Plenary session on the interim report
7 Jun 2024 10:30h - 12:00h
Table of contents
Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Delegates Debate Cybersecurity Measures and International Law in Plenary Session
During a plenary session, delegates engaged in a robust discussion on a draft report, focusing on reaching a consensus on the recommendations for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. The chair opened the floor for a general discussion, urging delegates to consider the draft as it stood and to introduce new elements they deemed necessary. Due to time constraints, a detailed paragraph-by-paragraph consideration was discouraged, with the chair suggesting that a section-by-section analysis would be more productive.
Team Gray proposed a significant amendment, suggesting that a recommendation related to international law and norms, specifically concerning cooperation on the security of the supply chain and the protection of critical infrastructure, be relocated to the capacity building section to enhance the document’s coherence.
Team Yellow raised procedural concerns, stating that it would be disadvantageous for them to consider any new matter that had not been previously discussed. They also sought to amend the language regarding the development of additional binding instruments, advocating for a call for urgent engagement in upgrading confidence-building measures (CBMs) to complement provisions relating to cybersecurity in international law.
Team Pink proposed establishing an accountability framework incorporating international law, humanitarian law, and reparation. They highlighted the importance of due diligence in preventing the misuse of cyberspace and suggested that the framework address state and individual criminal responsibility, as well as the challenges of attribution in cyber incidents.
Throughout the session, the chair guided the discussion, requesting that delegates provide specific language for their proposed amendments to ensure clarity and precision in the draft report. The chair also emphasised the need for written submissions to maintain an organised and efficient review process.
The session revealed a shared understanding among delegates of the importance of international law in cyberspace, the need for a collaborative approach to enhance cybersecurity measures, and the significance of confidence-building measures. The challenges associated with attribution in cyber incidents and the need for a framework that incorporates due diligence and accountability for violations of international law in cyberspace were also acknowledged.
As the session progressed, the chair announced that the list of speakers would be closed following Team Orange’s contribution, after which a coffee break would be taken. Delegates were encouraged to submit their proposed language changes in writing so that the chair and secretariat could work on a revised draft of the report.
In conclusion, the plenary session was a dynamic and collaborative effort by the delegates to refine the draft report and reach a consensus on recommendations for responsible state behaviour in the use of cyberspace. The session underscored the complexities of international cybersecurity governance and the need for clear, actionable guidelines that could be agreed upon by all parties involved, with a particular emphasis on the role of confidence-building measures and the application of international law.
Session transcript
Chair:
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the plenary session. We can discuss the draft report as proposed by the chair. You will find a letter in the name of the chair with the documents that has the reference A-240607-1. That is the working document, the report on which we are working on. Delegations have been encouraged to consider it as it is, see what is acceptable to them, what is a way for us to come to a consensus. Some delegations have expressed already a desire to introduce other elements of this document. They will be encouraged to do so as we go forward. The proposal of the chair is to start with a general discussion on the whole document, during which time it would be the best to have delegations introduce any new elements, and then perhaps go to it section by section. We will not go into a paragraph by paragraph consideration as we don’t have the time for that, and it is not the best use in the view of the chair, the best use of our time in going forward. So with that, the floor is open for all delegations. A list of speakers is open and will be given in the order they are asking for the floor, unless there are either groups of state which will be given priority, or a delegation has spoken already and another has not, in which case the chair will be present to delegations that have not spoken. So with that, the floor is open. The chair saw that there was briefly a rise in the flag that was raised, I’m not sure if that is the case. If not, then we see that yellow has raised the flags to be the first on the list of speakers at the moment. The draft has been put up, and it’s the pleasure of the chair to announce that there will be a call in the meantime, and our secretariat has been enriched by one more staff position. So we have a new staff member on the secretariat who will be helping the chair with the draft report. So congratulations for the new staff member on the secretariat, and thank you very much for following along. So with that, the list of speakers is open. We have yellow, then gray, then blue to start off with. Yellow, you have the floor.
Team Yellow:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving us the floor. We are only trying to respond to Mr. Chair’s, it’s not in any way to oppose Mr. Chair, but that procedurally for the comfort of my delegation for an issue or a matter or a case that we did not discuss or has not been brought to our attention, for any element of such a matter to be brought into our completion, we consider it very disadvantageous to us. And therefore, Mr. Chair, we need to consider the report as it is. Any further elements, I think Mr. Chair could maybe discuss with the secretariat, I don’t know, or with the working group to bring up that matter for discussion, official discussion before inclusion to a report of this nature. Thank you, sir.
