Peaceful settlement of disputes

National positions

African Union (2024)

"34. The obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means is a rule of customary international law that is also codified in international and regional treaties, including the U.N. Charter and the founding instruments of regional organizations, such as the Constitutive Act of the African Union.

35. The African Union recalls Article 4(e) on the peaceful resolution of conflicts and Article 4(f) on the prohibition of the use of force or the threat to use force of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and reaffirms that in accordance with Article 2(3) and Article 33 of the U.N. Charter the obligation to settle international disputes peacefully applies to any dispute that may arise between States relating to acts, omissions, or any disagreement on a point of law or fact, that relates to the use of ICTs in cyberspace, or that relates to the application or interpretation of international law in this field. This obligation is not limited to disputes the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

36. In accordance with the U.N. Charter, States are obligated to settle international disputes through peaceful means such as negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, good offices, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or any other peaceful means of their own choice.

37. The African Union recognizes the potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to enhance the peaceful settlement of disputes and encourages the use of ICTs in the context of dispute settlement. The African Union also supports the development of ICT-based tools and platforms for the peaceful settlement of disputes, such as online mediation platforms and dispute resolution software, and urges states to invest in research and development of ICTs for the peaceful settlement of disputes in cyberspace."

Austria (2024)

Key Positions
"States are under an obligation to ensure that their territory is not knowingly used for cyber activities contrary to the rights of other states. A state that is or should be aware of such a cyber activity emanating from its territory has a due diligence obligation to take all reasonable measures that are appropriate to prevent the violation and end the activity."

"According to the ICJ in the Corfu Channel Case, each state is obligated “not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States.” This general due diligence obligation of a state concerning its territory is an obligation of conduct, not of result, and is also applicable to cyber activities.

If a state has or should have knowledge of a cyber activity contrary to the rights of other states emanating from ICT infrastructure on its territory, it has to take all reasonable measures that are appropriate to prevent the violation and end the activity.

While – in addition to actual knowledge – the obligation comprises also situations in which a state should have known about the activities in question, it cannot be concluded from the mere fact of the control exercised over its territory that a state necessarily knew, or ought to have known, of any unlawful act perpetrated therein.

The required “reasonable measures” are to be assessed in accordance with the due diligence obligation of the territorial state: Due diligence constitutes an “objective” international standard of vigilance and care which is reasonably expected from an average “good government” that is mindful of its international obligations and acting in good faith, in the light of the potential risks in a given situation. Due diligence is a variable standard that may change as a result of new technological developments or changes in risk assessment.

In the cyber context, it first includes the obligation of a state to put in place a minimum governmental ICT infrastructure and capacity, enabling it to exercise the necessary degree of diligence with regard to cyber activities on its territory. Second, when a state becomes aware or should be aware of a cyber activity emanating from its territory that violates the rights of another state, it is under an obligation, in light of its capacity, to take all measures that can be reasonably expected from an average state in the given situation and are appropriate to prevent the violation and end the activity. At a minimum, it entails the obligation to inform the injured state of the cyber activity.

The due diligence obligation does not entail that a state has to monitor ICT infrastructure located on its territory at all times. Nor may this obligation be used in any way as an excuse to infringe on human rights."

Example

"State A is aware of a criminal hacker group operating on its territory and targeting other states. The group is conducting a cyber attack against state B, encrypting all the files of state B’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and requesting a ransom payment. State B is able to trace the activity to state A, but is unable to clearly attribute the attack to state A. It notifies state A of the cyber activity by the group emanating from state A’s territory. State A rejects the allegation and refuses to investigate the conduct on its territory. Thereby, state A violates its due diligence obligation."

Canada (2022)

"41. A central, and at times overlooked, rule of international law is the obligation of every State, under the UN Charter, to seek the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. This is closely related to the prohibition of the threat or use of force. Like that prohibition, it applies in cyberspace just as it does elsewhere. Thus, Canada considers that in line with the UN Charter, in case of disputes States may seek solutions through negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

42. The obligation to seek the settlement of disputes by peaceful means is not unlimited, nor does it diminish other international legal obligations or rights, such as the inherent right of self-defence.

43. Canada considers that a State may always respond to an unfriendly act or an internationally wrongful act with unfriendly acts provided they are not contrary to international law.

