UK response to Chair’s initial ‘Pre-draft’ of the report of the OEWG on
developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the
context of international security
The following comments are provided in response to the Chair’s request as per his letter of
16 March 2020. The UK welcomes the opportunity to provide these comments and extends
its sincere thanks to the Chair and his team for their significant and continued efforts.
Comments are provided by section, and not line-by-line, as requested. We look forward to
the opportunity to provide that more detailed comment in due course.
General Comments
We recall the Chair’s guidance that we should aspire in our report to focus on areas of
convergence between States, whilst reflecting the diverse range of national positions. We
continue to support this aim. The pre-draft could clarify its focus on areas of convergence,
whilst making clear where the text aims to reflect rounded discussion. It is important to
reflect accurately the different arguments raised, and the support for them, to avoid creating
false impressions of consensus.
In the current context, we particularly recognise the potential for risks to international peace
and security arising from malicious activity that seeks to exploit periods of reduced national
and international resilience. We welcome the helpful framing of the challenges faced in
protecting critical national infrastructure (B19) in this regard, which may include the
challenge of protecting medical facilities. We emphasise the international focus required to
deliver capacity building in support of this (F49) in periods where national resources
available for cybersecurity may be restricted.
Discussion in the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) highlighted the need to accurately
capture and reflect the relationship between binding international law and voluntary, nonbinding norms. We welcome the framing of this in Chapeau D which we consider could be
strengthened through the addition of the words ‘...in the use of ICTs. They do not stand
alone’. We would welcome greater clarity in a range of references to this interplay (A12
‘regulate and guide’, C26 ‘normative framework’, D38 ‘upgrading norms’, C29 ‘binding
commitments’; D34 ‘consistent with international law’; H67 ‘reinforce and complement’). We
stress that the norms guide state behaviour, together with international law that regulates it.
Both are part of the framework setting out what constitutes responsible State behaviour in
the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).
We welcome the substantive references within the pre-draft to the inclusive mandate of the
OEWG and its implementation through engagement with stakeholders (A7, D40, E47, F54
and G64, G65). We consider we could extend existing references to stakeholder
engagement into A10 ‘in various UN bodies and agencies and beyond’.
We suggest that wording addressing the impetus for States to continue work together should
be consistent and may be most helpfully based around the need to promote common
understandings (B20 ‘urgent need for ... cooperative measures’; B21 ‘actively strengthen its
collective resolve’; Chapeau G ‘to continue to work together’; G57 ‘intensify international
cooperation’; H66 ‘urgent need to collectively address’).