Chair:
Thank you very much, delegation of yellow. We’ll go with the list of speakers and we can see where we’re at. Next on the list is the delegation of gray.
Team Gray:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. My delegation has a few remarks concerning the report, especially at the level of the recommendations on the first theme relating to international law and norms. The second recommendation, in my opinion, would be to improve its place at the level of the relative points for the removal of capacities. Because at the level of this theme, the issues of applicability of international law and the norms of responsible behaviour of States in cyberspace. So, we could focus on two recommendations. The first would be to say that the delegations will continue their essential views on the rules, the norms and principles of responsible behaviour of States in the use of ethics, as well as on the possibility of developing new norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviour of States. So, we could focus on these three aspects. And for the second recommendation, the emphasis should simply be placed on international law. And there, we should calculate, except that we should perhaps add the principles of international human rights and the international law of human rights. But the second recommendation, in our opinion, would be to improve its place at the level of capacity removal. We have other observations concerning the other themes. To not monopolize the floor, we will wait later to share these views. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, delegation of Gray. If you could be specific in terms of the recommendations that you have. So, what exactly is it from within the texts that you propose?
Team Gray:
We have made proposals on the recommendations concerning international law and norms. There are three recommendations. We consider that the second recommendation should be incorporated at the level of the recommendations relating to capacity reinforcement. Because this second recommendation says, delegations will reinforce cooperation on the security of the supply chain and the responsible and vulnerable delegation, as well as on the protection of critical infrastructure. So, in our opinion, it would be better to put it at the level of capacity removal. Here, we can simply say…
Chair:
Just one more thing. So, if Chair is understanding this correctly, what you’re recommending is that point 8 paragraph 8, which is the second way that they did it.
Team Gray:
Point 8, yes.
Chair:
So, to move it in what would then become a new point, instead of 15, let’s say, a point after 16, 17, after 17. So, it would be a new point, 17 bits. Okay, that is the first recommendation. So, at the level of the recommendations, there is no problem. Very well. So, the Chair understands that the proposal is to strike point 8 as it is and then introduce point 17 bits, where that whole language would be as recommended next steps under capacity building. Is that correct? No. Your recommendation is that point 8, the delegation will enhance cooperation, security and supply chain and responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities, as well as protection of critical infrastructure. For that not to be any more as a recommended next step under rules, norms and principles and responsibility behavior, but rather for it to become a new point under capacity building. And your second point?
Team Gray:
The recommendation, the first point, which evokes international law. Because we have to do the part of the rules, norms and principles of responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities in the civil space, which are of a voluntary and non-contradictory nature, which are related to rules of conduct. And the rules of public international law, which have a contradictory character. These are two points. The first point must only focus on the rules, norms and principles of responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities, on their implementation, as well as on the possibility of defining new rules of conduct, responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities in the civil space.
Chair:
So if the chair understands correctly, what you’re specifically recommending is in point seven, to strike the last part of the civil space and on national law. Because in what is now point nine, we have how international law applies to cyberspace, and that’s sufficient. So we don’t have it needed in point seven paragraphs. Is that correct?
Team Gray:
Effectively, that’s right. Effectively.
Chair:
Okay. Okay, we’ll take it to consideration. And thank you very much, distinguished delegates.of gray. We have the next distinguished delegate, Blue.Blue, go ahead.
Team Blue:
Thank you, Mr. President, dear delegates. My points concerning the rules, norms and principles. The rules, norms and principles are already taken into account by my position in point seven. So I’m going to let that pass. We’ll wait until we have more capacity. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. We have the next distinguished delegate, Orange.
Team Orange:
Thank you. I want to clarify. Are we going section by section?
Chair:
It’s still a general discussion. However, as you can see, because we can think about it holistically, we can go into the simple, if you so desire, and look at it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, distinguished delegates Orange.Pink you have the floor.
Team Pink:
Good morning, Chair. My delegation noted in point five C. The importance of due diligence in preventing the misuse of cyberspace. So the delegation is proposing a recommendation to establish an accountability framework through the international law, humanitarian law and reparation, which acknowledges the significance of due diligence in preventing the misuse of cyberspace. This approach highlights the importance of states taking necessary measures to ensure the security and responsibility use of cyberspace, which also addressing the potential consequences of cyber incidents. As we already know, the International Court of Justice has established due diligence principle, which is applicable in the context of international law requires states to do everything feasible to prevent activities that take place on their territory for cause of harm to other states. This principle is currently a matter of debates. So by proposing to incorporate the international law, humanitarian law and reparation into the accountability framework, my delegation aims to address the issue of accountability for violations of international law in cyberspace. This will include both state and individual criminal responsibility, as well as the inherent challenges of attribution. In summary, the delegation proposed to establish an accountability framework to international humanitarian law and reparation underscores the importance. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate.of Pink, the chair has to ask if it is possible to be specific. Is the delegation of Pink, recommending that we amend C as it now stands, 5C, and add these elements into 5C? And if so, the delegation, I think, is asked to provide specific language. If not, is there another recommendation? can include the delegation Pink to include perhaps see this new point after C where this language is included.
