C. International Law We welcome the strong context setting provided by Chapeau C that international law applies in cyberspace, and that it is now necessary to exchange views on how it applies. The reaffirmation of the applicability of international law (C22) is significant. We strongly support reflection of the views that existing international law, complemented by the agreed voluntary, non-binding norms provides the framework that we need (C26). We also welcome the reference to capacity building to allow States to participate on an equal footing (C33). Paragraphs C27-C29 do not fully reflect our discussions as currently drafted. The pre-draft should present arguments given for the development of new law through a treaty alongside the counter arguments also given by States, including the UK. These counter arguments and others raised by States must be reflected. Further, where principles from the UN Charter are listed (C23) all those mentioned during the discussion should be included. The pre-draft should use the exact language of the Charter, without expansion, for any references and clarify that the purpose of focusing on a specific area is to deepen discussion, not to pick selectively from the Charter (C32). We note international humanitarian law (IHL) also applies to relevant military activities (which might include cyber operations) during a non-international armed conflict (C25, sentence 1). We strongly support the sentiment presented (C25, sentence 2) but suggest clarification to distinguish between questions of IHL and the use of force: ‘neither encourages militarisation nor legitimises resort to conflict in any domain’. For accuracy the wording ‘including… civilian objects’ should be deleted (C27), and it should be clarified 'the issue of the applicability of [IHL]… be handled with prudence’ was not a majority view. Regarding the reference to the proposal of a possible ‘politically-binding commitment’ (C29), the UK is clear that resolutions of the UN General Assembly are themselves politically binding. We would therefore welcome clarification of the aim of such an additional commitment. Any references to the proposal for ‘a common approach to attribution’ (C32) must equally reflect the views of those who proposed an alternative of sharing best practice and capacity building whilst maintaining a sovereign approach. D. Rules, Norms and Principles for Responsible State Behaviour We welcome the approach to Chapeau D that sets the voluntary, non-binding norms of responsible State behaviour in context alongside other elements of the framework. The pre-draft could more strongly reflect consensus around the need to support improved implementation of the norms (D37). This should include the fact that norms can only be effective when implemented and that we have yet to complete the lifecycle of norm elaboration. Discussion of norms as a concept in 2010 led to the GGE testing them out in 2013, and then to committing fully to a significant expansion in agreed voluntary and nonbinding norms in 2015. To complete the cycle, it is imperative that the OEWG takes the logical next step to focus on effective implementation of the norms. We must consider any proposals for new norms (D39) in relation to both existing agreed norms and the remit of the OEWG. Many of the current proposals represent alternative wording to existing norms. Here, our clear focus must be on protecting the valuable consensus that exists in the General Assembly’s endorsement of the 2015 GGE report. Other proposals relate to existing norms but go deeper into a specific aspect of them. As we maintain our focus on providing support to States in their implementation efforts, it is possible that these could form the basis of explanatory text supporting possible approaches to implementation. An example of this could be the UK’s proposal in previous submissions that under norm b) from the 2015 report, it may be helpful to describe the elements of