation via social media platforms, messaging services, online games, or other digital communication tools (Khabar Agency 2024). These findings are particularly concerning in light of early digital exposure: a substantial proportion of children begin using the internet between the ages of 5 and 8, significantly extending the period during which they may encounter online risks (UNICEF Kazakhstan 2023).

Supplementary data reveal broader patterns of digital vulnerability. Around 15% of children report exposure to disturbing or harmful online content, 7% receive sexually explicit materials, and approximately 10% communicate online with unknown adults. Such indicators suggest that cyberbullying often occurs within a wider ecosystem of digital risks rather than as an isolated phenomenon.

4.2. Kyrgyzstan

In Kyrgyzstan, available studies and investigative reports depict an even higher prevalence of peer violence among school-aged children. Research findings reported by national and international organizations indicate that up to one in two schoolchildren has experienced bullying in some form, including verbal abuse, psychological pressure, social exclusion, and threats (Kabar News Agency 2025; News.kg 2025).

While nationally harmonized statistics on cyberbullying as a standalone category remain limited, qualitative and quantitative data demonstrate that digital platforms increasingly serve as spaces where traditional bullying is reproduced and intensified. Surveys document widespread exposure to hostile communication in social networks and messaging applications, including trolling, hate speech, and online intimidation among adolescents (Sputnik Kyrgyzstan 2025).

Of particular concern are reports linking school violence—including bullying and digital harassment—to severe psychosocial consequences. Investigative studies conducted in 2024–2025 reveal that a significant proportion of students regularly witness or experience violence in school settings, with online interactions forming an integral part of these dynamics (24.kg 2025). These findings underscore the blurred boundary between offline and online forms of peer aggression in the Kyrgyz context.

4.3. Comparative Perspective

It is important to acknowledge that national data on bullying and cyberbullying in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan derive from heterogeneous sources, including government agencies, international organizations, and media-based investigations, each employing different methodologies, age cohorts, and definitional frameworks. Accordingly, the figures presented above should be interpreted as indicative measures of prevalence and scale rather than strictly comparable statistical indicators. Nevertheless, the convergence of findings across independent sources allows for a reliable assessment of overall trends and highlights the systemic nature of the problem in both jurisdictions.

A comparative reading of available data reveals both similarities and structural differences between the two countries. Data on bullying and cyberbullying indicators in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are summarized in

Table 1. Bullying and Cyberbullying Indicators in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Indicator	Kazakhstan	Kyrgyzstan
Bullying (school-based)	17.5% occasional bullying	Up to 50% of schoolchildren
Self-reported bullying behavior	14.1% (ages 11–15)	27–30% (various adolescent cohorts)
Cyberbullying	20–21% of children	No unified national indicator; widespread digital harassment reported
Early internet use	High (ages 5–8)	Not systematically quantified

(UNICEF Kazakhstan 2023).

A key comparative finding is the existence of a distinct cyberbullying indicator in Kazakhstan, contrasted with fragmented and indirect measurement in Kyrgyzstan, where cyberbullying is often subsumed under broader categories of school violence or online abuse. This discrepancy points not only to differences in prevalence but also to divergent levels of institutional recognition and data governance.

4.4. Legal and Human Rights Implications

The empirical prevalence patterns identified above have direct implications for state responsibility under international human rights law. In particular, article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges states parties to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, including harm occurring in digital environments. Cyberbullying also engages article 16 of the Convention, which protects the child’s right to privacy, honor, and reputation, especially where online harassment involves the misuse of personal data or digital exposure.

From a regulatory perspective, cyberbullying occupies a cross-sectoral governance space that intersects education law, child-protection systems, data-protection regimes, and digital-platform regulation. Effective legal response, therefore, depends not only on substantive norms, but also on the institutional capacity to monitor, classify, and respond to digitally mediated harm.

The comparative evidence suggests that a central challenge in addressing cyberbullying in Central Asia lies not only in its prevalence, but in the uneven development of monitoring and accountability mechanisms. The absence of consistent and disaggregated national data, particularly evident in the Kyrgyz context, limits evidence-based policy formation and constrains the assessment of compliance with international child-rights obligations. Where standardized indicators are lacking, both enforcement capacity and preventive policy design remain structurally weakened.