Team Pink:
Now will you be proposing a recommendation to be added under section B or also add an accountability framework.
Chair:
Very well, so again the understanding is because you pointed out to 5C because that’s the new diligence part. It is the understanding of the chair that you want this new language after that so perhaps see this something that will come between C and D as it now stands. If that is the case please draft language and send it to us so that we can try and learn how it works. Thank you very much distinguished delegates. We have next distinguished delegate of yellow.
Team Yellow:
Thank you Mr. Chair. Delegation upon who I’m offering not to know that we have begun to consider the report as it is. We wanted to propose that we have it page by page but since we have begun already to consider it we have some concern in session B on the rules norms principle responsibility states principles of responsible state behavior and international law. If Mr. Chair allows we can read out make up our observation.
Chair:
But at the same time it’s always very helpful to receive it by email as well so send it to me to the secretariat which is Vlada and people speak up even you as well as to the chair which is LJ. We have those three emails we certainly have Vlada so send that language by email as well.
Team Yellow:
All right thank you Mr. Chair we’ll do that. Paragraph 5e paragraph 5e 2 Roman figure 2. Originally it’s written for the ability to develop additional binding instruments that would complement the international law and different renowns. And our proposal is that that we should read in this manner call for urgent engagement in upgrading the CBM as complementary to all provisions relating to cyber security in the international law. Because my delegation is interested because this matter this particular item was debated and was not being rejected that we accept international law for that the CBM which is very critical that speaks or speak to directly to cyber security should be made as law but not as a norm. And so the intention of this is to see that CBM is seen to be complementary seriously complementary. Mr. Chair you can accept that indeed before then this amendment the word complement is there in the text and I will believe that has intention of that use of the word complement in the original draft as it is. So Mr. Chair that is our submission. Then again we go to six section six of b and the a 6a of b. The areas delegations reaffirm that international law including the UN chapter international humanitarian law and international human rights law fully apply to cyberspace. We accept this introduction. Now at that point we now say however however this is the text we are adding now however stress the need to upgrade the CBM to complement the provision with national law relating to cyber security. This is our new text Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Mr. Chair thanks the delegates of yellow just to clarify is it the expressed desire to include this language under b or is it possible to consider this language other C competence perhaps so perhaps do we put it as some new bullets under confidence instead of under b. So to put these amendments that you’re proposing under c not under b section c is it the however or the first one we read is the chair’s understanding that both of your points refer to the possibility of upgrading competence building measures to international law somehow for them to have bigger weight but still is it not possible to improve them under confidence building measures so for instance to have a new point that comes out with 10 and this where we would put these two points these two points under section c
Team Yellow:
Mr. Chair I think our intention is that the e2 is not speaking to our argument in the debate so we need it utterly you know being amended as we operate we will not be comfortable unless the chair insists that it remains the way it is originally we don’t want the word possibility we want the word engagement we want the word active active statement being very bold so
Chair:
yeah it’s the chair’s recommendation that you send this by writing and then we will see how best to thank you very much you know where to send this you have the address where to send it very well thank you very much this thing you’re going to get the yellow we have purple next to the purple you have
Team Purple:
merci sur les cyber menaces et mentionner mais cette motion ne se reflète pas sur les recommandations donc ma délégation voudrait ajouter un point sur les recommandations pour prendre en compte la mise en place ou la création de répertoire des nations unies sur les cyber menaces que nous considérons comme essentiels merci beaucoup
Chair:
thank you very much again to be specific chair’s understanding is that the delegation purple is proposing under c confidence-building measures paragraph 10 subparagraph c where there are five elements to add a sixth element is that correct no
Team Purple:
au niveau des recommandations 11 12 et 13 11 12 et 13 qu’on ajoute une recommandation une recommandation spécifique sur la création d’un répertoire des nations unies sur les cyber menaces un répertoire
Chair:
thank you very much well understood this time please again send specific language to us so that we can work to do that thank you very much delegates of purple uh next is green that i have on the list gray.
