Over the past decade, Australia has been a frontrunner in terms of digital transformation; the country ranked 11^th globally on the 2020 Global Connectivity Index and 2^nd in the Indo-Pacific. Australia’s better-than-expected economic performance in 2021 was largely owed to increased government efforts at promoting the digitalisation of businesses and government services, with significant investment being poured into the ICT sector under the Digital Economy Strategy and the Regional Connectivity Program. Meanwhile, however, self-reported losses from cybercrime amounted to more than $33 billion during the 2020-2021 financial year (E), while roughly a quarter of cyber incidents reported during the same period involved Australia’s critical infrastructure or essential services (E). In the cyber diplomacy realm, Australia has traditionally been a prominent member of the ‘like-minded’ group, promoting a vision of a free, open, and secure cyberspace that is very much in line with EU values and efforts.

India and the European Union share many values and principles, such as inclusiveness, democracy, and multilateralism. With 1.4 billion people, India is the largest democracy in the world and considers itself as a leader among the Global South. India and the EU share common visions of a rules-based global order and are aligned on their commitment to an open, free, secure, stable, peaceful, and accessible cyberspace, enabling economic growth and innovation. In light of India’s rapid digitization and connectivity, the EU-India Strategic Partnership & Roadmap to 2025 includes commitments to cooperate on new and emerging technologies, norms and regulatory frameworks, and international standards.

The United Kingdom ranks 10^th in the 2021 Network Readiness Index (NRI), 9^th in the 2021 Digital Skills Gap Index and 14^th in the 2021 IMD World Digital Competitiveness Ranking. The British digital sector contributes roughly £149 billion each year to the economy and employs more than 1.5 million people [x]. The country also remains Europe’s unofficial ‘start-up capital’, with British tech startups attracting more than $15 billion in venture capital investment in the midst of a global pandemic. Nevertheless, new and emerging challenges to peace and security in cyberspace represent pressing concerns for the UK [x]. Over the course of 2021, the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre dealt with 777 significant incidents, with around 20% of supported organisations being linked to the health sector and Covid vaccines [x]. In the face of ever-increasing cyber vulnerabilities, the UK government has recently adopted a strategy of ‘levelling up’ protection for British cyberspace. This has brought international collaboration on cyber issues to the forefront of Britain’s diplomatic agenda. British diplomacy has traditionally championed the rules-based international system both online and offline, placing great emphasis on human rights, democratic values and free trade.

Australia believes that “the foundation for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace is our mutual commitment to existing international law” and that, as per the 2021 report of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG), international law is “essential to maintaining peace and stability and promoting an open, secure, […] stable, accessible and peaceful ICT environment.” In particular, Australia has affirmed that the UN Charter applies in its entirety to state actions in cyberspace, including the prohibition on the use of force, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the right to self-defence in response to an armed attack, the law of state responsibility during peacetime, and the doctrine of countermeasures in response to internationally wrongful acts. International legal obligations also include the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms (especially the right to privacy and freedom of expression), as well as the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to cyber operations in armed conflict. On the application of IHL, Australia echoes the position taken by the ICRC that “recognition of the application of IHL neither encourages militarisation, nor legitimises resort to conflict in any domain”.

As a member of the 2015 UNGGE group, India accepts that international law and specifically the UN Charter applies in its entirety in the cyber domain. India has noted the need to develop common understandings as to how international law should be interpreted, especially on the issues of what constitutes force and/or an armed attack in cyberspace and what the threshold of cyber-attacks should be to invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter. 
In statements at the UN General Assembly, India has also specifically called for further elaboration on peacetime rules of international law, the law concerning the right of self-defence and international humanitarian law. 
Apart from these calls for clarification and elaboration, however, India’s stance on specific aspects of international law and their interpretation remains unclear. This seems consistent with India’s recent reorientation of its foreign policy; since 2019, India’s wider approach has been marked by a shift from traditional non-alignment to issue-based ‘multi-alignment’ that reflects national priorities and interests.

The UK views international law as “a critical tool for ensuring stability and security in cyberspace”. In accordance with the 2013, 2015 and 2021 UNGGE reports as well the 2021 OEWG report, the UK has affirmed that international law, including the UN Charter in its entirety, applies in cyberspace; a position paper notably states that “we do not consider it is for States to pick and choose which international law instruments are applicable”. This includes the prohibition of the use of force (Article 2(4)), the peaceful settlement of disputes (Article 33) and the inherent right of states to act in self-defence in response to an armed attack (Article 51). The law of state responsibility applies to cyber operations in peacetime, including the doctrine of countermeasures in response to internationally wrongful acts. Meanwhile, the country has professed a strong commitment to the respect of human rights law in cyberspace, co-sponsoring the 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2021 UN Human Rights Council resolutions on the protection, promotion and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet. Likewise, the UK believes in the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to cyber operations in armed conflict. In response to concerns expressed by other states that this might lead to an undue ‘militarisation’ of cyberspace, the UK has responded that the application of IHL does not encourage armed conflict but only serves to limit humanitarian consequences in the event of such conflict. In addition, the country has stated and that there are ways for cyber capabilities to be developed in a manner “consistent with international law” and called on states to be transparent about the existence of their own capabilities. Those statements do not entirely dismiss the idea of cyberspace as a new military domain, with the British position at the OEWG being that “the use of ICTs in military contexts may be preferable to use of kinetic weapons and can be de-escalatory”. The UK is against the establishment of new, binding international instruments to regulate state behaviour in cyberspace, arguing that “pursuing […] the development of new treaties is only likely to entrench existing divides in this area and will progress us no further on the question of how International Law applies”.

