Comments on the Threats Section The threats section should focus on State behavior that poses threats to international peace and security, rather than identifying specific technologies (and their development) that are listed as threats. The mere existence of a possibility to use ICTs for military purposes is not inherently a threat. Moreover, many States now have ICT capabilities that can be applied to military and non-military purposes alike. In addition, although our preference would be for all States to act together to address threats in cyberspace, we have to acknowledge reality: some States are unwilling to do so, and, in some cases, States are actually conducting or sponsoring malicious activity in cyberspace. Paragraph 20 needs to reflect the reality that individual States may need to take measures to address threats in cyberspace when collective action is not feasible. Comments on the International Law Section We appreciate that the draft report memorializes that all States reaffirmed that international law and, in particular, the Charter of the United Nations, apply to the use of ICTs by States. In our view, it is important to record this consensus position because it serves as the key point of departure for the OEWG’s mandate to study how international law applies to the use of ICTs by States. In that regard, we are pleased that the draft report includes many useful and positive elements that could garner consensus. These include, for example, statements acknowledging international law’s role in helping to promote and maintain international peace and security (paragraph 22), encouraging States to share their views on how international law applies to the use of ICTs (chapeau and paragraph 68(a)), and recognizing the need for capacity-building in the area of international law (paragraph 33). In addition, the draft is useful because it identifies a number of important Charter principles and specific bodies of international law (such as the law of State responsibility, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law) that are applicable to the use of ICTs by States. Taking into account the need to reach consensus on the final report, and with the understanding that States will have an opportunity to provide specific line edits on subsequent drafts, we believe that the draft report’s section on international law could be improved in several important ways. We urge the Chair to take into account the following concerns in preparing the next draft for governments to review: - First, the draft report should focus on consensus views of States. o The present draft devotes far too much attention (paragraphs 27-30) to proposals made by a minority of States for the progressive development of international law, including through the development of a legally binding instrument on the use of ICTs by States. These proposals lacked specificity and are impractical. The OEWG’s mandate is to study how international law applies to the use of ICTs by States, and the report should therefore focus on existing international law. Without a clear understanding of States’ views on how existing international law