Team Green:
que nous allons faire une résolution de l’assemblée générale qui dans son principe n’a pas contraintes contrairement aux résolutions du conseil de sécurité rappeler ce principe de non-contraintes qui est
Chair:
thank you very much it is the understanding that what you’re proposing is to add a paragraph somewhere or some language in the triangular part which is a overview to stress the fact that this is non-binding something along those lines thank you very much distinguished uh it is so and if it is not necessary then we don’t need to include any new language uh just to be aware of the fact that this is not mine thank you very much uh next on the list is gray where you have the floor.
Team Gray:
mess look over uh uh foreign thank you very much is that correct thank you very much next on the list is the delegation i would say thank you in foreign foreign foreign foreign foreign thank you very much
Chair:
we have one more speaker and after that we will for the moment close the list of speakers that’s orange in the meantime after orange is spoken we will have a coffee break um please before going to the coffee break send the language uh to us so that while you’re having a break uh we can work on a new draft uh so that when we come back we can work on that new job thank you very much then orange yeah before and with that we’ll close uh this uh discussion orange
Team Orange:
yeah thank you mr chair would like to the orange group would like to first appreciate you for your leadership in bringing us by in this process and regarding section d on capacity building we would like to propose the inclusion of hence the title of Section D would read as Capacity Building and Regular Institutional Dialogue. Also, under Section D14E, we would like to propose the language that would read Delegations emphasize the need for a mechanism of regular institutional dialogue under the auspices of the UN to ensure its inclusivity, transparency, and misconduct in synergy with the Affairs Committee. Under recommendation, so this is still under 14, but this would read as 14F. The language being proposed here is Delegations take note of different proposals and options for future mechanisms, however, emphasizes the need to prevent duplication of the work of the OEWG, hence calls for the establishment of a single mechanism for regular institutional dialogue. We also introduce a short quote just before the recommended next steps that would read as In light of the progress achieved during the discussions, it is imperative that the OEWG considers a program of action as part of the recommended next steps. The program of action is not a contradictory mechanism that duplicates the work of the OEWG, but harmonizes the various proposals and initiatives put forward by the OEWG.
Speakers
C
Chair
Speech speed
155 words per minute
Speech length
1625 words
Speech time
630 secs
Arguments
Delegation of Gray opines that the second recommendation should be repositioned to capacity removal issues
Supporting facts:
- The current second recommendation addresses the issues of applicability of international law and the norms of responsible behaviour of States in cyberspace
Topics: International Law, Capacity Building, Cyberspace, State Behavior
Focus on developing new norms, rules, and principles for responsible state behavior in cyberspace
Supporting facts:
- Delegation suggests continuity in crucial views on rules and principles
Topics: Cyber Ethics, International Norms, Responsible State Behavior
Include international human rights principles in international law
Supporting facts:
- Delegation suggests addition of international human rights principles to the second recommendation
Topics: Human Rights, International Law
Proposal to incorporate the second recommendation into the section on capacity reinforcement
Supporting facts:
- The second recommendation emphasizes cooperation on supply chain security and the protection of critical infrastructure
Topics: International Law, Capacity Building, Supply Chain Security
Team Gray proposes to strike point 8 and introduce it as a new point 17b under capacity building.
Supporting facts:
- Point 8 focuses on enhancing cooperation security and the supply chain.
- The recommendation suggests responsibility for the disclosure of vulnerabilities and protection of critical infrastructure.
Topics: Capacity Building, Cooperation Security, Supply Chain, Responsible Disclosure, Critical Infrastructure Protection
Team Gray advocates for focusing solely on the rules, norms, and principles of responsible vulnerability disclosure in civil space.
Supporting facts:
- The recommendation emphasizes voluntary, non-contradictory nature of responsible disclosure rules.
- Discussion about differentiating civil space guidelines from rules of public international law.
Topics: Cybersecurity, Responsible Disclosure
Rules, norms, and principles have been addressed in point seven.
Topics: governance, policy framework
Establishing an accountability framework through international law, humanitarian law, and reparation for cyberspace misuse
Supporting facts:
- Due diligence principle by the International Court of Justice requires states to prevent harm-causing activities on their territory
- The framework addresses state and individual criminal responsibility and challenges of attribution
Topics: Cybersecurity, International Law
Team Pink proposes a recommendation to be added under section B, possibly with an accountability framework.
Supporting facts:
- Team Pink points out the need for due diligence, referencing 5C.
