1
Comments by Germany on the OEWG Zero Draft Report
In addition to the oral statement made during the informal virtual OEWG meeting on 18-22 February
2021, Germany aligns itself with the EU Written Contribution to the OEWG Zero Draft Report and
would like to add the following comments and suggestions.
The Zero Draft faithfully reflects previous discussions in a balanced way and shows that we have
made progress. It is a good and the only basis to arrive at a consensus report.
Germany supports the current structure of the Zero Draft including its “Discussions Sections” which
could help to find compromises on the “Conclusions and Recommendations Sections” and serves as a
repository of topics for future discussions. However, if consensus emerges on focusing the Zero Draft
on its “Conclusions and Recommendations Sections”, Germany will be open to such an approach as
well. In such a case, it will be particularly important to carefully review which elements of the
“Discussions Sections” could be moved to the “Conclusions and Recommendations Sections” to
ensure a strong Report.
I. Introduction
•
In introduction and also other parts of the text, the term “digital” is used frequently. It would be
better to replace it with a clearly-defined and established term, such as ICTs.
II. Existing and Potential Threats
•
•
•
•
•
Para 15: “In their discussions at the OEWG, States raised a wide variety of existing and potential
threats, which underscored that States may perceive threats emanating from the digital domain
in different ways.”: Suggestion to delete “which underscored that States may perceive threat
emanating from the digital domain in different ways”. States may vary in their appreciation of
the seriousness of different threats, but generally the OEWG discussions were not so much
characterized by different views of the same threats, but different foci. Also, a similar statement
is already contained in para 23, in a more fitting context.
Para 16: “Some voiced concern that the characteristics of the ICT environment may encourage
unilateral measures rather than the settlement of disputes by peaceful means.”: Suggestion to
specify characteristics as this is certainly not true for all of the characteristics. There is also a risk
of contradicting para 17: “many States underlined the point that technologies are neutral”.
Para 17: “States recognized that even as technological advances and new applications may offer
development opportunities, they may also expand attack surfaces, amplify vulnerabilities in the
ICT environment or be leveraged for novel malicious activities”: Suggestion to shorten list of
similar examples.
Para 18: “States agreed that they are increasingly concerned about the implications of the
malicious use of ICTs for the maintenance of international peace and security, and subsequently
for human rights and development”. Consider deletion of “subsequently”, as it could imply a
subordinate relationship of human rights and development.
Para 20: “States also agreed that any use of ICTs by States in a manner inconsistent with their
Charter commitment to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”: Change
“their Charter commitment to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours” to
“their commitments under the Charter of the United Nations”.