The third Summit on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Military Sector was held in A Coruña, Spain from the 4th to the 5th. The conference discussed how military artificial intelligence can be used to enhance international peace and security, and how to avoid risks arising from irresponsible use and system failure. Li Zhijiang, Deputy Director-General of the Arms Control Bureau of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, led the Chinese delegation.
According to read out loud In a document released by the Arms Control Bureau of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Li elaborated on China’s concept. “Human-centered military artificial intelligence” During the summit.
All countries should uphold the final line of prudence and responsibility, abandon their obsession with absolute military superiority, and seriously protect strategic balance and stability. Adhering to a human-centred approach, adhering to international humanitarian law and ensuring that relevant weapons systems remain under human control at all times. Promote military applications of artificial intelligence to help maintain peace and security, in line with the principle of “AI for Good.” Implement agile governance principles by balancing security management, technology development, and peaceful use through gradual and classified management. Support multilateralism, support the United Nations in its due role, and promote the establishment of widely agreed governance frameworks and standards.
Military intelligence is a major trend in the development of militaries around the world. How to use artificial intelligence responsibly in the military field has implications for the common future of all humanity and is a common challenge of our time. China advocates that the international community should embrace the global governance philosophy of broad consultation, collective contribution, and shared benefits, as well as the concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security, and cooperate in building an effective governance mechanism to ensure that artificial intelligence always develops in a direction conducive to the progress of human civilization.
Li said that as an artificial intelligence powerhouse, China has always attached great importance to risk prevention and security governance in the military use of AI, and has adhered to the concept of “human-centered military artificial intelligence”. Countries should maintain the bottom line of prudence and responsibility when applying relevant technologies, maintain a human-centered approach, follow the principle of AI for good, practice agile governance, adhere to multilateralism, and promote military AI applications that help maintain peace and security.
China included “strengthening AI governance” in the recommendations of its 15th Five-Year Plan. In accordance with the global trend of military transformation, objective national security needs, and practical requirements of national defense and military construction, China will promote military intelligence, refrain from AI arms race with other countries, and maintain policy transparency.
China is also actively leveraging the benefits of military AI in peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance, with positive results. Li stressed that China will continue to adhere to the principles of openness, inclusiveness and mutual learning, strengthen communication and exchanges with other countries, deepen practical cooperation, and jointly contribute to the global governance of military artificial intelligence.
Beijing Daily reporter Jin Liang I wrote It is said that 85 countries participated in the summit. After two days of talks, about a third of the participating countries issued a joint declaration regulating the deployment of AI technologies in warfare, but only 35 countries ultimately signed the declaration. Neither China nor the US signed it.
Jin said the United States’ refusal to sign binding international rules on military AI stems from multiple strategic considerations. At its core is the US government’s concern that international rules could limit rapid technology iteration and military deployment flexibility, thereby eroding the first-mover advantage and technological gap already established in the field of military AI.
At the same time, the United States is very sensitive about its rule-making authority and is reluctant to co-shape standards with non-“like-minded” countries like China in multilateral frameworks like the United Nations. Instead, it prefers to build exclusive “small circle” governance rules within its alliance system in order to maintain its technological and discursive superiority.
Furthermore, by circumventing explicit international obligations, the United States maintains strategic ambiguity in sensitive areas such as autonomous weapons and battlefield AI decision-making, circumvents transparency constraints, and provides space for “gray zone” military operations.
Finally, at the level of public discourse, the United States circumvents real constraints while calling itself a “responsible user of AI,” shifts risks and pressures onto its competitors, and uses the banner of rules to serve the practical purpose of containing competitors and strengthening its strategic advantage.
As for why China did not sign the declaration, Jin argues that the main reasons are questions about the vague formulation of principles such as “responsible use” and the lack of a mechanism to balance the technological advantages of advanced countries. China believes that the existing framework may entrench Western-led technological hegemony and constrain developing countries’ technological autonomy and security space.
China has long advocated multilateral governance, stressed that international rules should balance security and development, and opposed the politicization of technology and bloc rivalry. Certain provisions of the Declaration are considered to have the potential to embed ideological bias and do not reflect impartiality.
At the same time, China is rapidly catching up in the field of military AI and needs to ensure strategic space for independent research, development and deployment, avoid being bound by unreasonable rules, and ensure that national sovereignty and security are free from external interference.
Jin further pointed out that two common structural obstacles prevented both China and the United States from signing the declaration.
First, military AI involves highly sensitive defense secrets and operational capabilities, making international rules extremely difficult to verify and enforce. While countries seek to reduce risk through rules, they worry that adversaries could take a “free ride” or violate their commitments, creating a classic prisoner’s dilemma.
Second, the pace of iteration in AI technology far exceeds the cycle of rule creation. The Declaration’s largely principled provisions are insufficient to address concrete risks such as autonomous weapons, algorithmic bias, and misjudgment on the battlefield. Therefore, both China and the United States consider the declaration to be “incomplete” and lacking in substantive binding force, with limited value in signing it.
