Comments by Austria on the Zero-Draft for the OEWG’s Final Report
Austria would like to thank the Chair and his team for the submission of the Zero Draft which provides a
very useful basis for the third substantive session. Austria also reiterates its full support for the Chair’s
wise leadership under difficult circumstances and fully supports the approach he has taken.
On the issue of how to proceed with our final session, Austria is ready to negotiate on the basis of the
Zero Draft. A face-to-face meeting would indeed benefit negotiations, with a preference for the very last
date in August/September as the one before would clash with NPT negotiations. But we are flexible as
long as we find a good way to conclude this OEWG successfully. As others have said, this success would
set the tone for the next process.
On the Zero Draft, Austria would like to make the following comments and suggestions, with a more
detailed read-out to be submitted in writing. Austria also aligns itself with the EU Statement.
General:
Like others, we believe that the report should emphasize that we are building our discussions and the
final report on the strong basis of previous GGE reports, as endorsed by the General Assembly. There is
wide agreement on that. This connection to the GGE needs to be reflected more clearly in the report,
especially in the conclusions and recommendations.
As a free ICT environment is essential to achieve the biggest benefits from ICTs for all and to ensure that
fundamental rights can be fully exercised, we suggest to include the word “free” to the list of adjectives
in Paras. 7, 13, 27, 37, 86, 96, 103, 110, 117: i.e. “…open, free, secure, stable, accessible and peaceful,…”
With respect to gender issues, some delegations seem to consider that this is not relevant to our
discussions on international security. SC Res.1325, on women and peace and security, was adopted
unanimously 20 years ago and it puts gender issues right into the centre of peace, security and conflict
resolution. Therefore, we strongly insist – along with our CA delegate – to leave the emphasis on genderrelated aspects in the report.
International Law:
Retain the notion in para. 29 that IHL neither encourages militarization nor legitimizes resort to
conflict in any domain. This is a statement of fact, but discussions have shown that we need to spell
it out.
Align the language in para. 30 with the language used in the ILC Articles on State Responsibility to
keep it precise: "It was also noted that states are to be held responsible for internationally wrongful
acts committed by them, or under their direction or control, through the use of ICTs”. In the second
sentence, delete the qualification „acting on the instruction or under the control of a State“.
Furthermore, in our view States must seek to ensure that their territory is not misused for the
commission of internationally wrongful acts using ICTs.
Reformulate para. 36 since the use of force is – as a rule – prohibited with the only exception being
the few well-defined cases foreseen in the UN Charter. The prohibition contained in Art 2(4) UNCharter is a ius cogens norm, a fundamental, overriding principle that cannot be set aside.
1