6 Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA)3. Still, Italy acknowledges the difficulties of applying the ARSIWA in a peculiar environment such as cyberspace. Finally, and in the spirit of cooperation and of national contribution to study how international law applies to cyberspace that informs this document, Italy considers that further dialogue on the matter could be conducive to a better understanding of attribution. b) Due diligence Italy considers that due diligence obligations apply in cyberspace as defined in the Corfu Channel case by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), according to which every State is under an ‘obligation not to knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts contrary to the right of other States’.4 Hence, due diligence requires States to take all reasonable measures concerning activities in cyberspace falling under their jurisdiction in order to prevent, eliminate or mitigate potentially significant harm to legally protected interests of another State, or of the international community as a whole. Italy deems that the due diligence obligation in question also encompasses, inter alia, human rights protection and the protection of international peace and security. States are thus under the obligation not to allow their territory, or their Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure to be used for the conduct of wrongful cyber activities by State or non-State actors. State actors include governmental institutions as well as individuals or groups acting on behalf of or under the control of a State. The principle has been further developed over the years in different fields of international law, most prominently with regard to transboundary natural resources,5 the protection of the environment6 and human rights.7 In case of wrongful cyber activities that cause harm to another State, the State of origin is required to make its best efforts to prevent, eliminate, or mitigate all acts of wrongdoing. 3 Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, UN Doc. A/RES/56/83, 28 January 2002. Corfu Channel Case, Judgment of April 9th, 1949: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4, at 18. 5 ILC, “Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities”, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part 2, p. 148. 6 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, para. 241-242. 7 CESCR, “General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2, Para. 1, of the Covenant)”, UN Doc. E/1991/23. 14 December 1990. 4