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.

Japan is a trusted partner and shares the same basic values of human rights, rule of law, and democratic governance. This common set of values also applies to cyberspace as both the EU and Japan have publicly expressed strong support for an open, free and secure internet and the application of international norms to state activities in cyberspace. Japan is also an important trading partner of the EU. The recently adopted Economic Partnership Agreement also reinforces the need for a closer integration of the digital economies. Alignment in broader international economic and political issues is also evident in the field of cyber diplomacy and thus constitutes a strong foundation for close cooperation and partnership.

Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country with a population of 211 million people. Nigeria also has the continent’s largest economy, with a total GDP of $440 billion. Nigeria only emerged as Africa’s largest economy in 2014, overtaking South Africa after a GDP rebasing exercise which accounted for the contribution of emerging sectors of the economy, such as the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector. Nigeria’s economy had hitherto been petroleum dominated. In Q4 2021, the ICT sector of the economy contributed 15% to GDP, compared to 5% for the oil and gas sector. The percentage of people who use the Internet in Nigeria is 28%, largely through mobile networks. 91% of the population is covered by a mobile network (i.e. 74% by at least a 3G network and 41% by at least a 4G network). Huawei and ZTE have been responsible for constructing major parts of Nigeria’s broadband network (4G, LTE and 5G). Mobile phone subscription coverage is 99% of the population. Active mobile broadband subscription is 42% of the population, while fixed broadband connection is negligible, under 1%. Nigeria has 6 international submarine cables bringing at least 40TB capacity to its shores. There are 7 Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in Nigeria with 71 peering networks. NigComSat-1, a communications satellite, made possible by cooperation between Nigeria and China, was launched in May 2007. Nigeria has plans to purchase 2 more communications satellites by 2025. Nigeria banned cryptocurrencies in 2021, but floated perhaps Africa’s largest digital currency the e-naira the same year. Despite the cryptocurrency ban, it is still in use in the country although hosted in foreign accounts.
The European Union is a significant partner in Nigeria’s cyberspace. For example, through its EU-Nigeria Digital Economy Package (Global Gateway Initiative), the EU plans a 820 million Euros investment to support Nigeria’s digitalisation strategy through digital infrastructure investments, digitalisation of public services, digital entrepreneurship, digital skills, and digital governance. However, the EU faces strong competition from China, whose investment in Nigeria’s telecommunications sectors is estimated to be $US 16 billion. China also helped manufacture and launch Nigeria’s Communications Satellite and has an equity stake in the parent satellite communications company. Huawei has been an important partner of the Nigerian government in building smart cities and e-government applications in an effort to improve government public services. Nigeria’s cyberspace is governed by several agencies including the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA).

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.

Japan has highlighted the importance of promoting the rule of law in cyberspace, noting that cyberspace “should not be a lawless zone”. It further endorses the applicability of international law, in particular the UN Charter, in the cyber domain. In relation to the use of countermeasures, it has stated that it is not necessary for countermeasures to be limited to the same means as internationally wrongful acts. 
Japan has cautioned against the launch of “premature” discussions on developing a legally binding new instrument, arguing that the adoption of such an instrument might “roll back” the achievement of past multilateral efforts in confirming the applicability of existing international law in cyberspace. Instead, Japan believes that it is necessary to consolidate, elaborate, and clarify the interpretation of existing treaties and content of customary international law. 
During the drafting phase of the 2021 Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) Report, Japan had proposed to include language explicitly affirming the applicability of State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, the inherent right of self-defence recognized under the UN Charter, and International Humanitarian Law.

Nigeria’s stance on international law in cyberspace is primarily shaped by its traditional concern over the growing proliferation of global cybercrime. Nigerian diplomats have emphasised the need for a proper legal framework that reflects the ideals and current trends within the African region. Nigeria has neither signed nor ratified the African Union (UN) Convention on Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection. Less has been said, however, about the application of international law in cyberspace more generally. However, On 6 July 2022, Nigeria acceded to the Council of Europe Convention on cybercrime. The Convention entered into force in Nigeria on 1 November 2022.

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.

In multilateral fora, Japan has frequently emphasised the need to implement voluntary and non-binding norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. The country believes that any discussion on norm-building should exclusively occur on the basis of the 11 norms affirmed within the 2015 UNGGE Report; possible new norms should be “carefully scrutinised” so as to avoid any change to these 11 norms or duplication with them. 
Japan also strongly opposes the adoption of additional legally binding obligations, maintaining that such an endeavour would take a very long time whereas the evolution of technology is extremely fast-paced. Instead, countries should work on parallel mechanisms for capacity-building, raising awareness, and promoting a common understanding of norms.

