نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Introduction and Problem Statement
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into governmental and diplomatic institutions constitutes one of the most profound structural transformations in international relations since the advent of nuclear weapons. Despite the expanding use of AI across foreign ministries, intelligence agencies, and multilateral institutions, the field of international relations has yet to offer a coherent theoretical account of how these technologies are reconstructing the underlying logic of governance and diplomatic practice. To address this gap, this article examines the mechanisms through which AI is redefining the institutional logics of diplomacy and international governance. Its central argument is that AI is not merely a tool for pursuing pre-existing objectives; rather, it functions as a "structural modifier" that transforms the conditions of possibility of governance and the very nature of diplomatic agency.
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
To explain the multidimensional nature of this phenomenon, the article adopts an approach of "structured theoretical pluralism," since single-theory approaches cannot simultaneously capture its material, institutional, and normative dimensions. Accordingly, the study brings together three major theoretical traditions: realism, to analyze competition over relative gains and asymmetries of power; liberal institutionalism, to examine governance deficits and the challenges of designing multilateral regimes; and constructivism, to investigate the effects of AI on norms, identities, and the cognitive processes underlying diplomacy.
Methodologically, the study employs structured, focused comparison of cases and process tracing to identify and assess the causal mechanisms linking the deployment of AI to changes in diplomatic practice.
Main Findings: The Triple Transformation and Domains of Impact
The findings demonstrate that AI has generated a "triple transformation" in the international system.
First, AI has intensified systematic informational and cognitive asymmetries between technologically advantaged and disadvantaged states, thereby increasing the risk of reproducing and deepening existing inequalities.
Second, it has reconfigured diplomatic agency by distributing decision-making across human–machine assemblages, giving rise to "automation bias" and new deficiencies in accountability.
Third, it has created profound governance gaps that existing international institutions lack the capacity to address adequately.
These effects manifest across five principal domains:
Diplomatic interactions, which increasingly confront the threat of deepfakes and "epistemic saturation";
Intelligence and decision support, which, despite enhancing the speed of information processing, remain unable to reliably anticipate strategic surprises and novel forms of behavior;
Autonomous weapons, which, by compressing decision-making time, disrupt deterrence stability and challenge the principle of meaningful human control;
Multilateral negotiations, which face the risk of epistemic homogenization and policy monoculture; and
Soft-power competition, in which national narratives and weaponized information operations increasingly target public opinion.
Empirical Evidence and Structural Challenges
An examination of four case studies (U.S.–China technological competition, United Nations peacekeeping operations, Estonia's digital diplomacy, and the Bletchley Declaration process) demonstrates that AI can serve as a diplomatic force multiplier for small states such as Estonia. At the systemic level, however, AI is simultaneously pushing the global ecosystem toward bipolarization and fragmentation. Within United Nations operations, platforms such as Unite Aware have improved the timeliness of threat alerts; nevertheless, data bias and concerns over data sovereignty in the Global South have created new challenges. Among these challenges, the most profound structural risk is the "erosion of diplomatic consultation." By accelerating information processing and eliminating opportunities for human deliberative pauses, AI can weaken the intersubjective processes through which shared understandings are constructed and crises are managed. This creates the risk of "algorithmic escalation" and self-reinforcing crisis spirals that may unfold faster than human diplomats can intervene. Furthermore, the dependence of developing countries on AI platforms controlled by major powers threatens their "cognitive sovereignty" and exposes them to the possibility of algorithmic colonialism.
Policy Implications
Building on these findings, the article proposes a policy framework operating at four levels:
Establishing independent AI oversight bodies within foreign ministries to audit algorithmic biases and ensure transparency;
Creating a "Permanent Forum on International AI Governance" within the United Nations system, alongside dedicated pathways for the regulation and control of autonomous weapons;
Designing "consultation-protection protocols" for crisis management to preserve human-centered channels of communication and prevent algorithmic escalation; and
Supporting capacity-building in the Global South to prevent its marginalization within the emerging global architecture and to ensure its participation not merely as a policy recipient but as a norm entrepreneur.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the article concludes that AI is not an instance of technological determinism but a structural modifier that reshapes the landscape of political incentives. The history of transformative technologies shows that new capabilities have often generated instability before their broader consequences were fully understood. The future of international relations in the age of AI will therefore be determined not by the intrinsic nature of the technology itself, but by the normative choices and institutional architectures adopted today to preserve the authenticity of diplomacy, human accountability, and inclusive multilateralism. The transition into this new era requires forward-looking governance that moves beyond reactive policymaking and instead establishes the conditions for a stable, transparent, and human-centered international system.
کلیدواژهها English