Accordingly, the legal effectiveness of cyberbullying regulation is closely linked to the development of reliable monitoring infrastructures and coordinated institutional responses. The findings indicate that strengthening data governance and classification mechanisms constitutes a necessary condition for the meaningful operationalization of child-protection norms in digital environments.

5. Legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic: Current Protection and New Initiatives

As of 2025, the legal system of the Kyrgyz Republic does not contain a dedicated and comprehensive anti-bullying statute, nor does it provide a statutory definition of the term “bullying.” This absence has been explicitly acknowledged by the Ombudsman of the Kyrgyz Republic (Akyikatchy), Jamila Dzhamanbayeva, who noted that bullying is not legally defined in national legislation (The Village Kazakhstan 2025). Instead, Kyrgyzstan addresses bullying-related behavior indirectly through a set of general civil, administrative, and criminal law provisions aimed at protecting honor, dignity, health, and personal integrity.

The constitutional and legal foundations for protecting children from violence are laid down in the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyz Republic 2021) and the Code of the Kyrgyz Republic on Children (Kyrgyz Republic 2012). Article 16 of the Children’s Code guarantees every child the right to protection of honor and dignity, personal inviolability, and protection from all forms of physical and mental violence (Kyrgyz Republic 2012). While this provision is declarative in nature and does not establish concrete enforcement mechanisms, it plays an important normative role and may be invoked to justify the protection of victims of bullying. It also serves as a guiding principle for further legislative development.

From the perspective of civil law, victims of bullying may theoretically seek compensation for material or moral harm. Under the general provisions of the Civil Code and the Children’s Code, courts may impose monetary compensation for moral damage caused by unlawful acts, including systematic humiliation or psychological abuse (Kaktus Media 2025). If the perpetrator is a minor, civil liability is borne by their parents or legal representatives, based on the principle of parental responsibility for harm caused by children due to insufficient supervision or upbringing (Civil Code of the Kyrgyz Republic 1998). In practice, however, such claims are extremely rare. This is largely due to difficulties in proving the prolonged and repetitive nature of bullying, as well as families’ reluctance to escalate the issue to formal legal proceedings. Nevertheless, the existence of civil liability mechanisms is significant, as it establishes tort responsibility and may have a preventive effect by encouraging parental oversight.

In criminal law, the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic does not contain a specific offense of bullying or cyberbullying. However, the most serious manifestations of bullying may fall under existing criminal provisions, such as assault, threats, coercion, or incitement to suicide. Of particular relevance is Article 128 of the Criminal Code, which establishes liability for driving a minor to suicide, including through the use of telecommunications networks and the Internet (Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic 2021). This provision may apply to extreme cases of cyberbullying where sustained harassment directly contributes to a child’s decision to commit suicide. Its practical application, however, is complicated by the need to prove a direct causal link between the perpetrator’s actions and the victim’s suicide. Despite these challenges, the existence of such norms signals that the most severe consequences of bullying may qualify as serious criminal offenses. In 2023, proposals were discussed to further tighten liability by explicitly recognizing systematic harassment leading to suicide as an aggravating circumstance (Ibraimova 2024).

Administrative law plays an increasingly significant role in addressing online harassment. Kyrgyzstan adopted a separate Code of Offenses in 2019 (Code of the Kyrgyz Republic on Offenses 2021), which initially lacked provisions specifically addressing online insults or defamation. However, in January 2025, amendments entered into force reintroducing administrative liability for defamation and insult committed through the media or the Internet. Article 107-1 of the Code of Offenses now establishes fines of 20,000 Kyrgyz soms (Kyrgyz som (KGS) is the national currency of the Kyrgyz Republic) for individuals and up to 65,000 soms for legal entities for disseminating defamatory information or publicly insulting others online (Code of the Kyrgyz Republic on Offenses 2021; National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic 2025). The initiators of this amendment presented it as a tool to combat harassment and the spread of harmful content in the digital space (Kaktus Media 2025). As a result, public humiliation of a child’s honor or dignity online may now, at least in theory, lead to administrative liability (approximately USD 230 for individuals). Applications are submitted to internal affairs bodies, which verify the facts and forward cases to the courts (Kaktus Media 2025).

