Comments by the Norwegian Delegation on the “Pre-draft” of the report of the OEWG on
developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international
security
The Norwegian delegation commends the Chair on his capable steering of the OEWG process, and
the Secretariat for facilitating and supporting this work.
Having reviewed the letter from the Chair and the accompanying pre-draft report, circulated on 11
March 2020, we hereby present some initial comments on the current draft, ahead of the next
meeting of the OEWG.
General:
We understand the consensus to be that the 2010, 2013 and 2015 GGE reports form the
acquis for the discussions. The previous GGE reports provide a framework for responsible
State behaviour in cyberspace, and there is an agreement that adherence to this framework
should be observed. We believe that this agreement is of fundamental importance, and
should be clearly expressed as a central premise of the final report.
The pre-draft gives a comprehensive view of many of the topics discussed and the positions
presented in previous meetings. However, the pre-draft does not presently distinguish
between areas of consensus and minority views. One example of the latter is the proposal
for a new legally binding instrument, to which there are broad reservations from a large
number of Member States. To strengthen the areas of agreement and mutual understanding,
these should be clearly distinguished from the areas of current non-agreement. We would
encourage referring to “some states” rather than “states” where consensus is not
established.
Existing and Potential Threats:
The rapid evolvement of digital technologies creates new challenges and vulnerabilities. This
requires the international community to cooperate and establish shared understandings, in
order to avoid misuse and potential negative consequences. We should focus on the effects
and the security implications emanating from the use of ICTs, rather than on the specificities
of ICTs in and of themselves. The language in the report should consistently reflect that the
subject of study is the responsible behaviour of States.
We should avoid the use of terms such as “militarization”, as its significance can be unclear
or potentially politicized. Our aim should rather be to give a factual and concrete description
of the threat landscape, as it pertains to state-to-state behaviour in the context of
international security.
International Law:
Our mandate states that we “should continue to study, with a view to promoting common
understandings, […] how international law applies to the use of information and
communications technologies by States”. While international law has its roots in a time
preceding the evolvement of cyberspace, there is nothing new or unique in applying the
rules of international law to new areas, following new technological developments. The
existing framework of international law must be interpreted in the usual way. Exchanging