As a member state of the UNGA, Uruguay
expressed their views at the OEWG in 2021, considering cybersecurity an essential element in the prevention of international conflicts. Uruguay provides a rather humanitarian approach to international law and its application on cyber issues. The country is a
member of international organisations that promote the development and compliance with standards of transparency and access to information, such as the Open Government Partnership, the Electronic Government Network of Latin America and the Caribbean (GEALC) and Digital Nations.
Uruguay was the first Latin American country, in 2013, to sign the only existing binding, international document concerning the Automatic Processing of Personal Data (known as
Convention 108). Its signature and membership have been
ratified in 2021.
Uruguay’s Digital initiatives at the national level are also in compliance with the Digital Agenda for Latin America and the Caribbean (
eLAC by CEPAL). In particular, Uruguay’s
Cybersecurity goal is in line with
CEPAL’s framework for confidence-building measures such as combating digital crime by formulating public policies and strategies for cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection.
The country has not assumed a firm stance on the application of international law in cyberspace. Serbia’s position paper concerning the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG)
highlighted that multilateral dialogue on “information security” must occur “with strict respect for the Charter of the United Nations”. Echoing the stance of states such as China, Russia, and Cuba, Serbia also
raised the alarm about the “danger of developing offensive ICT and militarising the digital space”.
In theory, China
accepts that the principles enshrined within the UN Charter, including sovereign equality, prohibition on the use of force, settlement of disputes by peaceful means, non-intervention in the affairs of other states and fulfilment of international obligations in good faith, apply in cyberspace.
Nevertheless, the Chinese position is generally characterized by a
reluctance to crystallise the precise ways in which existing customary and international treaty law might govern the cyber domain; the exact application of specific aspects of international law, such as laws on self-defence, state responsibility, and international humanitarian law, is claimed to remain unclear in the absence of international consensus.
Chinese delegations have also repeatedly cautioned against the
“indiscriminate application of the law of armed conflicts”, arguing that the undue emphasis on
jus ad bellum undermines stability in cyberspace by presupposing and thus effectively legitimising cyber conflict, consequently turning cyberspace into a “new battlefield”.
China regards proposals on regional exchanges of views and development of common understanding on the application of international law with particular scepticism,
stating that states must work on reaching “universally-accepted consensus” on the application of international law, rather than engage in “self-explanations at regional levels or among a small group of countries”. The Chinese have also
consistently favoured the adoption of new international legal instruments tailored to the attributes of cyberspace (
lex specialis).