28 Annex B Seven States – Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Peru – formally responded to the questionnaire. See Note from the Plurilateral State of Bolivia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, OAS Permanent Mission to the OAS Inter-American Juridical Committee, MPBOEA-NV104-19 (July 17, 2019) (containing responses to IAJC Questionnaire from Bolivia’s Office of the Commander-in-Chief of the State Inspector General of the Armed Forces) (“Bolivia Response”); Response submitted by Chile to the OAS Inter-American Juridical Committee Questionnaire (Jan. 14, 2020) (“Chile Response”); Communication from Carole Arce Echeverria, Costa Rica, International Organizations, Department of Foreign Policy, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship to OAS, (April 3, 2019) (including letter no. 163-OCRI2019 from Yonathan Alfaro Aguero, Office of International Cooperation and Relations to Carole Arce Echeverria, which includes a reply from the “relevant authority”—the Costa Rica Criminal Court of Appeals) (“Costa Rica Response”); Verbal Note 4-2 186/2019 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS (June 28, 2019) (“Ecuador Response”); Note Of. 4VM.200-2019/GJL/lr/bm, from Mr. Gabriel Juárez Lucas, Fourth Vice Minister of the Interior Ministry of the Republic of Guatemala to Luis Toro Utillano, Technical Secretariat, Inter-American Juridical Committee (June 14, 2019) (“Guatemala Response”); Note No: 105/2019 from the Permanent Mission of Guyana to the OAS (July 30, 2019) (“Guyana Response”); Response Submitted by Peru to the Questionnaire on the Application of International Law in OAS Member States in the Cyber Context (June 2019) (“Peru Response”). The United States response directed the Committee to its prior public statements. See Brian Egan, Remarks on International Law and Stability in Cyberspace (Nov. 10, 2016), in DIGEST OF U.S. PRACTICE IN INT’L LAW 815 (2016); U.S. Submission to Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (Oct. 2016), in DIGEST OF U.S. PRACTICE IN INT’L LAW 823 (2016) (“2016 US GGE Submission”); U.S. Submission to Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (Oct. 2014), in DIGEST OF U.S. PRACTICE IN INT’L LAW 732 (2014) (“2014 US GGE Submission ”); Harold Koh, International Law in Cyberspace (Sept. 18, 2012), in DIGEST OF U.S. PRACTICE IN INT’L LAW 593 (2012). More recently, the General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Defense made a speech that also provided formal views on international law’s application (although it is not clear if he was speaking for the United States as a whole or only the U.S. Department of Defense). See, e.g., Paul C. Ney, DOD General Counsel Remarks at U.S. Cyber Command Legal Conference (March 2, 2020), at https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/ Article/2099378/dod-general-counsel-remarks-at-us- cyber-command-legal-conference/. Brazil responded to the Committee questionnaire noting that it would use the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security as the forum in which to address these issues. See Response by Brazil to CJI OEA Note 2.2/14/19 (July 1, 2019). 2 For citations, see supra note 1. Note, however, that the U.S. Response indicated that these were only “some of” the documents indicating U.S. views. Thus, there may be others that warrant attention. In particular, it might be useful to know how much the U.S. Department of Defense Laws of War Manual reflects the views of the United States as a whole. See Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 2015, updated December 2016) (“DOD Manual”). 1 Inter-American Juridical Committee Fifth Report 2. Other responding States indicated that they were unaware of any prior positions on their views on international law’s application in the cyber context.3 Several States took the opportunity, however, to highlight their internal efforts to establish relevant organizations or regulatory regimes for addressing information and communication technology (ICT) issues.4 3. Several Member States have used the UN-hosted Open-Ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the context of International Security (OEWG) to make public statements that included references to international law’s application. For the most part, however, these statements are at a high level of generality or tailored to address particular aspects of the text of the OEWG’s drafting report. Several of these statements come from States who already responded to the Committee’s questionnaire directly. However, a few others, including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Uruguay, made comments relevant to this questionnaire.5 As such, references have been included to such statements below. 3 See, e.g., Ecuador Response, supra note 1, at 1 (“We are not aware of any official paper the Government of Ecuador has issued on cyber operations.”); see also Guyana Response, supra note 1, at 1 (same). 4 Bolivia Response, supra note 1, at 1 (citing a new 2015 law); Chile Response, supra note 1, at 1 (listing the Ministry of Defense’s March 2018 “cyber-defense policy”); Guatemala Response, supra note 1, at 1 (emphasizing its “national cybersecurity strategy” and new cybercrime law); see also Costa Rica Response, supra note 1, at 1. 5 All national statements can be found at United Nations, Open-ended Working Group, at https://www.un.org/disarmament/open-ended-working-group/. See, e.g., Argentina, Initial “Pre-draft” of the report of the OEWG on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (“Argentina Comments”); Brazil, Comments submitted by Brazil to the Initial “Pre-draft” of the report of the OEWG on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (April 8, 2020) (“Brazil Comments”); Michael Walma, Canadian Comments on Draft OEWG Report (April 6, 2020) (“Canada Comments”); Colombia, Colombia’s comments on the initial “Pre-draft” of the report of the OEWG on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (April 16, 2020) (“Colombia Comments”); Mexico, Preliminary comments of Mexico to the initial “Pre-draft” of the report of the OEWG on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (2020) (“Mexico Comments”); Nicaragua, MINIC-MIS-143-04-2020 (April 2020) (“Nicaragua Comments”); Uruguay, Comments on the pre-draft of the OEWG report (2020) (“Uruguay Comments”). For other Member State comments, see Chile, Comentarios de Chile al pre-informe del Chair (2020) (“Chile Comments”); Ecuador, Ecuador preliminary comments to the Chair’s “Initial predraft” of the Report of the United Nations Open Ended Working Group on developments in the International Law and State Cyber Operations 29