The Kingdom of the Netherlands’ response to the pre-draft report of the OEWG 19. The Netherlands is of the view that the report should more clearly distinguish between on the one hand the consensus reached in 2013 and 2015 and on the other hand the discussion at the OEWG meetings on topics beyond this consensus. The 2013 and 2015 GGE consensus reports should be emphasized as the baseline for the discussion, as was universally acknowledged during the meetings. For example, the first part of paragraph 27 of the pre-draft report mentions a new instrument, whereas the second part concerns the question of how international law applies. These two separate discussions belong in separate paragraphs. 20. In addition to this, the Netherlands would like to see a more balanced and realistic reflection of the discussion on the applicability of existing international law in relation to the call for a new legal instrument. The latter view was not as broadly supported as could seemingly be inferred from the current pre-draft. 21. Furthermore, during the February meeting of the OEWG a large number of states emphasized the applicability of the entirety of international humanitarian law (IHL), not limited to some of its leading principles. Although The Netherlands notes with appreciation that IHL is mentioned in the report, the specific notion that many states referred to its full application should be reflected. 22. The Netherlands considers that the pre-draft does not afford sufficient attention to human rights. This aspect was extensively mentioned especially in the February meeting, as it followed the release of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) statement on cybersecurity and human rights. Even though many delegations expressed support for the FOC statement and the importance of the application of human rights both offline and online, this is not reflected in the pre-draft. The Netherlands, together with several delegations, emphasized that human rights and cybersecurity are complementary, mutually reinforcing and interdependent. When developing and implementing cybersecurity related laws, policies and practices, states should comply with their international human rights obligations. Further, in addition to the point of human rights and freedom, the Netherlands wishes to include reference to the fundamental importance of an open, free, secure, stable, accessible and peaceful ICT environment for the enjoyment of human rights. 23. On the recommendations relating to international law, the Netherlands has two comments. Firstly, we propose for 68(a) to be more in line with 68(b) by including a clear reference to the GGE consensus reports, for example by recalling that in 2015 the General Assembly agreed by consensus that all States should be guided in their use of ICTs by the 2015 report of the Group of Governmental Experts, which includes a section on international law that serves as the basis for discussions in the OEWG. Secondly, on the recommendation to have the International Law Commission be requested to undertake a study of national views and practice on how international law applies in the use of ICTs by States in the context of international security, the Netherlands notes that the proposal to refer these issues to the ILC was supported by a minority of States. While acknowledging the importance of the work of the ILC, it is our belief that it is still premature to engage the ILC at this time, and consider it advisable to wait until such time as there is a broader and deeper understanding amongst States as to how international law applies, including aspects on which we might all in the future agree that they remain unclear. Shifting this important issue to the ILC (or any other body) at this point will not resolve the difficult questions about how international law applies. For the moment, the focus would be better placed on deepening a dialogue on international law amongst States (this could include a UN repository with national positions by states) and at the same time encourage the development of national positions, and expand capacity-building activities so that more State can engage meaningfully in these two key activities. Rules, norms and principles 24. The Netherlands agrees with the vast majority of states that see international law, norms, CBMs and capacity building as integral part of the framework for responsible behaviour in cyberspace. Norms reflect the expectations of the international community and set standards for responsible State behaviour. Norms do not replace or alter existing international legal obligations. 25. The Netherlands fully supports the line taken by the OEWG to focus on how to operationalize them. To achieve this the Netherlands made concrete suggestions to address the novel threats as mentioned in the threat section. 26. Firstly, the Netherlands is appalled by the abuse of the COVID-19 crisis by States to conduct or effectively control the conduct of malicious cyber operations, including against the health sector, which in these times of global crisis provides critical and essential services to our societies. Without a doubt, this is Page 3 of 6