Although this approach resembles that of Kazakhstan, where administrative fines for bullying have also been introduced, it is important to note that Kyrgyz legislation still does not employ the term “bullying,” focusing instead on insults and defamation. The amendment has generated controversy, with human rights organizations expressing concerns about potential restrictions on freedom of expression (Kaktus Media 2025). Nevertheless, when applied proportionately, Article 107-1 may serve as an effective tool to protect children from cyberbullying, particularly in cases involving anonymous social media pages or online groups created to disseminate humiliating content.

Recognizing the limitations of purely legal prohibitions, Kyrgyz authorities have also taken steps in the field of education and prevention. In October 2023, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Kyrgyz Republic issued an order “On the Prevention of Bullying and Cyberbullying,” which requires schools to implement preventive measures, including regular educational activities, discussions with students about online risks, and parental awareness campaigns (Ministry of Education and Science of the Kyrgyz Republic 2024). While this order does not have the force of a law, it effectively obliges educational institutions to engage in systematic preventive work aimed at creating a safe and respectful school environment.

An important institutional role is played by the Commissioner for Children’s Rights (Children’s Ombudsman). In recent years, the Ombudsman has paid increased attention to bullying and online violence. In 2023, Jamila Dzhamanbayeva initiated a study on online violence against women and girls, which revealed the widespread presence of hate speech and harassment on social networks (Kozukul Kyzy 2023). The findings emphasized the need to improve digital literacy among children and parents, including skills related to online safety, privacy settings, and reporting mechanisms.

Direct assistance to children facing bullying is also provided through the nationwide “111” child helpline, a 24 h free psychological support service. According to official data, more than 32,000 calls were received by the helpline in the first months of 2023 alone (Advocacy.kg 2019; Makanbai Kyzy 2024). This mechanism allows children to seek anonymous support, report bullying, and receive guidance or intervention from competent authorities (Kutueva 2025).

The Kyrgyz Republic does not have a specialized anti-bullying law, but instead relies on a pluralistic and fragmented legal approach, applying general civil, administrative, and criminal norms to individual manifestations of bullying. While nearly all unlawful components of bullying—such as insults, threats, or physical violence are formally punishable, the absence of a unified definition and procedural framework means that many cases fall below the legal threshold or remain unresolved. Law enforcement remains challenging: schools are often reluctant to involve police, parents may be unaware of available remedies, and children frequently lack trust in official mechanisms. As a result, legal instruments tend to be used only in extreme situations, when bullying has already escalated into serious harm or suicide.

There are growing calls within Kyrgyz society to adopt a special anti-bullying law or to amend the Children’s Code by introducing a clear definition of bullying and an action algorithm for schools, social services, and law enforcement bodies. As of the end of 2025, no such draft law has been adopted, although the Ombudsman and members of parliament have repeatedly emphasized its necessity. In this context, the experience of Kazakhstan, which has recently introduced direct legal regulation and liability for bullying, is of particular interest. The following section, therefore, examines the Kazakh approach in detail.

6. Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan: New Initiatives and an Integrated Approach

In contrast to Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan has developed a significantly more explicit and institutionalized legal framework to combat bullying and cyberbullying, particularly between 2022 and 2025. This shift was largely driven by heightened public concern over the rise in adolescent suicides, increased media attention, and sustained pressure from civil society and child protection advocates. In response, Kazakh authorities adopted a package of legislative and institutional reforms that formally recognize bullying at the legislative level, define it, establish liability, and create preventive and remedial mechanisms (Arasha.kz 2025; Aksenova 2025; Zakumbayeva 2025).