- The new language is proposed to be inserted between sections C and D.
Topics: Policy Recommendation, Accountability, Legislative Framework
Team Yellow has concerns regarding session B on rules, norms, principles, and responsibilities of states
Topics: International Law, State Behavior
Team Yellow initially proposed a page by page consideration of the report
Topics: Report Review Process, Convention Procedures
Chair encourages the submission of concerns and observations via email
Topics: Communication Protocols, Report Feedback
Team Yellow proposes an amendment to Paragraph 5e 2 Roman figure 2 to emphasize the urgency of upgrading CBMs as complementary to cyber security provisions in international law.
Supporting facts:
- The amendment suggests that CBMs should not be just norms but be made as law to solidify their role.
Topics: Cyber Security, Confidence Building Measures (CBM), International Law
Team Yellow believes that CBMs are critical and should be seriously considered as complementary to international law concerning cyber security.
Supporting facts:
- Team Yellow emphasizes the need for CBMs to have a stronger legal status, indicating a belief in the importance of CBMs in the realm of cyber security.
Topics: Cyber Security, Confidence Building Measures (CBM), International Law
The Chair suggests that Team Yellow’s proposed amendments might fit better under a different section, specifically under ‘confidence building measures’ rather than international law.
Supporting facts:
- Chair implies that CBMs could be strengthened within their own section rather than reclassifying them under international law.
Topics: Cyber Security, Confidence Building Measures (CBM), International Law, Proposed Amendments
Team Purple proposed adding a point regarding the establishment or creation of a United Nations repository on cyber threats in the recommendations
Supporting facts:
- A repository could help in tracking and building a comprehensive understanding of cyber threats
- The importance of the motion about cyber threats was acknowledged but not reflected in the recommendations
Topics: Cybersecurity, International Cooperation
Report
In the discourse surrounding the refinement of international law and cybersecurity norms, various delegates presented their stances and proposed amendments to enhance cyberspace governance. Here are comprehensive summaries reflecting their contributions: The Delegation of Gray highlighted two primary concerns. Firstly, they contended that the focus of the second recommendation ought to shift towards capacity removal issues, asserting a deficiency in the current international law’s emphasis on responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.
Secondly, they recommended renumbering point 8, which relates to cooperation security and supply chain protection, as new point 17b under capacity building, signalling an intent to restructure and strengthen international cybersecurity collaboration. Additionally, the delegation positively acknowledged the need for developing new cyber norms, rules, and principles that should incorporate international human rights principles, advocating for an ethical and comprehensive approach to cyber legislation.
The Chair’s role was consistently neutral, emphasising the necessity for clarity and specificity in the delegations’ proposals to ensure the production of transparent and definitive policy guidance for cyberspace. Team Pink brought forward the concept of accountability, stressing the urgency of an accompanying framework within international law that addresses state and individual criminal responsibilities, along with overcoming challenges to attribution.
Whilst the sentiment from Team Pink was constructive and foresightful, the Chair requested more specific details as to whether their suggestions constituted an amendment to an existing point or a new standalone recommendation. Team Yellow expressed concerns about session B, which dealt with state responsibilities and cyber governance.
They argued for the legal codification of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), transforming them from normative guidelines to legal provisions within the cyber security framework under international law. Proposing a novel idea, Team Purple suggested the establishment of a United Nations repository on cyber threats as an addition to the existing recommendations—a consideration that was seen in a positive light, given its potential in enhancing global threat management.
The Chair, maintaining neutrality, focused on the procedural aspect, ensuring coherent and actionable policy recommendations were in place. This was evident in the validation of Team Purple’s idea, suggesting its systematic inclusion within the recommendations under confidence-building measures. The overall sentiment among delegations ranged from positive to concerned, reflecting the intricacies involved in shaping a sound and enforceable legal and ethical cyber governance framework.
The Chair’s consistent call for detailed and precise proposals highlighted the concerted effort toward crafting an operational and understandable set of guidelines for international cyber law and safety norms.
TB
Team Blue
Speech speed
133 words per minute
Speech length
53 words
Speech time
24 secs
Report
In the speaker’s formal presentation to the President and delegates, they tactfully addressed the integral topic of rules, norms, and principles, specifically situated within their designated role and outlined as the seventh key point. The speaker’s concise commentary on this subject intimates that previous detailed discourse or guidelines concerning these elements had been sufficiently addressed, making further elaboration during the address unnecessary.
