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.

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.

C

Chair

Speech speed

155 words per minute

Speech length

1625 words

Speech time

630 secs

TB

Team Blue

Speech speed

133 words per minute

Speech length

53 words

Speech time

24 secs

TG

Team Gray

Speech speed

113 words per minute

Speech length

540 words

Speech time

287 secs

TG

Team Green

Speech speed

88 words per minute

Speech length

33 words

Speech time

23 secs

TO

Team Orange

Speech speed

118 words per minute

Speech length

261 words

Speech time

133 secs

TP

Team Pink

Speech speed

127 words per minute

Speech length

255 words

Speech time

121 secs

TP

Team Purple

Speech speed

127 words per minute

Speech length

95 words

Speech time

45 secs

TY

Team Yellow

Speech speed

143 words per minute

Speech length

604 words

Speech time

253 secs