What we know about this declaration and its signatories
According to Reuters, only 35 of the 85 countries that participated in the summit signed a declaration on military uses of AI.
Major signatories include Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Ukraine. Major powers such as China and the United States did not sign the document.
This declaration affirms human responsibility for weapons using artificial intelligence. It also facilitates the establishment of clear command and control structures and the sharing of information on national surveillance mechanisms, where consistent with national security.
The document further emphasizes the importance of risk assessment, thorough testing, and training and upskilling of personnel working with military AI systems.
Why signing the declaration turned out to be problematic and the West’s concerns
Tensions between the United States and its European allies and uncertainty about what transatlantic relations will look like in the coming months and years have made some countries hesitant to sign the joint agreement, participants and representatives said.
At the same time, the declaration highlights growing concerns among some governments that the rapid development of artificial intelligence could outpace the rules governing its military use, increasing the risk of accidents, miscalculations, or unintended escalation.
Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans told Reuters that governments faced the need to introduce responsible restrictions and a prisoner’s dilemma of being reluctant to restrict themselves compared to their adversaries.
“Russia and China are advancing very rapidly, so there is an urgency to advance the development of AI. But when you see AI advancing rapidly, there is also an urgency to continue to work on its responsible use. The two go hand in hand,” Brekelmans said.
At the past two military AI summits, held in The Hague and Seoul in 2023 and 2024, about 60 countries, including the United States but excluding China, approved non-binding action plans.
Yasmin Afina, a researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research who advised on the process, said this year’s document is also not legally binding. Still, some participants expressed discomfort with the idea of ​​supporting more concrete policy measures.
