At the same time, lawmakers and policy experts in the United States and Europe have increasingly raised concerns about the absence of effective international safeguards governing the rapid global race to develop advanced AI systems.
Meanwhile, major technology companies and competing states continue accelerating investment and innovation in this field without waiting for an international consensus on regulatory standards. This growing gap between technological expansion and political regulation could evolve into an unprecedented challenge to global security if practical and coordinated governance mechanisms are not developed in time.
In parallel, the United Nations and several affiliated international institutions have intensified efforts to establish global frameworks for AI governance through international dialogues, expert panels, and diplomatic initiatives. These efforts aim to build international consensus regarding the regulation of artificial intelligence and the formulation of legal and ethical standards governing its use across borders. However, despite the increasing frequency of such initiatives, the international response remains limited by deep geopolitical divisions among major powers and by the structural limitations of the international system itself.
Indeed, the difficulty of regulating artificial intelligence globally does not stem solely from the absence of political consensus. Rather, it reflects a deeper structural problem: the inability of the international system, in its current form, to keep pace with a rapidly evolving technological environment that transcends traditional borders and institutions. This imbalance has become increasingly visible through the expanding use of AI in highly sensitive and dangerous areas, including autonomous weapons systems, cyber warfare, information manipulation, and deepfake technologies, all developing faster than international legal frameworks can respond.
These developments have already manifested themselves in contemporary conflicts. During recent military confrontations involving Iran and Israel, AI-generated images and fabricated videos circulated widely across digital platforms, complicating verification processes and contributing to confusion within public discourse. Similar patterns emerged during the Russia-Ukraine war, where deepfake videos and manipulated digital content were used to spread disinformation, undermine public confidence, and influence perceptions of the conflict. In this sense, cyberspace itself has increasingly evolved into a parallel battlefield where narratives, images, and information flows have become strategic tools of confrontation.
At the same time, the integration of artificial intelligence into military operations is accelerating rapidly. AI technologies are now being incorporated into intelligence analysis, battlefield decision-making, drone operations, surveillance systems, and autonomous weapons platforms capable of operating with limited or even no direct human intervention.
Simultaneously, major technology companies continue to expand partnerships with military institutions in several countries, often in the absence of comprehensive international regulations governing the military applications of AI. Even domestic legislative efforts within advanced industrial states continue to face serious political, technical, and economic obstacles.
These developments reveal that the problem is no longer simply linked to the absence of legal rules. Rather, the challenge lies in the very nature of the international system itself. The existing international order was not designed to manage transnational technological phenomena evolving at such speed and complexity within a decentralized digital environment largely beyond the direct control of traditional state institutions.
International law fundamentally relies on lengthy negotiations, interstate consensus, and largely voluntary implementation mechanisms, all operating without a centralized global authority capable of enforcing compliance effectively. Artificial intelligence, by contrast, develops within a radically different environment driven by rapid innovation, geopolitical competition, and transnational corporate influence.
This structural gap between technological acceleration and institutional adaptation raises important questions regarding the effectiveness of traditional international governance tools. Historically, international treaties have played an important role in regulating weapons, trade, environmental issues, and nuclear technologies. However, these agreements often require years of negotiations before reaching implementation stages. In the field of artificial intelligence, where technological transformations occur within months rather than decades, such mechanisms may struggle to keep pace with the realities they seek to regulate.
Consequently, relying exclusively on a future international treaty to regulate AI remains insufficient. Although legal frameworks remain necessary for establishing minimum standards and norms, they are unlikely to provide a complete solution on their own. Any meaningful governance strategy must therefore combine legal, institutional, economic, and technological approaches simultaneously.
One possible approach could involve establishing minimum international controls over the highest-risk AI applications, particularly autonomous weapons systems and large-scale disinformation technologies. Parallel to this, international oversight mechanisms could contribute to improving transparency, facilitating information-sharing, and assessing emerging risks. Yet perhaps the most effective pressure mechanism may ultimately emerge not from traditional diplomacy alone, but from market incentives themselves. Access to international financing, investment networks, and advanced technological partnerships could increasingly become linked to compliance with internationally recognized safety and transparency standards, transforming ethical guidelines into practical economic requirements.
At the same time, it may become impossible to confront AI-related threats without using artificial intelligence itself as part of the solution. AI technologies are uniquely capable of detecting manipulated content, tracking cyber threats, identifying coordinated disinformation campaigns, and monitoring suspicious technological activities at a scale impossible for traditional institutions alone.
In this context, future international cooperation may require the development of advanced AI-assisted monitoring systems capable of tracking emerging technological risks and supporting international responses across global, regional, and national levels.
In this sense, AI governance cannot be viewed merely as a legal issue. Rather, it represents a multidimensional challenge involving interconnected political, economic, technological, institutional, and security dimensions. Any attempt to establish an effective governance framework will therefore remain limited unless these dimensions are addressed simultaneously through approaches that move beyond the traditional crisis-management methods of the international system.
Ultimately, artificial intelligence does not merely reveal a technological challenge. It exposes a deeper crisis within the structure of global governance itself. The growing gap between innovation and regulation reflects the inability of traditional international institutions to adapt quickly enough to an era defined by accelerating technological transformation. While integrated governance approaches may help narrow this gap, they are unlikely to eliminate it entirely.
The central question, therefore, remains unresolved: can the international system fundamentally adapt its institutions and mechanisms to a world evolving at the speed of artificial intelligence, or will technological development continue to outpace the political structures designed to govern it?
* The writer is a researcher in political science, Assistant Lecturer in Political Science at the Department of African Studies in the Coptic Studies Institute, an Appellate Lawyer in Egypt, and former Managing Editor of the Middle Eastern Visions Platform at the European Centre for Middle East Studies in Germany.
Short link: