30 Fifth Report Annex B 4. The dearth of prior official statements combined with the generality of those made most recently confirms the hypothesis on which this project rests – that States have said relatively little to date about how international law applies to State behavior in cyberspace. It also confirms that most domestic efforts relating to cybersecurity to date have centered on national cybersecurity strategies or policies as well as domestic cybercrime and other ICT regulatory efforts. Question 2 Do existing fields of international law (including the prohibition on the use of force, the right of self-defense, international humanitarian law, and human rights) apply to cyberspace? Are there areas where the novelty of cyberspace excludes the application of a particular set of international legal rights or obligations? 5. Although a recent U.N. General Assembly Resolution6 suggests that there is now widespread support for international law’s application to cyberspace, earlier efforts at the United Nations revealed that certain States have deep reservations about the applicability of certain international legal regimes. Indeed, these reservations reportedly led the 2016-2017 U.N. GGE to fail to produce any final report.7 Thus, there is a continuing need to identify whether the existence of certain areas of international law in cyberspace is contested, and, if so, which ones. This second question was designed to solicit each field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (OEWG) (April 2020) (“Ecuador Comments”); Venezuela (Maduro Regime), Preliminary Considerations of Venezuela to the Initial Pre-Draft Report of the OEWG on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (2020) (“Venezuela Comments”); United States, United States Comments on the Chair’s Pre-draft of the Report of the UN Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) (April 6, 2020) (“United States Comments”). 6 See UNGA Res. 266, U.N. Doc. A/RES/73/266 (Jan. 2, 2019). 7 See, e.g., Arun M. Sukumar, The UN GGE Failed. Is International Law in Cyberspace Doomed As Well?, LAWFARE (July 4, 2017), at https://www.lawfareblog.com/un-gge-failed-international-law-cyberspace-doomed- well. Inter-American Juridical Committee State’s views on any extant international law that it considered inapplicable (or where the application might at least be problematic) in the cyber context. 6. Overall, the questionnaire responses reflected extensive support for the application of existing fields of international law to cyberspace. As Chile’s Response summarized, “current international law provides the applicable legal framework … including rules relating to jus ad bellum, international humanitarian law, human rights, and those governing the international responsibility of States.”8 Other States affirming international law’s application included Ecuador, Peru, and the United States.9 Along with the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello, Peru’s response emphasized the validity in cyberspace of various human rights, including “the right to privacy, freedom of information, freedom of expression, free and equal access to information, elimination of the digital divide, intellectual property rights, free flow of information, the right to confidentiality of communications, etc.”10 The U.S. echoed the application of international human rights law, while touting the overall application of existing international law as the “cornerstone” of U.S. cyberspace policy.11 Chile Response, supra note 1, at 1 (As a result, Chile notes that the “planning, conduct, and execution of operations in cyberspace must adhere strictly to respect for public international law, with particular consideration to international human rights law and international humanitarian law”). 9 Ecuador Response, supra note 1, at 1 (“The fields of international law do apply to cyberspace”); Peru Response, supra note 1, at 1 (“bearing in mind the fundamental role of the Charter in terms of how it relates to other international instruments … it would be reasonable to conclude that no area of international relations lies outside the scope of the aforesaid principles… Bearing in mind that cyberspace is becoming an everyday setting for international interaction, the actors in such interactions are required to observe their higher obligations under international law, including the prohibition on the use of force, the right of self-defense, and respect for human rights and international humanitarian law.”); Koh, supra note 1, at 594 (“Yes, international law principles do apply in cyberspace . . . Cyberspace is not a ‘law-free’ zone where anyone can conduct hostile activities without rules or restraint.”). 10 Peru Response, supra note 1, at 1. 11 2014 US GGE Submission, supra note 1, at 733 (application of international law comprises the “cornerstone” of US view, taking into account its distinctive characteristics); Egan, supra note 1, at 815; on the application of human rights, see Koh, supra note 1, at 598; Egan, supra note 1, at 820; 2016 US GGE Submission, supra note 1, at 824. 8 International Law and State Cyber Operations 31