Kazakhstan became one of the first countries in Central Asia to introduce a statutory definition of bullying. This occurred with the adoption of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 3 May 2022 No. 118-VII, which amended several acts related to children’s rights, education, and information policy (Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2022). In particular, the Law “On the Rights of the Child in the Republic of Kazakhstan” (Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2002) was supplemented with paragraph 4-1 of Article 1, defining bullying (including cyberbullying) as systematic (two or more times) acts of a humiliating nature, harassment and/or intimidation, including actions committed publicly or through mass media and telecommunications networks (Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2002).

This definition reflects the generally accepted academic understanding of bullying by emphasizing systematic conduct and distinguishing it from isolated conflicts or one-time incidents (Gubenko 2024). Importantly, the definition explicitly encompasses both traditional bullying and cyberbullying, thereby acknowledging the realities of digital communication.

The concept of bullying was simultaneously embedded into related legislation. The Law “On Education” was amended to prohibit bullying in educational institutions and to oblige schools to implement preventive measures (Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2002). The Law “On Mass Media” introduced Article 18-4, granting a child or their legal representative the right to file complaints regarding cyberbullying detected in the media space (Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan 1999). In addition, Article 41-1 of the Law “On Communications” prohibits the dissemination of information for the purpose of cyberbullying a child, effectively imposing obligations on internet service providers and platform operators (Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2004). Together, these amendments created a coherent legislative framework in which bullying is defined, prohibited, and recognized as a socially dangerous phenomenon requiring state intervention.

A cornerstone of Kazakhstan’s approach is the introduction of administrative liability for bullying. The Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan was supplemented with Article 127-2 “Bullying (Bullying, Cyberbullying) of a Minor” (Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences 2014). For the first time in the post-Soviet legal space, child bullying was explicitly declared an administrative offense. The provision establishes a graduated system of sanctions: a warning or a fine of 10 monthly calculation indices (MCI) for a first offense (Republic of Kazakhstan 2025a); a fine of 30 MCI for repeated bullying (Republic of Kazakhstan 2025b).

Special rules apply where bullying is committed by minors aged 12 to 16. In such cases, administrative liability in the form of a warning or fine (10 MCI) is imposed on the parents or legal representatives of the aggressor (Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences 2014). This model reflects the principle of parental responsibility and aims to ensure early intervention rather than purely punitive responses. Schools and parents may now report bullying directly as such, without the need to artificially fit the conduct into other legal categories.

Alongside administrative sanctions, Kazakhstan has strengthened criminal liability for the most serious manifestations of bullying. Although the Criminal Code does not use the term “bullying” explicitly, amendments adopted in 2023 increased penalties for crimes committed against minors when accompanied by harassment or systematic humiliation (Gubenko 2024). Of particular importance are changes to Article 105 of the Criminal Code (Driving to Suicide). The amended provision now explicitly singles out cases involving minors and recognizes driving a child to suicide or attempted suicide through threats, ill-treatment, or systematic humiliation of dignity, including through telecommunications networks and the Internet, as an aggravated offense (Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2014).

Sanctions for such acts range from five to nine years’ imprisonment, which is significantly harsher than penalties for analogous crimes against adults. In effect, Kazakhstan treats suicide provoked by bullying as a particularly serious crime, comparable in gravity to intentional infliction of severe bodily harm. This differentiation underscores the state’s recognition of the extreme danger posed by sustained bullying to children’s mental health.

Another innovative element of Kazakhstan’s framework is the introduction of a fast-track “notice-and-takedown” mechanism for cyberbullying content. Under a ministerial procedure approved by the Ministry of Culture and Information, a special interagency expert group was established to review complaints concerning cyberbullying against children (Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2024). A child, their legal representative, or any concerned individual may submit an application in paper or electronic form (with a digital signature) (Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2024, para. 7).

The expert group—comprising representatives of state bodies and civil society organizations—must consider the complaint within three working days, with the possibility of extension up to fifteen days in complex cases (Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2024, paras. 8–9). If cyberbullying is confirmed, the authorized body issues a binding order to website owners, social network administrators, or media outlets to remove the offending content (Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2024, para. 10). This mechanism represents an adaptation of the international “notice-and-takedown” model (Pennell et al. 2021) and is designed to minimize the time harmful content remains accessible, which is particularly crucial for protecting children. At the same time, procedural safeguards are maintained through collective decision-making and the possibility of appeal.

