What It Is
The Open-Ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of ICT in the Context of International Security (OEWG) was established by resolution 73/27 in December 2018. Unlike the GGE's small expert format (15-25 states), the OEWG is open to all UN member states — significantly more inclusive but also slower-moving.
The OEWG was the Russian-preferred for UN cyber diplomacy, complementing (and in some sense competing with) the US-preferred GGE format. The result was a parallel-track UN cyber diplomacy that operated for several years before consolidation under the PoA framework.
The First OEWG (2019-2021)
The first OEWG (2019-2021) produced a report. The consensus was a notable achievement given the diversity of participants and the political tensions in UN cyber diplomacy.
The first OEWG's outcomes included:
- Reaffirmation of the eleven voluntary norms from the 2015 GGE.
- for cyber incident management.
- Capacity-building principles for assisting developing countries.
- Acknowledgment of multi-stakeholder importance while keeping the formal process intergovernmental.
- Regular institutional dialogue framework establishing ongoing UN-level cyber engagement.
The Second OEWG (2021-2025)
A new OEWG (2021-2025) is mandated to continue work on:
- Cyber threats: assessing the evolving threat landscape.
- Norms: continuing development and implementation of state-behavior norms.
- International law application: clarifying how international law applies to cyber operations.
- Confidence-building measures: developing measures to reduce risks of cyber incidents escalating.
- Capacity-building: helping developing countries build cyber capacity.
- Regular institutional dialogue: continuing UN-level cyber engagement.
Action-Oriented PoA
The 2024 decision created an Action-Oriented Programme of Action on cyber (PoA cyber) as the post-2025 institutional successor — addressing complaints that overlapping GGE and OEWG processes were duplicative.
The PoA decision was a major institutional consolidation:
- End of parallel tracks: GGE and OEWG would not continue as separate processes.
- Single UN cyber framework: the PoA provides one institutional home for UN cyber diplomacy.
- Open to all UN members: continuing the OEWG's inclusive membership.
- Action-oriented: emphasizing implementation rather than further norms development.
US-Russia Disagreements
Russia and the US have generally been on opposite sides of OEWG procedural and substantive debates:
- Russia has preferred a more inclusive OEWG framework, emphasized regulation of 'information weapons' broadly, and advocated for new binding instruments.
- The US has preferred the GGE expert format, emphasized voluntary norms based on existing international law, and resisted new binding instruments.
- The PoA compromise preserved the open membership of the OEWG (a Russian preference) while continuing the voluntary-norms approach (a US preference).
Why It Matters
The OEWG matters because it institutionalized inclusive cyber dialogue at the UN level. Before the OEWG, UN cyber diplomacy was conducted in small expert formats that excluded most member states.
The OEWG also demonstrated that cross-cutting consensus on is achievable even at universal-membership level, providing the foundation for the subsequent PoA framework.
Common Misconceptions
The OEWG is sometimes assumed to have replaced the GGE. The two operated in parallel from 2019 until both were superseded by the PoA decision in 2024.
Another misconception is that OEWG reports are binding. They are voluntary normative outputs without binding effect, like all UN cyber framework documents.
Real-World Examples
The 2021 first OEWG consensus report was a major achievement of inclusive UN cyber diplomacy. The 2024 PoA decision consolidated the OEWG (and GGE) tracks into a single institutional framework. The continuing second OEWG work through 2025 is contributing analytical material that will feed into the PoA's operational phase.
Example
The 2024 OEWG decision establishing a Programme of Action on cyber as the post-2025 institutional successor addressed long-running tensions between the UN GGE and OEWG parallel tracks.