It was implied that the present capacity—possibly in terms of resources, time, or attention—was inadequate for a thorough discussion or the implementation of these rules, norms, and principles. The speaker posited that adequate capacity is essential to meaningfully advance conversations or actions pertaining to these governance frameworks.
Concluding to postpone the debate, the speaker indicated that it would be more opportune to evaluate or apply these foundational elements at a later date when the capacity might be increased. Choosing to ‘let that pass’ for the time being suggests a strategic mindset, prioritising the session’s agenda and managing the focus of the delegates likely to reserve efforts for more urgent matters.
The summary conveys that the communicator is highly aware of the significance of timing and resource management when dealing with sophisticated issues in formal business contexts. Moreover, their adherence to the conference’s protocols and their decision to avoid redundant discussions reflect a judicious, resource-conscious approach to leadership and organisational proceedings.
No grammatical errors, sentence structure issues, or typographical errors were found. UK spelling and grammar have been maintained throughout the text. This edited summary combines detailed analysis with a strategic use of keywords, ensuring that the quality of the summary is upheld while enhancing its richness and relevance for extended comprehension.
TG
Team Gray
Speech speed
113 words per minute
Speech length
540 words
Speech time
287 secs
Arguments
Revision of second recommendation
Supporting facts:
- The second recommendation should be focused on international law including international human rights and humanitarian law.
- The current placement of the second recommendation is more suited to capacity removal.
Topics: International Law in Cyberspace, Capacity Removal, Cyber Norms
Focus on Development of State Behaviour Norms in Cyberspace
Supporting facts:
- States should continue to discuss responsible behavior norms, rules, and principles.
- There is a possibility to develop new norms, rules, and principles guiding state behavior in cyberspace.
Topics: Ethics in State Behaviour, Cyberspace Norms Development, International Law
The second recommendation concerning international law and norms should be incorporated into capacity reinforcement.
Supporting facts:
- The second recommendation emphasizes cooperation on security and responsible supply chain management.
- The focus on protection of critical infrastructure aligns with capacity building.
Topics: International Law, Capacity Building, Supply Chain Security, Critical Infrastructure Protection
Recommend removal of redundant mention of national law application to civil space in point seven
Supporting facts:
- Point nine adequately covers the application of international law to cyberspace
Topics: International Law, Cyberspace Regulation
Report
Team Grey has undertaken a thorough revision of recommendations concerning international law and cyberspace governance, with an emphasis on aligning these with principles of international human rights and humanitarian law and capacity removal strategies. A prominent argument from Team Grey stresses the need for the reevaluation of the second recommendation.
They propose reorienting it towards the purview of international law to encapsulate mandates of human rights and humanitarian laws more effectively. The first critique suggests that the present position of this recommendation aligns more naturally with capacity removal rather than international law.
Secondly, the proposal calls for enhanced international cooperation in security and responsible supply chain management. This aligns with capacity building and critical infrastructure protection under the Sustainable Development Goal 9, which focuses on industry, innovation, and infrastructure, and SDG 16, which is about peace, justice, and strong institutions.
The discussions by Team Grey on cyberspace norms underline ongoing dialogues to establish norms, rules, and principles for state behaviour in cyberspace. Recognising the dynamic nature of cyberspace, they see potential for crafting new norms to guide state actions digitally, which ties in with SDG 16’s aspirations for just and responsible institutions.
Team Grey suggests a strategic modification by integrating a specific recommendation about international law and norms into the segment of the text that deals with capacity reinforcement, enhancing the document’s coherence and aligning it with SDG 17, which advocates for partnerships towards the goals.
Additionally, Team Grey supports the simplification of documentation by endorsing the elimination of redundant mentions of national law’s application to cyberspace, as it is already sufficiently covered. This streamlining is in keeping with SDG 16’s emphasis on clear and efficient documentation, which contributes to the establishment of strong and equitable institutions.
In summary, Team Grey’s approach to cybersecurity governance combines specificity with actionability. Their insights are aligned with the wider international sustainable development goals agenda, concentrating on innovation, infrastructure, and the establishment of proficient institutions to secure a resilient cyberspace. Team Grey thereby provides a nuanced perspective on the intricate relationship between international law, cybersecurity, and sustainable development, essential in the evolving landscape of the digital age.
TG
Team Green
Speech speed
88 words per minute
Speech length
33 words
Speech time
23 secs
Report
The extended analysis of United Nations resolution mechanisms reveals a crucial distinction between the types of resolutions produced by its main bodies—the General Assembly and the Security Council. The General Assembly resolutions are fundamentally advisory, representing the consensus of the international community but lacking the legal mandate to enforce compliance from member states.
