19. Also, in terms of ways forward, States proposed that a key first step to clarify and further develop common understandings could emanate from increased exchanges and in-depth discussions by States on how international law applies to State use of ICTs. It was noted that such exchanges in themselves could serve as an important confidence-building measure. Some States furthermore proposed several ways to voluntarily share their national views on how international law applies, including utilizing the annual report of the Secretary-General on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, 1 the Cyber Policy Portal of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, or using a survey of national practice in the application of international law. The progress made in regional and other arrangements to exchange views and develop common understandings on how international law applies was also highlighted. 20. From the perspective of maintaining peace and preventing conflict, States affirmed the need for settlement of disputes by peaceful means and refraining from the threat or use of force. In this context, States recalled existing bodies, mechanisms and tools for the prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes. Some States suggested that developing a universally-accepted, common approach and understanding of the source of ICT incidents at the technical level under the auspices of the United Nations, through the sharing of good practices, bearing in mind respect for the principle of State sovereignty, could lead to greater accountability and transparency, and could help support legal recourse for those harmed by malicious acts. 1 A/RES/75/32. Rules, Norms and Principles for Responsible State Behaviour 21. In their discussions at the OEWG, States recalled that voluntary, non-binding norms of responsible State behaviour do not alter or replace international law, but rather should be viewed as being they provide additional specific guidance on what constitutes responsible State behaviour consistent with, international law and with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, including to maintain international peace and security and the promotion of human rights. States also noted General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX), 1965 entitled “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty”. 22. States recalled that General Assembly resolution 73/27, while presenting a set of 13 rules, norms and principles for responsible State behaviour, inter alia, affirms the 11 voluntary, non- binding norms “enshrined in the reports of the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security of 2013 and 2015 adopted by consensus and recommended in resolution 71/28”.2 23. States stressed the need to promote awareness of the existing norms and to support their operationalization in parallel with the development of new norms. States underscored the need for guidance on how to operationalize norms. In this regard, States called for the sharing and dissemination of good practices and lessons on norm implementation. Different cooperative approaches were proposed, such as a roadmap developed by States, to assist in their implementation efforts, as well as voluntary surveys for the sharing of lessons and good practices. 24. States recognized that norms can help to prevent conflict in the ICT environment and contribute to ICTs peaceful use and full realization to increase global social and economic development. States highlighted that the implementation of norms should not result in undue restrictions on international cooperation and technology transfer, nor 5