in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territoria l integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations; States’ inherent right to individual or collective self-defense; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States.5 29. It was recalled that international law, including the prohibition on the use of force, is the foundation for stability and predictability in relations between States. In particular, iInternationalinternational humanitarian law reduces risks and potential harm to both civilians and civilian objects as well as combatants in the context of an armed conflict. At the same time, States underscored that international humanitarian law neither encourages militarization nor legitimizes resort to conflict in any domain. Commented [A6]: Transfer para 29 to conclusions section if discussion sections are deleted 30. It was also noted that under customary international law, the rights and responsibilities of States with regard to internationally wrongful acts extend to their use of ICTs. It was recalled that States must not use proxies to commit internationally wrongful acts using ICTs, and should seek to ensure that their territory is not used by non-State actors acting on the instruction or under the control of a State to commit such acts. The responsibility of States will be internationally responsible for conduct of their organs and of persons or entities exercisin g elements of governmental authority, as well as conduct which they otherwise direct or control. s was also noted regarding entities owned by or under the control of the State. Commented [A7]: Transfer para 30 to conclusions section if discussion sections are deleted 31. States recalled that the indication that an ICT activity was launched or otherwise originates from the territory or the ICT infrastructure of a State may be insufficient in itself to attribute the activity to that State and that accusations of organizing and implementing wrongful acts brought against States should be substantiated [Para recalls previous conclusions; however, as this is an issue of importance to many states, it could be added to end of existing para 30 (as amended) and moved to Conclusion and Recommendations]. 32. Some States expressed the view that existing international law, complemented by the voluntary, non-binding norms that reflect consensus among States, and – if implemented and adhered to – provide a robust framework is currently sufficient for addressing State misuse of ICTs. It was also proposed that efforts should focus on reaching deepening common understanding on how existing international law and the agreed norms apply the already agreed normative framework applies [through the development of additional guidance, and can be operationalized through enhancing implementation by all States]. At the same time, some States expressed the view that due to the quickly evolving nature of the threat environment and the severity of the risk, an internationally agreed legally-binding framework on ICTs is needed. There was agreement that there is a need for It was also suggested that such a binding framework may lead to more effective global implementation of commitments, s and t h a t a stronger basis for holding actors’ should be held accountable for their actions. 33. It was highlighted that while existing bodies of international law do not include specific reference to the use of ICTs in the context of international security, they nevertheless apply to State activities in cyberspace. Additionally, international law can develop progressively, including through opinio juris and State practice. The possibility over time of developing additional complementary binding measures concurrently with the implementation of existing international law and norms was raised by some States. Furthermore, a political commitment was proposed by some states as a way forward. 34. While recalling that international law, and in particular the Charter of the United Nations applies in the use of ICTs, it was highlighted that certain questions on how international law applies to the use of ICTs have yet to be fully clarified. Such questions include, inter alia, the kind of ICT-related activity that might be interpreted by other States as a threat or use of force 6 Commented [A8]: Suggestion replicates the language of the ILC Articles of State Responsibility