Estonia’s response to the OEWG zero draft, February 2021 7. We support paragraph 20 in its entirety. 8. Furthermore, we find the mention of potentially devastating humanitarian consequences of attacks on critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure supporting essential services to the public to be vital (paragraph 21). We welcome the wording and examples listed. For building confidence, the final sentence bringing out the importance of public-private cooperation is important. International law 9. Estonia welcomes the clear reference that international law, and in particular the Charter of the United Nations in its entirety, is applicable and essential (paragraph 27). In our view, the 2010, 2013, 2015 reports of the UN GGE could be more clearly noted as the acqui in the paragraph and section at large. 10. We strongly welcome the mention of international humanitarian law (paragraph 29) and suggest including some of the principles mentioned in paragraph 34 in this earlier paragraph. It would read: “international humanitarian law, including the principles of humanity, necessity, proportionality and distinction (as mentioned in the 2015 GGE consensus report), reduces risks and potential harm to both civilians and civilian objects as well as combatants in the context of an armed conflict.“ 11. As it is possible for non-State actors to be directed by States to commit internationally wrongful acts using ICTs in various ways, we suggest making the mention more accurate: “under the instructions of, or direction or control” as have been reflected in ILC articles of State responsibility. In addition, it should be reflected more clearly the side of use of non-state actors and on the other hand States’ obligation to take measures regarding use of their territory – therefore we suggest to divide this sentence into two parts (paragraph 30). 12. The report addresses the discussions on the divergent views related to whether the existing cyber stability framework is sufficient for addressing State use of ICTs (paragraph 32). In Estonia’s view, existing international law applies in cyberspace and the existing cyber stability framework is sufficient. As such, we do not support calls for any new legally binding instrument. 13. We stress the importance of placing focus on the settlement of disputes by peaceful means and refraining from the threat or use of force. We suggest taking note of article 33 of the UN Charter regarding the language used in the zero-draft (paragraph 36). However, we would like to express caution regarding the notion of potentially developing a universally-accepted, common approach and understanding of the sources of ICT incidents at the technical level information under the auspices of the UN. Any such measure would require lengthy debate and its development would prove difficult to maintain in a way that respects States’ sovereignty. As such, we believe its ability to help maintain peace and prevent conflict is limited and its inclusion under this section is not merited. 14. We find capacity building in the area of international law, national legislation and policy to be an important inclusion (paragraph 40). As many delegations throughout its discussion have noted its potential helpfulness, we express our hope for its continued inclusion in the final report. Such activities could further help along discussions on how international law applies in cyberspace, prevent conflict and enhance mutual trust and cooperation. 2