Costa Rica (2023)

"17. In accordance with Article 2(3) of the UN Charter, States ‘shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered’. Likewise, under Article 33(1) of the Charter, in the case of a dispute ‘the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security’, States ‘shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.’ They must do so in good faith. Both provisions encapsulate the customary principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, which applies to factual or legal disputes involving cyber operations".

Czech Republic (2024)

"21. The obligation of every State to settle their international disputes by peaceful means remains one of the fundamental provisions of the UN Charter and general international law, which also applies in cyberspace.

22. In case of disputes that may endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, States shall seek solutions through negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice, as described in Article 33 (1) of the UN Charter.

23. The Czech Republic is of the view that the obligation to settle disputes peacefully does not preclude the right of States to take other measures in accordance with international law, including the UN Charter."

Estonia (2021)

It is an obligation for states to settle their international disputes that endanger international peace and security by peaceful means.

"As outlined in the UN Charter, possible solutions to settle disputes between states include negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, and other internationally lawful action.

In accordance with the UN Charter Chapter VI, the UN Security Council may also call upon the parties, when it deems necessary, to settle their dispute by such peaceful means. In specific cases with respect to cyber activities endangering international peace and security, the other powers and responsibilities of the UN Security Council outlined in the UN Charter may be exercised in order to maintain and restore international peace and security.

The obligation to seek peaceful settlement of disputes does not preclude a state’s inherent right for self-defence in response to an armed attack, the right for taking lawful countermeasures, or other lawful action."

Japan (2021)

"Any international disputes involving cyber operations must be settled through peaceful means pursuant to Article 2(3) of the UN Charter. In addition, pursuant to Article 33 of the UN Charter, the parties to any dispute involving cyber operations, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, must first of allseek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. In order to ensure the peaceful settlement of disputes, the powers of the Security Council based on Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter and the functions of the other UN organs, including ICJ based on Chapter XIV of the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice should be used in disputes stemming from cyber operations."

Kenya (2021)

"Kenya recognizes that International Law has many functions. Among the primary functions is to create an agreed context and standard of action and behaviour among States, to maintain order in international issues, to minimize the occurrence of international conflicts and disputes, and, where they occur, to assist in their resolution, and lastly, to protect the sovereign liberties and rights of States."

"The UN Charter forms a strong foundation for the interpretation of existing international laws underlined by inter alia the principles of State sovereignty, sovereign equality, and settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. It is the Charter’s emphasis on these principles that is fully aligned with Kenya’s peaceful stance in international affairs."

Singapore (2021)

"[..]the obligation of all States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means, in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered."

"Singapore’s view is that the obligation of all States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means, in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered, remains a key principle underpinning the international legal order."

"Singapore shares the concerns of other States on the escalation of conflicts in the cyber sphere, against the backdrop of continuing fast-paced developments in technology. Singapore affirms the key principle enshrined in the UN Charter that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means, in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered. This obligation applies in cyberspace as it does in the physical world and does not impair the inherent right of States to take measures consistent with international law and as recognised under the UN Charter."

Switzerland (2021)

"In accordance with Art. 2 para. 3 and Art. 33 of the UN Charter, disputes which may endanger the maintenance of international peace and security should be settled by peaceful means. This includes diplomatic proceedings, arbitration or recourse to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). As a neutral country with long-standing experience and engagement in the provision of good offices, Switzerland is committed to upholding this principle in cyberspace, emphasising the overriding aim of ensuring that cyberspace is used for peaceful purposes only. Switzerland therefore welcomes the UN GGE's 2015 report and the OEWG 2019/2021 report confirming the peaceful settlement of disputes as one of the UN Charter's central principles, which is also applicable to cyberspace. Consequently, disputes in cyberspace should also be settled by peaceful means, not with unilateral measures."

United Kingdom (2021)

"Article 2(3) and the provisions of Chapter VI of the Charter on the peaceful settlement of disputes can equally apply in relation to States’ activities in cyberspace. Thus, in accordance with Article 33(1), States that are party to any cyber-related international dispute the continuation of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall endeavour to settle such dispute by peaceful means as described in Article 33 of the Charter: negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."

United Kingdom (2022)

"Where a State falls victim to unlawful cyber activity carried out against it by another State, it may also be appropriate to pursue remedies through the courts. Current events in Ukraine have demonstrated the continued relevance of forums like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of a wider response. The UK has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, and we encourage others to do likewise."