24. States had an interactive exchange of views on the relevance and applicability of specific bodies of law to the international security dimension of ICTs, including international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international criminal law, as well as international customary law. It was also noted that the responsibilities of States with regard to internationally wrongful acts are applicable to their use of ICTs. 25. During the exchange, it was noted that international law is the foundation for stability and predictability in relations between States. In particular, international humanitarian law reduces risks and potential harm to both civilians and combatants in the context of an armed conflict. At the same time, States underscored that international humanitarian law neither encourages militarization nor legitimizes conflict in any domain. 26. During the discussion the view was expressed that existing international law, complemented by the voluntary, non-binding norms that reflect consensus among States, is currently sufficient for addressing State use of ICTs. It was noted that efforts should therefore be directed to reaching common understanding on how the already agreed normative framework applies and can be operationalized. 27. At the same time, during the discussion, it was also noted that there may be a need to adapt existing international law or develop a new instrument to address the unique characteristics of ICTs. In particular, it was highlighted that certain questions on how international law applies in the use of ICTs have yet to be fully clarified. Such questions include, inter alia, what kind of ICT-related activity might be interpreted by other States as a threat or use of force (Art. 2(4) of the Charter) or might give a State cause to invoke its inherent right to self-defence (Art. 51 of the Charter). They also include questions relevant to how the principles of international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians and civilian objects, apply to ICT operations in the context of armed conflict. In this regard, it was noted that the issue of the applicability of international humanitarian law to the use of ICTs by States needed to be handled with prudence. 28. In this context, proposals were made for the development of a legally binding instrument on the use of ICTs by States as the quickly evolving nature of the threat environment and the severity of the risk necessitates a stronger, internationally agreed framework. It was noted that such a binding framework may lead to more effective global implementation of commitments and a stronger basis for holding actors accountable for their actions. 29. It was suggested that while existing bodies of international law do not include specific reference to the use of ICTs in the context of international security, international law can develop progressively in this regard. Developing complementary binding measures concurrently with the implementation of norms was also proposed. A politically binding commitment4 with regular meetings and voluntary State reporting, was also suggested as a possible middle ground approach. 30. States proposed that a first step to further develop common understandings could be increased exchanges on their interpretation of how international law applies to the use of ICTs by States. States 4 An example of such a politically binding commitment is the 2001 UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons (PoA) is a globally agreed framework for activities to counter the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. See https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/salw/programme-of-action/. 5