In an age where satellite data can predict harvest failures and AI models can forecast civil unrest before the first shot is fired, the mechanisms of global peace and security are being profoundly reshaped. While artificial intelligence offers immense potential for conflict prevention and crisis response, it also raises urgent questions about the legitimacy, fairness and accountability of these tools, particularly when those technologies are wielded by capable actors in asymmetrical geopolitical landscapes.
Among global institutions, the United Nations most vividly embodies the challenges posed by AI to peace and security. Established in the aftermath of World War II to uphold international stability through collective diplomacy, the U.N. now finds itself at a technological crossroads. The accelerating pace of AI development from autonomous weapons systems to predictive surveillance capabilities outstrips the institution’s capacity to adapt. Since Oct. 7, 2023, it has become increasingly difficult to portray the U.N. as a pioneering force in international peace, particularly given the repeated deadlocks within the Security Council. Yet if the U.N. is to remain a credible actor in world affairs, it must not only keep pace with this transformation but take the lead in reimagining how peace is constructed, protected and mediated in the digital era.
The use of AI in peacekeeping and conflict prevention is no longer hypothetical. The U.N. has launched several experimental initiatives, most notably U.N. Global Pulse, which explores how big data and machine learning can support early warning systems, humanitarian logistics and digital inclusion in crisis zones. AI-enhanced satellite imagery is already being used to detect mass displacements, illegal mining and deforestation in conflict-prone regions. Natural language processing (NLP) can monitor online hate speech and misinformation trends that often precede outbreaks of violence.
In principle, these tools could dramatically improve as early warning systems that the U.N. can act early and effectively, moving from reactive peacekeeping to anticipatory diplomacy. For missions where resources and personnel are stretched thin, AI could offer real-time insights and decision-support mechanisms that increase both safety and strategic clarity. This is particularly vital in regions where traditional intelligence-gathering is difficult or politically sensitive. Yet optimism must be tempered with caution. AI does not arrive in a vacuum; on the contrary, it reflects the priorities, biases, and blind spots of its designers and those who deploy it.
The darker reality is that AI systems can also be used to enforce geopolitical dominance under the guise of neutrality. Predictive policing models, often trained on historically biased data, can be exported to fragile regions under U.N.-backed stabilization missions, inadvertently reinforcing existing patterns of discrimination and mistrust. Facial recognition technologies, deployed in refugee camps or border zones, may violate privacy and consent, particularly when managed by external contractors rather than local institutions.
More troubling is the risk that algorithmic sanctions or surveillance become normalized within international governance, where capable states or blocs hardwire their values into systems of control, sidelining due process or multilateral deliberation. The idea of “AI peacekeeping” can slide into “AI enforcement” if the Global South is excluded from shaping these systems.
This is the geopolitical edge of what I have described in my previous op-eds as technopolarity, or in other words, a technopolar world: a global order where control over digital infrastructure, platforms, and AI capabilities increasingly determines influence, sometimes more than conventional military or diplomatic power. In such a world, the U.N.’s role as a neutral forum for conflict resolution is increasingly challenged by the technical, normative, and strategic asymmetries embedded in AI systems. Thus, digital asymmetry represents a structural and enduring reality of the technopolar world – one that must be taken seriously and actively mitigated. In this context, international organizations are not optional but essential instruments through which states can collectively address digital inequities, assert normative agency and safeguard their digital autonomy.
The structural problem is not merely one of tools but of governance. Unlike nuclear weapons, AI technologies are largely developed by private sector actors and regulated unevenly across jurisdictions. The EU’s AI Act may set global standards for ethical deployment, but its implementation is still incomplete. Meanwhile, the U.N. lacks a binding, coherent framework for AI governance, let alone enforcement.
This institutional gap risks rendering the U.N. irrelevant in the most consequential debates of our time. As the Security Council remains gridlocked over traditional conflicts, new forms of algorithmic influence, synthetic media manipulation, and cyber-espionage unfold beyond its reach. The question is not whether the U.N. should engage in AI governance but whether it can still shape the rules of the game before others write them by default.
What would a more credible and effective AI governance role look like for the U.N. in the technopolar world? Several urgent and realistic steps are emerging. First, establishing an AI Ethics and Security Council under the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) could provide normative oversight for AI applications in peacekeeping, humanitarian operations and sanctions regimes. While no such body exists today, this proposal would complement – not replace – ongoing work by existing U.N. agencies like UNESCO, which adopted the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in 2021, and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which leads technical standard-setting efforts.
Second, the U.N. must develop digital peacekeeping protocols to govern the ethical deployment of AI in field missions. While AI is not yet systematically integrated into U.N. peace operations, initiatives such as the Digital Technology Strategy of the U.N. Peacekeeping Missions (2021) acknowledge the growing need for clear ethical and operational frameworks. These protocols should ensure transparency, human rights safeguards, audit trails and opt-out clauses to protect affected populations.
Third, the idea of a Global AI Treaty Mechanism has gained traction in global fora. While no formal treaty exists, high-level summits such as the Paris AI Action Summit (2025) and ADF 2025 in Türkiye reflected the growing momentum for multilateral cooperation. Countries such as Türkiye, Indonesia and Kenya, which advocate for digital non-alignment, could play pivotal roles in promoting a balanced framework that resists binary alignments in the technopolar competition.
Finally, ensuring meaningful participation of the Global South in data governance is vital. This includes open access to training data, regional AI research hubs, and the co-development of ethical and legal benchmarks. Initiatives like Africa’s AI Blueprint and Indonesia’s Digital Diplomacy Strategy have already demonstrated movement in this direction. These steps are not panaceas, but they form the groundwork for a more responsive and inclusive multilateral system – a “U.N. 2.0” that rises to meet the stakes of the current digital order and reasserts global leadership in shaping ethical AI governance.
The promise of AI as a force for peace is real, but so too is the danger of outsourcing sovereignty, justice, and diplomacy to opaque algorithms, designed by a few, governed by even fewer. Today, the fate of over 8 billion people already rests in the hands of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Is it logical or legitimate to add yet another layer of global decision-making mediated by artificial intelligence, coded and controlled by those same powers? Whether AI becomes a peacekeeper or an enforcer will not be determined by code alone, but by who designs it, who governs its deployment, and whose interests it ultimately serves. The U.N. cannot afford to remain a passive bystander in this historical inflection point. It must assert a proactive, normative role in shaping the governance of AI in international affairs or risk becoming yet another legacy institution overtaken by the velocity and complexity of its time. This brings us to one of the most pressing and unresolved questions of our era: When will we witness a meaningful reform of the U.N.?
