France’s response to zero-draft report from the OEWG Chair
France commends the work conducted by the Chair and its supporting teams to present a
carefully crafted report. Balance between a faithful recollection of the discussion and consensus
recommendations has, in our opinion, been found. Therefore, we consider the report a
promising zero-draft. In view of the final report, France would like to highlight the following
considerations and remarks.
I.
Overview
France believes that the presentation of the report, which differentiates discussions and
conclusions, manages to present the various points of views and to highlight consensus areas.
Therefore, we support this approach.
France, indeed, commends the willingness to identify areas of consensus. We only regret that,
at this point, no mention is being made of the Survey presented by Australia, Mexico and many
States – including France. As a non-binding, guiding document, we believe that it could have
been recommended, or at least, annexed to the report.
II.
Existing and potential threats
Regarding this section, France only has few remarks. In paragraph 17, we believe that the
wording is not clear. We believe that it is our approach that should remain technology-neutral,
not the measure taken to promote responsible State behaviours – not being sure of what that
concept would exactly mean. In the second sentence, we believe that instead of mentioning that
‘new application may offer development opportunities”, we could state that “new application
offers development opportunities”.
Regarding the elements contained in paragraph 25, we believe that they might be more
appropriate in the section on cooperation.
III.
International Law
France is, overall, satisfied with this section. However, some elements could be more precise.
In paragraph 29, the notion that humanitarian law reduces the risks of harms for combatants
does not seem accurate. We believe that the paragraph should be modified as follows: “In
particular, international humanitarian law reduces risks and potential harm to both civilians and
civilian objects. International humanitarian law also limits the risk of unnecessary suffering for
combatants in the context of an armed conflict.”
We also think that paragraph 30 creates confusion between the direct responsibility of a State and the
due-diligence principle which, for France, are two different things. This difference should be expressed
more clearly. A State is responsible for wrongful acts from groups, entities and individual that are
controlled or instructed by it. In the meantime, a State has a duty not to let its territory knowingly be
used by persons or entities that undertake malicious activities to the detriment of another State.
Therefore, the paragraph should read as follows: “It was also noted that under customary international
law, the responsibilities of States with regard to internationally wrongful acts extend to their use of
ICTs. It was recalled that States must not use proxies to commit internationally wrongful acts using