Australia has been actively involved in both norm-building processes that have been occurring under the auspices of the UN, namely the UN Open-Ended Working Group (GGE) and the OEWG. The country’s 2021 International Cyber and Critical Tech Engagement Strategy notes that the 11 voluntary, non-binding norms on responsible state behaviour agreed under the 2015 UN GGE consensus reports serve to “promote predictability, stability, and security” in cyberspace and should be seen as the “point of departure” for any constructive norm-building discussion. Australian diplomats have consistently reiterated the complementarity between international law and norms of responsible state behaviour, stating that “norms are not a panacea” and that they should not be understood as a standalone “normative framework”, since they do not replace existing state obligations under international law. For this reason, Australia stands against the establishment of binding norms or agreements. The country is not prima facie opposed to discussing other states’ proposals for the development of new norms, but Australia’s own “proactive priority” is reaching agreement of guidance on the implementation of the existing norms. In the current environment, Australia believes that “we will have the biggest impact on international peace and stability if we translate norms ‘on paper’ into norms ‘in practice’”. While not discounting the value of “norms agreed among friends”, it has also highlighted that the framework will only be effective when it is any proposals for new norms would first need to be negotiated, agreed upon, and endorsed by universal consensus.

India has assumed a stance of strategic ambiguity on the proliferation of norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, positioning itself as a ‘bridge builder’ between the two camps that have emerged during multilateral cyber norm negotiations. 
Its insistence on an enhanced role for intergovernmental institutions (such as the ITU) and its oscillating allegiance to the two polarised factions largely reflect the country’s long-standing focus on Westphalian sovereignty and the consequent belief in the primacy of the state as an actor in international affairs. This brings India to a certain degree of alignment with sovereignty-focused countries like China and Russia in the context of norm-building debates. 
At the second substantive session of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG), India argued that voluntary norms do not necessarily increase the predictability of state behaviour within the ICT environment, but was not openly against the adoption of new voluntary norms; for instance, the country proposed the adoption of a new norm on refraining from weaponisation and offensive uses of ICTs along with countries like Iran, Cuba, and Nigeria.

The UK regards voluntary, non-binding norms of responsible state behaviour as one of the three key pillars upon which the framework for international stability in cyberspace is currently built, the other two being international law and confidence-building measures (CBMs). The British have argued that “stronger awareness and understanding by all countries of the framework in general” is necessary and stated that they “remain concerned that the elaboration of new norms could undermine the existing norms by weakening the overarching protection they provide, or their technology neutral and ‘future-proofed’ nature”. The focus should instead be on the universalisation, operationalisation and implementation of existing norms, with regional organisations and capacity-building efforts playing a central role in this endeavour.

In recent years, Australia has emerged as a regional leader in conversations surrounding cyber resilience in the Indo-Pacific as well as globally. The new 2021 International Cyber and Critical Tech Strategy constitutes one of the most comprehensive documents of its kind, with “secure, resilient, and trusted technology” representing a crucial objective. Key initiatives include enhanced protections for critical infrastructure
and systems of national significance, as well as greater support for businesses
and individuals to develop their cybersecurity resilience. In the past three years, Australian cyber diplomats have brokered a series of bilateral partnerships in the form of cyber Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs); currently there are agreements with India (2020), Indonesia (2018), Papua New Guinea (2018), Singapore (2020), and Thailand (2019), all of which include capacity-building and information-sharing elements. On a regional level, the country is chairing the Asia-Pacific CERT community and the Asia-Pacific cybersecurity operations network. Australians have also significantly extended their regional outreach through their flagship capacity-building initiative, the Cyber and Critical Technology Cooperation Program. Meanwhile, Australia participates in several multipartite initiatives with a strong cyber component such as the Structured Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the eponymous Quad) along with India, Japan, and the US, and the tripartite AUKUS coalition along with the US and the UK. In international fora, Australia has been a vocal champion of increased international collaboration in cyber capacity building (CCB), welcoming references to further cooperation within the 2021 OEWG report but cautioning against limiting such cooperation to the protection of national, translational and supranational infrastructure. Australia has also argued that CCB should be mainstreamed into the larger development agenda of the UN, specifically the Sustainable Development Goals.

