impair the functioning of critical infrastructures is unacceptable in all circumstance, at all time,
and it is in clear conflict with the agreed norms of responsible State behavior.
We also put a high value on the exchanges of views that took place during the first multistakeholder meeting last year. It served to underscore the importance of involving all
stakeholders in this debate.
Lastly, my delegation shares the concern expressed earlier by the Czech Republic about the
human rights implications of measures taken to contain the pandemic, including by the use of
ICT. Like many others before me, my delegation would also like to underline the importance of a
human rights- based approach in our endeavor to promote freedom, openness, security and
stability in cyberspace. I thank you, Mr chairman.
Statement 2 delivered 2 July 2020
Mr. Chair, at the outset, my delegation aligns itself with the statement by the EU.
Mr. Chaiman, we welcome the consensus-based approach reflected in the approach to draft the
report. In our view, there are no immediate gaps to be filled in existing international law.
Notwithstanding this, we do recognize that there is still room for strengthening the common
understanding on how existing international law applies in cyber domain.
Against this backdrop, we wish to lend our support to the previous interventions by New Zeeland
and others that maintain that a key emphasis in the report should be placed on strong and
concrete commitment towards implementations of existing voluntary norms, endorsed by all UN
Member States. We fully subscribe to the view that the pivotal role of implementation of norms
in the 2015 GGE report would merit to be specifically emphasized in the report.
We also wish to lend our strong support to the proposal made by the Netherlands on the
protection of integrity and availability of the public core of the internet and its concrete
suggestions regarding the scope of the critical infrastructure norms (13f and 13g).
We would also like to underscore that voluntary norms do not replace obligations under
international law and we welcome that this is made clear in the draft report. It goes without
saying that mandatory language should only be used to describe legally binding state obligations,
in so as not to create confusion that adhering to international legal obligations would be
voluntary for states.
We would also like to lend our support to the proposals submitted by Canada, as we see clear
added value to the substance of the report. Lastly, we wish to underscore the need for humanrights-based approach and gender perspective in the implementation of the norms. I thank you,
Mr chairman.