conflicts in the context of ICTs, would legitimize the ICT environment as an arena of conflict. In considering the application of international law to State use of ICTs, we recall that even the 2015 GGE report identified as of central importance the commitments of States to the following principles of the Charter and other international law: sovereign equality; the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered; refraining in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and nonintervention in the internal affairs of other State. Continuing on the matter of the work of the previous GGE reports, we would like to underline that the aforementioned groups were selective in their composition and consequently their recommendations didn’t include all the potential views of the United Nations’ Members States. Due to these elements, we strongly believe that the conclusions and recommendations of the previous GGEs can be revised and improved upon by the OEWG. The initial pre-draft also acknowledges the ramifications of the developments in the field of ICTs in the three pillars of the United Nations. While Cuba is firmly committed to the 2030 Agenda and to accomplishing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we would like to underline that the original pillars of the UN are peace and security, human rights and development as a whole, without any sort of classification. From our perspective, the initial pre-draft doesn’t recognize the different views of the members of the OEWG concerning the applicability of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in cybersecurity incidents. By acknowledging the applicability of IHL to the security dimension of ICTs, the international community would be recognizing the possibility of armed conflict in this field and therefore contributing to an increase in the present militarization of cyberspace. Furthermore, we consider that in a potential ICT related conflict there would be no need to protect combatants in the field, unless the State in question,