Passivity

Actors may also not engage with a norm. Two distinct kinds of passivity should be distinguished. First, an actor may be unable to engage with a given norm proposal because they do not have access to the negotiation – what I call passivity by default. For Brazil, this applied to cyber norm proposals drafted by multilateral organizations Brazil was not a member of: the SCO, EU, FOC, G7, NATO, and the Commonwealth. Besides, Brazil remained passive by default vis-à-vis norm proposals drafted without state actors’ involvement: the expert commissions drafting the Tallinn Manuals and the GCSC. Second, an actor may have the opportunity to engage but choose not to – what I call passivity by choice. Brazil chose passivity regarding the G20, the Charter of Trust, the Paris Call, the Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace, and the Contract for the Web. It is possible for both forms of passivity to blend into each other. Limited financial and personnel resources or a lack of expertise, may constrain normative engagement to a similar extent as formal exclusion from a negotiation.