 Cyberspace with the interconnectivity that it has is extremely useful and promising especially for peace time in terms of the increased communication and for the development of economy and the social world as well. However, the same interconnectivity in war times makes it extremely vulnerable because everything can be targeted from anywhere in the world. It is believed that attacks against chemical plants or nuclear weapons, sorry, nuclear plants or transportation system are technically possible and they would have huge consequences for the civilian population. Unfortunately, this cyberspace, the cyberspace or virtual space, there are legal norms that do not act in the way they wanted to be today. There are a lot of actions that affect the interests of individual people and the state society. Unfortunately, they are not regulated. Here, the state perceives the power inside its countries, its legal systems, but at the international level, unfortunately, it is very difficult to establish this diversity of doubts. There is a diversity of perspectives on the problem. There are people who have lots of technology and people who don't. There are people who have certain political views and people who don't. And trying to mesh all of those and to think that we will all come up with a unified approach to this is probably unlikely. But that doesn't mean that we can't all work together to try and solve the problem. There are some core principles that we all agree on such as you ought to respect the principles of sovereignty. You ought to respect the rights of individuals. An increasing number of states have recognized that IHL applies to cyber warfare. On the other hand, that's only the first step because certainly cyber warfare creates novel issues for international humanity and law. It creates a number of challenges in terms of how to interpret international humanity and law. In the past, we've seen world wars and terrible experiences bring states to the state table, state leaders, where they actually signed new treaties with very specific weapons discussed. But I'm hopeful it'll happen because the past has taught us that we'll get agreement. I'm just wondering when that will be. Is it before, which is a good sense, or might it be only after an event happens that then states realize how important it is to get consensus, particularly on the humanitarian aspect of it? We need to increase the number of platforms where different people can gather, with different views representing different states. We have different positions in this team, but the same is worrying, so that national security and international security are not affected. It's important to have a global organization who can bring people from across the international community together to talk about these key issues.