Governance gap in military AI
As countries integrate AI into targeting, intelligence, logistics, and autonomous systems, the pace and scale of decision-making in war is changing beyond existing governance frameworks. This increasingly requires dedicated national efforts to enhance cooperation, especially given that broader AI governance frameworks largely bypass the military domain. For example, the most comprehensive AI regulation to date, the EU AI Act, explicitly excludes national security and defense applications from its scope.
International humanitarian law (IHL) requires human judgment to adhere to the principles of distinction, proportionality, precaution, and accountability. And this human judgment is relevant to all technologies in warfare, including AI. Their applications are inherently complex as algorithms filter targets, generate attack recommendations, and operate in dynamic combat environments with minimal human intervention. Although ensuring meaningful human control is increasingly seen as central, its operational definition remains politically debated.
Military AI governance is no longer a fringe discussion of arms control, but an urgent issue for global stability.
UN signal for military AI governance
The United Nations recognizes the challenges of military AI. In September 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “we cannot leave the fate of humanity to algorithms,” stressing that humans must retain authority over decisions about life and death. Four months later, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution addressing the use of AI in the military field and its impact on international peace and security. Although not binding, it sent an important political signal. Military AI governance is no longer a fringe discussion of arms control, but an urgent issue for global stability.
The resolution reflects a broader shift in UN engagement, moving beyond a narrow focus on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) to foster a more comprehensive dialogue between states and stakeholders on broader military applications of AI. In this respect, the new governance challenges around AI mirror early debates over nuclear technology during the early Cold War and subsequent Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) negotiations. Although AI differs in important ways, both involve dual-use technologies and arms race dynamics. Although already actively deployed and tested, its development remains far less transparent than its nuclear capabilities.
US and China ignore multilateral agreements
The trajectory of global conflict carries risks that outweigh multilateral action. Governance efforts face structural limits. While battlefield pressures emphasize speed, operational superiority, and technological superiority, international processes move slowly and rely on political consensus. This widening gap has raised concerns about the risk of escalation, the decline in human oversight, and the rapid proliferation of increasingly accessible AI-enabled military capabilities.
Importantly, the direction of the international governance debate will be shaped by the strategic rivalry between the United States and China. Both believe that AI superiority will be central to their long-term military and economic power. Neither country appears willing to cede technological advantages in the name of precautionary restraint, and both are “increasingly out of touch with major international dialogue.” This fact was made clear at the REAIM summit in Spain in February 2026, where both the United States and China refused to sign a non-binding declaration. The Biden administration spearheaded the first global dialogue on military AI governance, but the Trump administration has since “blocked” such efforts.
In reality, global governance can proceed without the full involvement of states, whose participation is most essential. This leads to the question of whether such multilateral agreements have an impact on the ground when the most powerful countries openly sideline them.
If the world’s leading companies are reluctant to be bound by common limits, the governance of military AI may reflect power politics rather than common principles.
Looking ahead: The fragile future of global AI governance
For the European Union and its partners, the implications are not only technological or ethical, but also geopolitical. Military AI intersects with issues of strategic autonomy, alliance cohesion, and technological competitiveness. When used responsibly, AI can strengthen early warning systems, enhance civilian damage mitigation, and improve crisis response. But Europe faces a delicate balance between defending human-centered AI and legal accountability while avoiding strategic dependence and technological alienation in an increasingly polarized world order.
In the end, the question is no longer simply how to maintain a “rules-based international order” but whether meaningful multilateral governance can survive in a world increasingly shaped by the zero-sum logic of competing superpowers and their technologically armed allies. If the world’s leading companies are reluctant to be bound by common limits, the governance of military AI may reflect power politics rather than common principles. In that case, the possibilities for shaping AI in accordance with international humanitarian law and collective security may be diminished not because norms do not exist, but because the will to uphold them is waning. As the UN Secretary-General asserted, “The window to shape AI for peace, justice and humanity is closing. We must act without delay.”
