Diplomatic Interactions

Diplomatic Interactions

Algorithmic Statecraft: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Diplomacy and International Relations

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Abuzar Gohari Moghaddam
Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Imam Sadegh University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/dpiq.2026.598384.1104
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Artificial intelligence
Diplomacy
International relations theory
Algorithmic governance
Digital statecraft
Subjects
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little, Brown.
Backstrom, A., & Henderson, I. (2012). New capabilities in warfare: An overview of contemporary technological developments and the associated legal and engineering issues in Article 36 weapons reviews. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 483–514.
Babones, S. (2023). The semiconductor war: How the U.S. semiconductor export control regime is reshaping global tech competition. Foreign Affairs, 102(2), 44–57.
Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Bjola, C., & Jiang, L. (2015). Social media and public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic discourse of the EU, US and Japan in China. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (pp. 71–88). Routledge.
Boulanin, V. (Ed.). (2019). The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Strategic Stability and Nuclear Risk. SIPRI.
Bracken, P. (2012). The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger, and the New Power Politics. Times Books.
Bradford, A. (2023). Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology. Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, B. (2020). The Hacker and the State: Cyber Attacks and the New Normal of Geopolitics. Harvard University Press.
Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner.
Calo, R. (2017). Artificial intelligence policy: A primer and roadmap. UC Davis Law Review, 51(2), 399–435.
Cihon, P. (2019). Standards for AI Governance: International Standards to Enable Global Coordination in AI Research and Development. Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.
Cummings, M. L. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare. Chatham House.
Dafoe, A. (2018). AI Governance: A Research Agenda. Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.
Dafoe, A., & Russell, S. (2016). Yes, we are worried about the existential risk of artificial intelligence. MIT Technology Review.
Doshi, R. (2021). The Long Game: China's Grand Strategy to Displace American Order. Oxford University Press.
DPPA. (2022). Evaluation of the Unite Aware Platform: MINUSMA Pilot Results. UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs.
e-Estonia. (2024). e-Residency Programme Annual Report 2024. Enterprise Estonia.
Ekelhof, M. (2019). Lifting the fog of targeting: ‘Autonomous weapons’ and human control through the lens of targeting law. Naval War College Review, 71(3), 61–95.
European Parliament. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in EU Diplomacy: Uses, Risks, and Governance Frameworks. European Parliamentary Research Service.
Fearon, J. D. (1994). Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 577–592.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.
Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024: AI and the New Information War. Freedom House.
Galeotti, M. (2022). Putin’s Wars: From Chechnya to Ukraine. Osprey Publishing.
Gallup International. (2024). AI Governance and Public Trust: Global Survey Findings. Gallup International Association.
Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
Hadfield, G., & Clark, J. (2023). Regulatory Markets: The Future of AI Governance. Cambridge University Press.
Horowitz, M. C. (2018). Artificial intelligence, international competition, and the balance of power. Texas National Security Review, 1(3), 36–57.
Horowitz, M. C., & Mahon, T. (Eds.). (2019). Will Military Robots Change Conflict? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
IAEA. (2023). Annual Report 2023: Safeguards Implementation. International Atomic Energy Agency.
ICG. (2023). AI Dependency in Developing-Country Diplomacy: A Survey of Forty-Two Foreign Ministries. International Crisis Group.
ICRC. (2019). Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons. International Committee of the Red Cross.
ISAB. (2022). AI and Strategic Stability: Report of the International Security Advisory Board. U.S. Department of State.
Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (pp. 1–33). University of Chicago Press.
Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
Kaljulaid, K. (2019). A digital state: Estonia as a model for AI governance. Foreign Affairs, 98(3), 39–48.
Kania, E. B. (2019). Chinese Military Innovation in Artificial Intelligence. Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. CNAS.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
Lyons, J. B. (2013). Being transparent about transparency: A model for human-robot interaction. In D. D. Salvucci & G. Gunzelmann (Eds.), AAAI Spring Symposium Technical Report (pp. 48–53). AAAI Press.
Manor, I. (2019). The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
McDermott, R. (1998). Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. University of Michigan Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Norton.
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.
ODNI. (2024). Intelligence Community Budget: Fiscal Year 2023 Summary. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
OECD. (2023). AI and Multilateral Governance: Applications, Opportunities, and Risks. OECD Digital Economy Papers.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. Policy Research Working Paper 5095. World Bank.
Papadakis, M., & Gasser, U. (2022). AI and the Future of Multilateral Diplomacy. Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Pamment, J. (2016). Digital diplomacy as transmedia engagement: Aligning theories of participatory culture with international advocacy campaigns. New Media & Society, 18(9), 2046–2062.
Risse, T. (2020). Human rights in a world of global power shifts. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on International Relations (2nd ed., pp. 734–752). Oxford University Press.
Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V., & Floridi, L. (2021). The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: An analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI and Society, 36(1), 59–77.
Roff, H. M. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Power to the people. Ethics & International Affairs, 33(2), 127–140.
Scharre, P. (2018). Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. Norton.
Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and Influence. Yale University Press.
Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Business.
Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. Penguin Press.
SIO. (2023). AI-Generated Political Disinformation: A Global Audit. Stanford Internet Observatory.
Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). The debate on the moral responsibilities of online service providers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1575–1603.
UNCTAD. (2022). Technology and Innovation Report 2022: Catching Technological Waves: Innovation with Equity. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
United Nations. (2021). Digital Technology and the Future of Peacekeeping. Department of Peace Operations.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
Zürn, M. (2018). A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford University Press.