Kazakhstan has placed significant emphasis on prevention and institutional support. Since October 2023, a nationwide child helpline number “111” has been operating, providing free psychological assistance to children facing bullying and other forms of violence (Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2024; Press-Service of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2023). In addition, the government adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the Protection of Children’s Rights and Health for 2023–2025, which specifically addresses bullying and psychosocial risks (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2023). Within this framework, the online platform “Bala Qorgau” (“Child Protection”) was launched to provide consultations and connect families with support services (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2025).

Preventive programs have been implemented directly in schools. Initiatives such as “DosbolLIKE” focus on developing social-emotional skills, peer mediation, and distinguishing conflict from bullying (Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2025). According to reports from the Ministry of Education and Science, many schools have established internal mediation or “peaceful settlement” commissions involving teachers, psychologists, and trained student volunteers (Bakiyeva 2024). Early assessments indicate improved awareness among educators and students and a gradual decline in reported aggressive behavior, although bullying remains a widespread issue.

Kazakhstan has established a comprehensive and multi-level legal framework for addressing bullying. This regulatory model integrates several mutually reinforcing elements. First, national legislation provides a clear statutory definition of both bullying and cyberbullying, ensuring conceptual and legal certainty. Second, the system incorporates administrative liability mechanisms designed to respond to early-stage and less severe forms of harmful behavior. Third, criminal liability is enhanced in cases involving aggravated circumstances or serious, harmful consequences. In addition, the legal framework includes expedited procedural mechanisms for the removal of cyberbullying content in digital environments. Finally, these punitive and procedural measures are complemented by institutionalized prevention and support systems, reflecting an integrated regulatory approach that combines accountability with protective and preventive functions.

Compared to the fragmented approach observed in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan’s reforms represent a significant step toward systematic regulation. While challenges remain—such as documenting systematic conduct, ensuring due process in content removal, and providing rehabilitative support for minor offenders—the Kazakh model illustrates how legal recognition and institutionalization can shift bullying from a “hidden” problem to a matter of public responsibility and child protection.

Despite the relative institutional advancement of Kazakhstan’s regulatory framework, several doctrinal and practical ambiguities remain. In particular, the concept of “systematic harassment” lacks sufficiently precise legal criteria, which may generate inconsistent enforcement and evidentiary challenges. Clarification of definitional thresholds and procedural standards would strengthen legal certainty and improve implementation.

These limitations highlight the importance of examining not only formal codification, but also the practical conditions of implementation and institutional capacity.

7. Discussion

The comparative findings discussed above further illuminate beyond a descriptive mapping of legal norms. By synthesizing doctrinal comparison with an original socio-legal institutionalization framework, this study advances a new analytical lens for evaluating how emerging digital societies transition from fragmented protections to integrated regulatory systems. The value of this pairing lies in its capacity to serve as a comparative laboratory: Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, while sharing a common legal heritage, provide a unique quasi-experimental case study of ‘proactive’ versus ‘reactive’ institutionalization.

A further analytical distinction emerging from the comparison concerns the concept of legal visibility. The empirical findings presented in this study demonstrate low levels of reporting and limited trust in school-based remedies, particularly in Kyrgyzstan. This phenomenon is structurally connected to the absence of a clearly defined legal category of bullying and cyberbullying. Where conduct lacks formal classification, it remains normatively diffuse and procedurally uncertain. In this sense, codification performs not only a regulatory function but also a constitutive one: it transforms bullying from a socially disapproved behavior into a legally cognizable violation. Kazakhstan’s explicit statutory definition, therefore, functions as a mechanism of institutional visibility, whereas in Kyrgyzstan, cyberbullying remains statistically and procedurally fragmented.

