3 • • • • • • • • • through opinio juris and State practice.”) could be understood to weaken existing binding international law. Also, para 33 is unclear and vague with regard to the differentiation between voluntary norms and international law and it is not clear what is meant by “binding measures”. We would therefore propose to delete the whole para 33. Para 34 second sentence: Consider changing “…activity that might be interpreted by other States as a threat or use of force” to “activity that may amount to”. Para 34 last sentence: With a view to the clarification in para 29: “States underscored that international humanitarian law neither encourages militarization nor legitimizes resort to conflict in any domain” we doubt whether we need the addition in para 34 that “Some States noted that discussions on the applicability of international humanitarian law to the use of ICTs by States needed to be approached with prudence.” In our view, it would be desirable to delete this addition. Para 34, generally: It could be considered to include in para 34 or 35 a reference to the ongoing dialogue between States as regards the clarification of the modalities of application of international law and a general reference to the effect that such efforts of clarification must follow the established rules of interpretation of international law. Except for this last addition, paras 34 and 35 contain important statements on which views converged during the OEWG discussions and should therefore be moved to the Conclusions Section of the Zero Draft. Para 37: “States affirmed that international law, and in particular the Charter of the United Nations”, add: “in its entirety” to harmonize with para 27. Para 37 second sentence: “further common understanding needs to be developed” could be changed to “further clarification needs to be reached” - otherwise could possibly be misinterpreted as call for further (interpretative) agreements or weakening of the (direct) applicability of existing international law to cyberspace. Para 40: “own understanding” of international law, suggestion to delete “own”. Include reference to the consensus reached by the 2010, 2013 and 2015 GGE reports on international law in the Conclusions Section of the Zero Draft. IV. Rules, Norms and Principles for Responsible State Behaviour • • • Germany supports the approach taken in the section on rules, norms and principles for responsible state behavior focusing on the implementation of existing norms. The strong set of 11 norms in the 2015 GGE report can only take full effect if they are understood and implemented by all States. Para 51: Generally, it is a good solution to compile proposed norms which could not garner sufficient support in a non-paper to ensure that new ideas will not get lost and can be revisited in the future. However, the referenced non-paper in para 51 also contains proposals, such as the one for a survey of national implementation, which were generally welcomed. Such proposals should therefore be expressly referenced in the Discussions, if not Conclusions Section of the report. Para 52: Shift proposal to non-paper, reflecting that it has received only little support, and to ensure equal treatment with other norms proposals.