16. Recalling that the question ‘if international law applies to state conduct in cyberspace’ has been resolved in the affirmative and that the focus is now on how it applies, States discussed how to address this question. Noting the agreement that existing international law (complemented by voluntary norms of responsible state behavior, confidence building measures and capacity building) already provides a binding framework for addressing State conduct in cyberspace, some States expressed the view that the most efficient and effective way to address outstanding questions is for States to publicly articulate views on the application of specific rules of international law and to behave consistent with those positions. If States are committed, this process could quickly deliver clarity and deepen understandings on key questions of how international law applies to state conduct as well as contributing to the development of applicable customary international law. Development of norms implementation guidance would complement efforts to clarify responsible State behavior in cyberspace, as would capacity building to facilitate broad and meaningful participation. Combined, this would promote more effective implementation and greater adherence to international law and the agreed norms, as well as a stronger basis for holding States accountable for their actions in cyberspace. This path would also avoid protracted treaty negotiations, which may give rise to proposals that seek to erode the full suite of rights, obligations and protections afforded by existing international law, and which after its negotiation would necessarily require interpretation similar to that described in the preceding sentences. [Some States expressed the view that existing international law, complemented by the voluntary, non-binding norms that reflect consensus among States, is currently sufficient for addressing State use of ICTs. It was also proposed that efforts should focus on reaching common understanding on how the already agreed normative framework applies through the development of additional guidance, and can be operationalized through enhancing implementation by all States. At the same time, other States expressed the view that due to the quickly evolving nature of the threat environment and the severity of the risk, an n e w internationally agreed legally binding framework on ICTs is needed. It was also suggested that such a binding framework may lead to more effective global implementation of commitments and a stronger basis for holding actors accountable for their actions. States stressed that the development of any international legal framework to address issues related to the use of ICTs with implications on international peace and security should take into account the concerns and interests of all States, be based on consensus, and pursued within the UN with the active and equal participation of all States. 17. It was highlighted that while existing bodies of international law do not include specific reference to the use of ICTs in the context of international security, they nevertheless apply to State activities in cyberspace, and further that international law can develop progressively, including through opinio juris and State practice. The possibility over time of developing f u r t h e r complementary binding measures concurrently with the implementation of norms was raised . Furthermore, a political commitment was proposed as one possible way forward. 18. While recalling that international law, and in particular the Charter of the United Nations applies in the use of ICTs, it was highlighted that certain questions on how international law applies to the use of ICTs have yet to be fully clarified. Some States proposed that such questions include, inter alia, the kind of ICT-related activity that might be interpreted by other States as a threat or use of force (Art. 2(4) of the Charter) or that might give a State cause to invoke its inherent right to self-defence (Art. 51 of the Charter). They also include questions relevant to how the principles of international humanitarian law, such as principles of humanity, necessity, proportionality, distinction and precaution, apply to ICT operations. In this regard, some States noted that discussions on the applicability of international humanitarian law to the use of ICTs by States needed to be approached with prudence. States noted that further study was required on these important topics in future discussions. 4