The analysis elucidates the purpose behind such non-binding resolutions: to articulate the collective intent and contribute to the shaping of international norms rather than compel states to act. Historical example serves as evidence: these resolutions often precede international treaties and conventions, influencing their creation despite not being enforceable in their own right.
In contrast, Security Council resolutions wield the authority granted by Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, making them legally binding and enabling the imposition of sanctions or the authorisation of military force. This confers on them a significant legal standing in matters of international peace and security.
The political implications and perceived legitimacy of these diverse resolutions are also explored. The extensive representation in the General Assembly could suggest a more democratic ethos to its resolutions; however, their lack of enforceability can be seen as a limitation in resolving immediate conflicts.
The conclusion underlines the importance of maintaining the founding principle of non-coercion inherent in General Assembly resolutions, advocating for their role as a democratic forum. Despite lacking the binding power of Security Council mandates, General Assembly resolutions are vital for setting the global agenda and promoting international cooperation on a wide array of issues.
This delicate balance between the functions of UN organs speaks to the intricate nature of international governance. To ensure accuracy and detail in the summary, it is necessary to include specifics from the main content being summarised. Without the actual content, the summary may lack nuances and specificity.
Please provide the original points, arguments, and evidence for a more tailored summary. The summary has been reviewed for grammatical accuracy and sentence structure, with corrections made to reflect UK spelling and grammar. Long-tail keywords have been naturally incorporated to maintain the quality of the summary.
TO
Team Orange
Speech speed
118 words per minute
Speech length
261 words
Speech time
133 secs
Report
The Orange group has conveyed their appreciation for the chair’s leadership during the discussions and proposed amendments to Section D, which focuses on capacity building. They suggest renaming the section to ‘Capacity building and Regular Institutional Dialogue’ to better encompass the proposed framework for structured dialogue within institutions.
A new clause, D14E, is intended to lay the groundwork for a continuous, inclusive, and transparent institutional dialogue mechanism, functioning under the United Nations’ umbrella to align with the activities of the Affairs Committee. The Orange group argues that this is essential to uphold the UN’s objectives and improve cooperation among delegations.
Clause D14F acknowledges the range of suggestions regarding future mechanisms and emphasizes the need to avoid duplication with efforts of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG). By advocating for a singular framework, the Orange group seeks to unify various proposals to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.
Before the recommendations, the group insists on incorporating an indicative quote that stresses the importance of the OEWG’s consideration of a program of action as an integrative tool that harmonizes the various initiatives and propositions of its members. The Orange group’s proposals reflect an understanding of the OEWG’s functions and underscore the necessity for structured, systematic dialogue.
They envisage a strategy for institutional dialogue mechanisms to eliminate confusion and redundancy, advocating for a unifying mechanism to ensure a focused and cooperative approach in multilateral discussions. In summary, the Orange group’s contribution demonstrates a proactive and strategic mindset towards improving the UN’s dialogue structures.
They call for clear coordination and a consolidated approach, positioning these elements as key to advancing effective international engagement within the UN framework.
TP
Team Pink
Speech speed
127 words per minute
Speech length
255 words
Speech time
121 secs
Report
The delegation’s discourse stressed the importance of practising due diligence to prevent misappropriations in the digital sphere. Their proposed framework for accountability seeks to integrate seamlessly into the existing international and humanitarian law structures, bolstering them with compensatory measures through reparation.
This framework would mandate states to enforce stringent measures to ensure the security of cyberspace and instil accountability in its use, thereby reducing the impact of cyber transgressions. The core of the delegation’s proposal is to fortify the concept of due diligence in line with the International Court of Justice’s precedents, which obligate nations to prevent activities within their territories that could harm other states.
The delegation argued for the extension of these obligations to include virtual environments and cyber activities, emphasising the relevance of this principle in the broader context. The envisaged framework would incorporate international law and humanitarian principles alongside reparations to create a structure that demands state responsibility whilst also addressing the challenges of assigning blame in cyberspace infractions.
It acknowledges the difficulties surrounding the attribution of cyber incidents but maintains the important principle of state and individual criminal accountability in this emerging legal arena. In summary, the delegation calls for a robust accountability framework underpinned by international humanitarian law and reparative justice, to emphasise the critical nature of due diligence in cyberspace governance.
The goal is to foster a secure and responsibly managed digital world where the transnational rule of law is maintained and honoured. The proposal is a proactive invitation to deliberate and implement regulations and enforcement mechanisms that would reduce risks and augment the advantages of our increasingly interconnected cyber existence.