The divergence also reflects a transformation in the legal role of educational institutions. In Kyrgyzstan, schools operate primarily within a pedagogical and moral framework, guided by ministerial orders and soft prevention measures. In Kazakhstan, by contrast, schools are integrated into a legally structured response system. The prohibition of bullying in the Law on Education, combined with administrative liability mechanisms, converts schools from moral actors into legally obligated institutional gatekeepers. This shift marks a transition from discretionary intervention to duty-based governance and strengthens the accountability architecture surrounding child protection.

Another structural difference concerns the legal trigger for state intervention. In Kyrgyzstan, legal mechanisms are generally activated “ex post”, once conduct escalates into insult, defamation, or criminal harm. Kazakhstan, by introducing administrative liability for systematic humiliating conduct and procedural removal mechanisms, adopts an earlier-stage intervention model. The regulatory threshold is lowered from severe harm to repetitive degrading behavior. This distinction is critical in the digital context, where psychological harm accumulates incrementally, and rapid dissemination amplifies impact. The comparison, therefore, illustrates two distinct intervention philosophies: reactive harm-response versus anticipatory risk-prevention.

Consequently, the paper introduces a three-pronged model of digital child protection categorizing interventions into punitive (sanctions), preventive (education), and restorative (support) dimensions. The comparative evidence indicates that codification of bullying as a distinct legal category is a key institutional precondition for effective intervention; it must adopt a dedicated anti-bullying legal framework, amending the Code on Children and the Law on Education to introduce clear, internationally aligned definitions. By adopting these best practices while avoiding the pitfalls of over-regulation, Kyrgyzstan has the opportunity to build a resilient and integrated child protection system.

8. Conclusions

This comparative analysis reveals substantial differences in how Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan address bullying and cyberbullying among minors. By 2025, Kazakhstan established a comprehensive and institutionalized legal framework that explicitly defines bullying and cyberbullying as independent, unlawful acts. This framework includes administrative liability (including parental responsibility), strengthened criminal sanctions for severe cases, procedures for the rapid removal of harmful online content, and mandatory preventive programs in educational institutions. As a result, bullying cases in Kazakhstan receive legal assessment and response already at early stages, which enhances prevention and deterrence. In contrast, Kyrgyzstan’s current response relies on general legal provisions, leaving bullying legally “secondary” and addressed only after escalation. This reactive and fragmented approach complicates early intervention and weakens trust in protective mechanisms, as confirmed by survey data indicating that many schoolchildren in the Kyrgyz Republic doubt the effectiveness of reporting bullying to official authorities.

Despite these divergent trajectories, both states share a common normative foundation: the recognition of a child’s right to protection from violence and humiliation, as enshrined in their national legislation and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, legal recognition alone is insufficient. While legislation plays a crucial role in shaping public attitudes, legitimizing victims’ complaints, and obliging institutions to act, its effectiveness depends on implementation, awareness, and institutional capacity. Early indications in Kazakhstan suggest that new legal measures are producing tangible results, whereas in Kyrgyzstan, practical outcomes remain limited due to the absence of specific regulatory mechanisms.

Rather than a mere regional perspective, this study offers a scalable theoretical model for legal harmonization in the digital age, demonstrating how statutory codification can serve as a catalyst for systemic institutional change. The transition from fragmented protections to integrated systems is essential for safeguarding children’s rights in transitional jurisdictions. Overall, the analysis demonstrates that combating bullying requires a balanced approach combining legal sanctions, prevention, and support measures. Kyrgyzstan would benefit from codifying clear legal definitions and establishing complaint procedures.

In conclusion, while legal mechanisms are only one component of a broader social response, they are the indispensable foundation of a complete child protection system. The proactive stance of Kazakhstan offers a promising model of institutionalization, while the challenges faced by Kyrgyzstan highlight the risks of a reactive approach. By acting in the interests of the child and providing a safe, regulated digital environment, both nations can ensure that the digital age serves as a space for development rather than a venue for violence. In doing so, the article provides a robust analytical roadmap for legal scholars and policymakers grappling with the global challenge of cyberbullying in transitional jurisdictions. Only through such a coordinated and multidimensional approach can legal frameworks be translated into effective protection of children in the digital age.