In matters related to cyber resilience, India has proven to be an active proponent of bilateralism. It has initiated cyber dialogues with actors like the US, the UK, Russia, Malaysia, the EU, and ASEAN, all of which include capacity-building elements. Internationally, the country has also been especially vocal on the need to establish cooperative mechanisms for developing and implementing bilateral, regional, and global confidence-building measures (CBMs). 
In the context of multilateral fora, India has many a time reiterated that the issue of supply chain protection enjoys particular significance for them, especially in relation to ‘trust and trusted sources’ when it comes to preferring suppliers of ICT products and systems. It has also noted that capacity building actually goes beyond what is being dealt with under international security and is inherently tied to discussions on international legal instruments on cyberspace, where all states are equal and have the capacity to discuss legitimate matters under the auspices of the UN.

The July 2021 policy paper on Global Britain in a Competitive Age makes extensive reference to resilience in the post-Covid ICT environment, pledging that the UK will “strengthen global resilience” and “ensur[e] that more resilient countries worldwide can come together through stronger international institutions to act on the most pressing shared challenges”. In the cyber domain, this pledge has been further operationalised by the 2022 National Cyber Strategy, which frames cyber resilience in terms of risk awareness, system security and preparedness. The Strategy prioritises capacity building, adopting a whole-of-government approach and focusing on three elements: protecting critical international supply chains and infrastructure, advancing the secure use of digital technologies and working with industry partners and academia. Since 2016, the UK has worked through the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) to adopt an integrated approach to cyber incident management, streamlining across the public and private sectors. Meanwhile, Britain has championed
capacity-building assistance efforts abroad by providing advice, training and exercises and enabling the creation and maintenance of national Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs). It has also provided funding to international capacity-building platforms, such as the Forum of Incident Response & Security Teams (FIRST) and the Americas CSIRT network. The UK has been working with partners within the OSCE to encourage the implementation of confidence-building measures (CBMs).

The 2021 International Cyber and Critical Tech Engagement Strategy recognises that Australia, and the Indo-Pacific region more widely, faces a “worsening” cybercrime landscape characterized by “expanding threats, low barriers to entry, and increasingly resourceful actors”. Australia acceded to the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention in 2013 and has since been vocal about the Convention’s status as the “most comprehensive and effective basis upon which to pursue a common international approach”. The country voted against the Russia-sponsored UN resolution on the establishment of a new cybercrime treaty; however, upon the passage of the resolution and the subsequent creation of a dedicated Ad Hoc Committee, Australia has been active in advocating for a “transparent, inclusive, and consensus-based process with multi-stakeholder participation”. More specifically, it has stated that the new Convention should “draw heavily” from existing international instruments such as the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), and especially the Budapest Convention, so as to avoid undermining these regimes and ensure the protection of human rights. Australia has additionally placed great emphasis on the need for international cooperation, with the 2021 Strategy noting that “information sharing, discussion and capacity building are vital to any meaningful response to the threat posed by cybercrime”. The country has launched numerous regional cooperation and capacity-building initiatives, partnering with Pacific Island countries (Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Niue, Tuvalu) to advance cybercrime law reform and ensure alignment with Budapest provisions.

Under the auspices of the OEWG, India has highlighted the need for “real-time cooperation between government agencies” in combatting cybercrime, cyberterrorism, and cyber threats more widely. To date, however, India has not signed any international cybercrime agreement. It voted in favour of a Russia-sponsored UNGA Resolution calling for the establishment of a separate cybercrime treaty. 
Despite having brought its legal framework largely in alignment with the Budapest Convention, India remains a non-party because the document was drafted without the country’s participation, thus rending the treaty discriminatory. Another big objection has been raised on the basis of section 32.b, which gives intelligence agencies trans-border access to data for the purposes of criminal investigations with lawful and voluntary consent - a concern shared by Russia. 
It has also been argued that the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) regime under Budapest is not effective, as it does not commit states to a firm promise of cooperation; from the perspective of the Indians, it would be preferable to replace this regime with a UN-driven process.

According to the 2022 National Cyber Strategy, the UK is committed to promoting the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on cybercrime as the primary international instrument for inter-state cooperation, while simultaneously engaging constructively with the UN process to develop a new international cybercrime treaty that will sit comfortably alongside the Budapest regime. In terms of law enforcement, the UK has developed well established mechanisms through the National Cyber Crime Unit (NCCU), operating under the umbrella of the National Crime Agency (NCA). The NCCU is tasked with leading the operational response, coordinating activity across different stakeholders and providing specialist cyber support across the law enforcement domain. The NCA has also developed a network of international liaison officers, which regularly cooperate with Interpol and Europol. Bilateral cooperation with international partners occurs on the basis of the Budapest Convention and associated Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), which facilitate information sharing amongst signatory states. The UK has been an active participant – and has provided voluntary contributions – in the context of discussions for developing a Second Additional Protocol to the Convention to enhance the speed and efficiency of international evidence sharing; the Protocol will be opened for signature in May 2022. The UK has also provided capacity-building assistance to over 100 partner countries, especially in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and Africa.