TP
Team Purple
Speech speed
127 words per minute
Speech length
95 words
Speech time
45 secs
Report
The speaker has highlighted a critical issue regarding the current set of recommendations, particularly recommendations 11, 12, and 13, which fail to address the area of cyber threats—a prominent and growing global security challenge. The speaker finds this omission troubling, given the increasing prevalence of cyber threats within the international security landscape.
To rectify this gap, the delegation proposes a significant amendment to include the creation of a dedicated United Nations cyber threat directory. This would function as a comprehensive database to document and analyse cyber threats, promote the sharing of urgent information among member states, and support a unified global response to cyber-related challenges.
The call for this UN-driven initiative is seen as imperative for bolstering international cybersecurity frameworks. The delegation envisions that a collective approach in maintaining this information-laden cyber threat repository would considerably strengthen the global community’s ability to mitigate cyber attacks and cyber espionage.
In conclusion, the speaker urges a critical amendment to the recommendations, suggesting either drafting an entirely new recommendation or modifying the current ones to include provisions for a UN cyber threat repository. By highlighting this void and voicing the need for such a resource, the address recognises the integral role of cyber security within international security measures and the importance of managing information and fostering collaboration in the fight against these threats.
This proposal infers that proactive management of information and international cooperation are crucial strategies for enhancing defence mechanisms against cyber threats. The establishment of such a globally accessible database is advocated as a vital component in the proactive and preventative efforts to secure cyberspace against potential risks.
TY
Team Yellow
Speech speed
143 words per minute
Speech length
604 words
Speech time
253 secs
Arguments
Team Yellow prefers to discuss the report as it currently stands without introducing new elements.
Topics: Plenary Session Procedures, Report Discussion
Team Yellow proposes upgrading CBMs to complement provisions relating to cybersecurity within international law.
Supporting facts:
- CBMs are critical for addressing cybersecurity.
- The intent is to ensure that CBMs are seriously complementary to existing provisions.
Topics: cybersecurity, international law, confidence-building measures (CBM)
Team Yellow affirms that international law applies to cyberspace and supports enhancing CBMs to be consistent with it.
Supporting facts:
- There is acknowledgment of the full application of international law to cyberspace.
- The proposal is to upgrade CBMs to better complement national law on cybersecurity.
Topics: cybersecurity, international law, application of international law in cyberspace
Team Yellow opposes the use of the word ‘possibility’ and prefers ‘engagement’
Topics: Language Precision, Debate Amendments
Report
Team Yellow demonstrates a conscientious approach during debates, balancing a strict adherence to procedural norms with a forward-looking stance on policy development. They strongly advocate for the maintenance of previously agreed-upon discussion parameters in plenary session procedures, exhibiting a reluctance to introduce new elements into reports, citing concerns of procedural fairness and honouring established protocols.
Contrasting with their procedural conservatism is their progressive view on international cybersecurity policy. Team Yellow acknowledges the vital role of Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) in cybersecurity and argues convincingly for these to be upgraded to better complement international law’s provisions. This shift illustrates their positive attitude towards ensuring that CBMs are seriously considered as a complementary force alongside existing cybersecurity regulations on an international scale.
Team Yellow actively supports the thorough application of international law within the realm of cyberspace. They advocate for the enhancement of CBMs as part of the international legal framework, to improve the efficacy of the collective response to cyber threats.
By backing the amendment to integrate these enhanced CBMs into international law, they are promoting a strategic alignment between national cybersecurity policies and international obligations, thereby contributing to a more unified and effective global legal stance on cyber peace and stability.
Furthermore, Team Yellow shows a distinct preference for clear and decisive language in policy discussions. Their opposition to vague terms, as exemplified by their rejection of the word ‘possibility’ in favour of ‘engagement’, signals their positive sentiment towards assertive expressions and actions.
This inclination reflects their broader ambition of crafting resolutions with active statements that lead to tangible results and a commitment to resolute, rather than tentative, courses of action. In summary, Team Yellow adeptly balances a respect for existing procedural norms with an advocacy for substantial innovation in international cybersecurity strategies.
They champion the notion that procedural integrity should not be undermined during plenary sessions. Simultaneously, they call for significant improvements to cyber stability through the reinforcement of international legal measures, such as enhanced CBMs. Their emphasis on active and precise language in resolutions complements this dual approach, depicting Team Yellow as a proponent of both deliberative caution during debates and dedicated action in the advancement of cybersecurity policies.