08.07.2025 Statement by Denmark on Regular Institutional Dialogue (RID) at the 11. Session of UN OEWG 2021-2025 on the Security of and in the Use of ICTs

Checked Against Delivery

Thank you, Chair.

As we work together towards a consensus outcome by the end of this week, I wish to thank you and your team for all your efforts throughout the five years of the OEWG.

Denmark fully aligns itself with the statements made by the EU during the past days as well as the joint Nordic statement on international law presented by my colleague from Finland yesterday. I would like to briefly elaborate in a national capacity on the important topic of regional institutional dialogue and stakeholder engagement.

Along with the EU, we continue to support the consensus reflected in the annex C of the 2024 Annual Progress report that the Working Groups should be cross-cutting and action-oriented.

We share the view of the EU and others that we should be able to draw on all five pillars of the framework for responsible state behaviour in each of the dedicated thematic groups, and we support the French updated proposal for the content and focus of each of the groups. We need to ensure that we build a permanent mechanism that is firmly grounded in the UN acquis.

As for the participation of stakeholders, we strongly support an inclusive approach to working with stakeholders and experts from industry, academia and civil society. Denmark supports the letter from Canada and Chile on stakeholder modalities, which is now co-sponsored by 42 states, including the 27 EU member states.

We also share the view with many other delegations that cyber capacity building is crucial for our collective security and resilience. But if we all pause for a moment and think about how capacity building is actually implemented, these efforts are simply not possible without the insightful, experienced and valuable input from stakeholders. Private companies are often first-responders in the event of a cyberattack. Capacity building is delivered on the ground by industry experts, companies, civil society organisations and other stakeholders, and we need to listen and learn from them. If we are serious about prioritising our joint cyber capacity building, we should not decouple our work from the stakeholders. We will gain more meaningful and effective discussions in return.

Stakeholder contributions should be guided by the principle of “a voice, not a vote”, ensuring that while decision-making remains state-led, discussions benefit from the expertise and insights of relevant stakeholders, including those who have been affected by cyber incidents, academia and those who implement and secure cyberspace in practice.

By extension, we see a clear need to move beyond a situation where the veto of a single state limits our collective ability to benefit from the valuable contributions of a diverse set of stakeholders. Any objections should be subject to open discussions, and if they persist, decisions should ultimately be guided by the will of the majority. 

In closing: As other delegations have mentioned, let us not lose sight of the progress we’ve made through the five years of the OEWG, and let’s ensure that the report reflects this progress, as we embark on the next chapter of a permanent, inclusive and action-oriented mechanism for the international cyber community.

Thank you, chair.