Nigeria has been an active participant in the OEWG, contributing to the 2021 consensus report. Nigeria’s position acknowledges the applicability of existing international laws in cyberspace and supports the call for the operationalisation of the 11 Norms of responsible behaviour in cyberspace to address its current challenges. Nigeria also upheld the conclusions of the final report of the GGE: that the precedence set by the 2021 OEWG should be a baseline for international cooperation because of the inclusive nature of stakeholder participation.

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.

Resilience constitutes one of the central objectives of Japan’s 2018 Cybersecurity Strategy, whose core components include international cooperation in sharing expertise and coordination of policies, incidence response, and cyber capacity-building (CCB). Japan has traditionally argued that global initiatives are required to reduce cybersecurity vulnerabilities and has advocated for a tailor-made approach that takes into account the national situation of recipient countries and the importance of national ownership. 
Japan recognises the ‘trickle-up’ effect of national initiatives, stating that CCB “not only improves the capabilities of the recipient country, but also directly leads to enhanced security and stability in cyberspace as a whole”; in that sense, it disfavours the understanding of CCB as a “common but differentiated responsibility”, believing that such a view “does not fit the context” of international cyber cooperation. As a result, the country has assumed a balanced approach to CCB. On the one hand, it has successfully utilised multilateral fora such as the G7 and G20 summits to promote its own normative standards. 
At the G7 Ise-Shina Summit in May 2016, for instance, Japan introduced the Ise-Shima Principles, which included the enhancement of cooperation on CCB. On the other hand, Japan considers its own security and that of its nationals as intrinsically tied to the cyber capabilities of developing countries, since attacks on the IT infrastructure of regional partners can adversely affect Japanese trade. Japan has thus acted primarily through ASEAN to promote regional capacity-building efforts.

In the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Cybersecurity Index 2020 which measures commitment to cybersecurity amongst its members , Nigeria ranked 47^th in the world, and 4^th within the African region. In 2021, Nigeria published the updated National Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy, which lays out detailed cybersecurity obligations for different private sector and public sector actors in critical national information infrastructure (CNII) protection and resilience within a context of multiple stakeholders. The National Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy, together with the Cybercrime Act, are the major policy instruments governing cybersecurity in the country.
The Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC) at Oxford University, in 2018, reviewed the maturity of cybersecurity capacity in Nigeria at the behest of the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), using the Cybersecurity Maturity Model (CMM). Nigeria’s CMM report indicated a maturity stage of either start-up or formative stage (maturity stages 1 and 2 out of 5 stages) for the majority of factors, suggesting opportunities for investment. The United Kingdom has pledged some of this necessary investment, with Nigeria set to benefit from a £22 million investment package which aims to support resilience in Africa and the Indo-Pacific region.

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 Japan’s 2018 Cybersecurity Strategy, the country is committed to “further [promoting] international partnership through international investigative cooperation and information sharing with international organisations, law enforcement agencies and security information agencies in foreign countries.” 
Japan is a party to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and mutual assistance treaties (MLAT), voting against the Russian-sponsored UNGA resolution calling for a new binding cybercrime treaty. Japan has pursued dialogues related to cybercrime cooperation in the context of ASEAN, as well as on a bilateral basis with countries like the UK, USA, and Australia.

The Nigerian 2020-2030 National Digital Strategy, which is in line with the African Union Digital Transformation Strategy 2020-2030, emphasises the significance of adopting ‘collaborating approaches’ to fighting cybercrime; it specifically notes that ‘cybersecurity is not a local issue and it requires collaboration with relevant institutions around the globe’. In 2019, the country voted in favour of UNGA resolution 74/247, which established an Ad Hoc Committee to draw up an international convention on cybercrime. The Nigerian position paper prior to the launch of the first substantive session noted the ‘urgent need to define and sanction criminal conduct in cyberspace, improve synergy in trans-national policing capabilities, improve procedural tools and reform/enhance international cooperation, whilst respecting human rights’. In its capacity as a member of ECOWAS, Nigeria has participated in several socialisation-based capacity-building initiatives, including the OCWAR-C project, the GLACY+ workshops and the African Forum on Cybercrime (organised by the African Union).