Para. 24 The paragraph reflects that States exchanged views on the relevance and applicability of specific bodies of international law (such as international humanitarian law, human rights law, international criminal law). This paragraph should also reflect that States not only discussed applicability but also application of these bodies of international law, in particular international humanitarian law and human rights law. As customary international law is a source of international law and not a specific body of law, it should not be mentioned in this listing. This paragraph would also provide a good space to include reference to statements made by many delegations reaffirming that international humanitarian law is applicable to cyberspace in situations of armed conflict. Para. 25 We welcome the important statements on international humanitarian law in this paragraph. It recalls the object and purpose of international humanitarian law and correctly stresses that international humanitarian law should not be misunderstood as legitimising the use of force between States, which is governed by the UN Charter. We further believe that this paragraph should also reflect discussions relating to the protection of critical infrastructure/civilian objects in situations of armed conflict. Para. 27 In our view, this paragraph contains different and distinct points that could usefully be integrated into other existing paragraphs in order to better differentiate the topics. We therefore suggest separating the two main questions raised: - Further clarification of questions relating to existing international law; - The need expressed by some delegations for a new legal instrument/identification of need for new rules and codification. With regard to international humanitarian law we would like to suggest to refer to the principles of “humanity, necessity, proportionality, distinction and precaution” instead of “including the protection of civilians and civilian objects”. This would build on the 2015 GGE report while also mentioning the equally important principle of “precaution”. We agree that questions relating to how international humanitarian law applies to cyberspace were raised. However, the wording currently chosen (“prudence”) does in our view not accurately reflect existing agreement on the obligation of States to protect civilians and civilian objects also with respect to ICT incidents. We therefore suggest deleting the reference to prudence regarding international humanitarian law in this paragraph. Para. 29 This paragraph in our view also reflects two distinct points that should be separated: - It is important to note that it is not unusual for existing international law to be interpreted taking into account new developments. This is not exceptional or exclusive to developments in the field of ICTs. Therefore, we would like to see this reflected in the report, while refraining from using the term “progressive development”, as this does not accurately reflect the topic in question - The need expressed by some delegations for binding measures is already covered in previous paragraphs. Para. 32 Switzerland welcomes the references to peaceful settlement of disputes and the refraining from threat or use of force in this paragraph. This paragraph combines two topics that are distinct and should be reflected accordingly: 4