Informal Interactive Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence
On Wednesday afternoon (2 September), Security Council members will hold an informal interactive dialogue (IID) on artificial intelligence (AI), titled “From Early Warning to Durable Peace: Leveraging AI in Conflict Resolution”. The meeting is being organised by Bahrain, France, Greece, and Latvia. The expected briefers are Rodrigo Saad, Policy Analyst at Security Council Report (SCR); Giacomo Persi Paoli, Fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR); and Naomi Miyashita, Team Leader of the Information Integrity Unit in the UN Department of Peace Operations (DPO).
The concept note circulated by the co-organisers states that AI is advancing rapidly and reshaping international relations, with implications for the Security Council. It notes that AI-driven technologies can be harnessed to strengthen international security and manage risks and challenges across the conflict cycle, including by supporting peace operations and the protection of civilians. It also highlights an imbalance in access to state-of-the-art technologies, however, with UN field mission personnel often at a disadvantage compared to other actors.
The concept note further underscores the importance of deepening the Council’s consideration of the opportunities presented by AI for the fulfilment of its mandate while examining existing and emerging AI-related risks. The meeting therefore aims to raise awareness among Council members of the role of AI-driven technologies in today’s security landscape and to explore their potential practical applications for early warning, mediation, peacekeeping, and evidence-based decision-making.
The concept note proposes four questions to guide the discussion:
- How can AI’s ability to integrate and analyse data improve the identification of emerging risks and assessments of conflict probability, while ensuring that its warnings are credible and, where appropriate, acted upon by decision-makers?
- How can AI effectively assist mediators and decision-makers by providing dynamic conflict analysis that assesses structural factors affecting conflict intensity, helps match conflict patterns with appropriate resolution strategies, and helps them navigate an increasingly congested information environment affected by disinformation?
- How can practical applications of AI be leveraged to strengthen peacekeeping while safeguarding the privacy and rights of local populations?
- How can AI’s impact on information integrity be assessed, and how can the detection, attribution, and operational response to AI-enabled disinformation campaigns be strengthened?
In line with the concept note, the briefers at Wednesday’s IID are expected to address both the risks posed by AI to international peace and security and its potential applications in support of conflict prevention, peace operations, and other aspects of the UN’s work.
Saad is expected to highlight options for strengthening the Council’s consideration of both existing and emerging AI-related threats to international peace and security. Drawing on SCR’s 27 March research report, titled “Maintaining International Peace and Security in the Age of Rapid Technological Change”, as well as a forthcoming SCR policy paper on AI, geopolitics, and the UN Security Council, which is expected to be launched during the General Assembly’s high-level week in September, Saad may propose establishing an Informal Expert Group (IEG) on Technology, Peace and Security. Such a mechanism could help mainstream AI across the Council’s work and provide a space for horizon-scanning discussions on potential threats arising from advances in AI and from its convergence with other scientific and technological developments.
Persi Paoli may discuss the risks associated with the use of AI in the military domain, as well as the security nexus between AI and information and communications technologies (ICTs), building on several publications that he co-authored in his former capacity as Head of UNIDIR’s Security and Technology Programme. He may also address practical considerations for the responsible use of AI, including the importance of preserving human judgement in AI-enabled decision-making and ensuring that such systems are developed, tested, and deployed using reliable data and appropriate safeguards.
Miyashita is expected to focus on the risks that AI poses to information integrity. She may note that false, misleading, and manipulated information can fuel tensions, exacerbate humanitarian crises, and erode trust between UN peacekeeping missions and the communities they serve, complicating mandate implementation and potentially putting peacekeepers and other UN personnel at risk. She may also discuss DPO efforts to strengthen missions’ capacity to monitor and analyse the information environment, including through digital tools that can support early warning and the identification of harmful narratives. In this regard, she may refer to recent DPO guidance on the use of AI-generated audiovisual content in peacekeeping settings.
Council members are expected to reiterate that AI presents both opportunities and risks for international peace and security. They are likely to express interest in its potential to strengthen the UN’s work, including by improving early warning and situational awareness; supporting conflict analysis and ceasefire monitoring; facilitating humanitarian response; and enhancing the protection of civilians, peacekeepers, and other UN personnel. Some members may caution, however, that the usefulness of such tools depends on the quality of the underlying data and the safeguards surrounding their use. Concerns may include biased or incomplete data, limited transparency, privacy risks, and excessive reliance on automated outputs, with several members likely to stress the continued importance of human judgement and oversight in the application of AI.
The discussion is also expected to address ways in which AI could amplify existing security threats. Concerns relating to the information environment and cybersecurity are likely to feature prominently. Members may focus on AI’s ability to facilitate the production and dissemination of false and manipulated content at scale, eroding trust in institutions and potentially complicating the work of UN peace operations. Several members may also express concern that increasingly capable AI systems could enhance malicious cyber activity or provide terrorist, extremist, and other non-state actors with new tools to pursue their objectives.
The military use of AI is also likely to be an important focus of the discussion. Many members may warn of the risks associated with lethal autonomous weapons systems and emphasise the need to preserve meaningful human control over their use. They may also draw attention to the integration of AI into military command-and-control and decision-making processes, which could compress the time available to assess rapidly evolving situations, heighten the risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation, and reduce opportunities for diplomacy and de-escalation.
Members may also consider the wider geopolitical consequences of the rapid development of AI. Some—including China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Pakistan, Russia, and Somalia—may argue that major-power competition for technological advantage, as well as for the infrastructure, resources, and supply chains underpinning AI development, could deepen global inequalities and create new forms of dependency. In this regard, the DRC may reiterate its call for a digital traceability mechanism for minerals used in AI technologies to help ensure an ethical, transparent, and responsible approach across the value chain. More broadly, the importance of bridging the digital and technological divide is likely to remain an area of convergence, with several members emphasising the need to expand developing countries’ access to AI capabilities, infrastructure, and capacity-building.
Greater differences are likely to emerge over the extent to which AI should be treated as a matter for the Security Council. Russia may question whether AI, as a broad thematic issue, falls sufficiently within the Council’s responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and argue that more inclusive or specialised forums are better placed to address many AI-related questions. Most other members are likely to see a role for the Council in addressing the peace and security implications of AI, while some may stress that such engagement should complement other UN processes on AI.
