Artificial Intelligence and International Peace and Security: Review SIPRI Analysis

Representative Image by Wix AI

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2026 chapter, Artificial Intelligence and International Peace and Security, provides one of the most comprehensive analyses of the evolving international governance landscape surrounding artificial intelligence (AI). Rather than focusing solely on technological developments, the report examines how governments, international organizations, and multilateral institutions are attempting to regulate AI's military and civilian applications. It effectively highlights that AI governance is no longer a theoretical concern but a pressing international security issue requiring coordinated global action.

One of the report's greatest strengths is its structured approach. It divides the discussion into two broad domains: governance of military AI and governance of civilian AI. Military AI raises concerns regarding the use of force, accountability, escalation, and compliance with international humanitarian law, whereas civilian AI governance focuses on issues such as digital inequality, transparency, safety, and responsible innovation. This separation makes the report have analytical depth.

The report's treatment of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) is particularly noteworthy. SIPRI demonstrates that after more than a decade of negotiations under the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), states continue to disagree on even the most fundamental concepts, including the definition of AWS and the level of human involvement necessary in targeting decisions. The report carefully explains the growing support for a two-tier regulatory approach that would prohibit certain autonomous weapons while regulating others according to international humanitarian law. However, it also reveals that political disagreements between major military powers continue to prevent meaningful progress.

A major contribution of the report is its discussion of "context-appropriate human control and judgment." Rather than insisting on the notions of "human in the loop," SIPRI explains that meaningful human oversight depends on the operational context. This reflects a more realistic understanding of modern warfare, where AI increasingly supports intelligence analysis, surveillance, logistics, and decision-making rather than replacing human operators.

At the same time, the report emphasizes that responsibility and accountability for the use of force must always remain with humans, reinforcing an essential principle of international humanitarian law.

Another important aspect highlighted by SIPRI is the expansion of AI governance discussions beyond Geneva. Traditionally, debates on autonomous weapons have taken place under the CCW framework. During 2025, however, the United Nations General Assembly in New York hosted informal consultations on AWS, while the Security Council also debated AI's implications for international peace and security. This geographical and institutional expansion illustrates that AI governance is evolving into a broader international security issue rather than remaining confined to arms control discussions. SIPRI effectively argues that while Geneva remains the primary negotiating forum, New York offers greater inclusivity and political visibility.

The report also provides valuable analysis of the UN Secretary-General's first report on AI in the military domain. Instead of  limiting the discussion to autonomous weapons, the report examines AI applications in intelligence, surveillance, logistics, cybersecurity, command and control, peacekeeping, and strategic analysis.

SIPRI identifies both opportunities and risks. On one hand, AI can improve operational efficiency, precision, and civilian protection. On the other hand, it may shorten decision-making timelines, increase the risk of accidental escalation, widen technological inequalities between states, and reduce meaningful human control over military operations. This balanced assessment avoids both technological optimism and excessive alarmism.

Beyond military applications, SIPRI successfully broadens the conversation to civilian AI governance. The report discusses significant United Nations initiatives, including the establishment of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance. These initiatives demonstrate growing recognition that AI governance requires scientific expertise alongside diplomatic negotiations. The emphasis on inclusivity and representation from both developed and developing countries is significant, as AI governance risks becoming dominated by technologically advanced states and large private corporations.

The report also offers a detailed examination of major international AI governance initiatives outside the United Nations. The AI Action Summit in Paris illustrates the shift from focusing exclusively on AI safety toward broader discussions on sustainability, inclusivity, and economic development. Similarly, SIPRI reviews the European Union's implementation of the AI Act, China's Global AI Governance Action Plan, and the United States' AI Action Plan under the Trump administration. These comparisons reveal that AI governance is increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition rather than purely technical considerations.

Perhaps the report's most significant contribution is its demonstration of growing divergence among major powers. The European Union emphasizes regulation, transparency, and responsible innovation. China promotes multilateral cooperation while simultaneously expanding its own technological influence through capacity-building initiatives. In contrast, the United States increasingly prioritizes technological leadership, deregulation, and strategic competition with China. SIPRI effectively illustrates that AI governance is becoming another arena of great-power rivalry, making the achievement of universal international norms increasingly difficult.

Despite its many strengths, the report has certain limitations. First, its emphasis remains heavily institutional and diplomatic. While the report thoroughly documents negotiations, resolutions, and international meetings, it devotes comparatively less attention to how AI is already transforming contemporary battlefields. Practical case studies from ongoing conflicts could have strengthened the analysis by illustrating the real-world consequences of AI-enabled military systems.

Second, the report focuses primarily on state-led governance. Although it acknowledges the influence of major technology companies, the discussion could have explored in greater depth the role of private industry. Companies such as OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, and others are driving much of AI innovation, yet international governance mechanisms still struggle to regulate actors whose capabilities often rival those of governments. Greater analysis of public-private governance would have enhanced the report.

Third, while SIPRI recognizes the importance of capacity-building for developing countries, the report pays relatively limited attention to the challenges faced by the Global South. Many developing countries lack the technical expertise, computational infrastructure, and regulatory capacity required to participate effectively in global AI governance. Future editions could examine these disparities more comprehensively.

Nevertheless, these limitations do not significantly diminish the report's overall value. SIPRI succeeds in presenting an objective, evidence-based assessment without advocating a single regulatory model. Instead, it carefully documents competing perspectives, allowing readers to understand the complex political, legal, and technological dimensions of AI governance.

In conclusion, the report demonstrates that AI governance has become a central issue for international peace and security, extending far beyond autonomous weapons into broader questions of global governance, strategic stability, technological competition, and international law. Although significant disagreements remain among states regarding regulation and governance, SIPRI convincingly argues that continued dialogue, confidence-building, and multilateral cooperation will be essential to managing AI's risks while harnessing its benefits. For policymakers, researchers, students, and security practitioners, the chapter provides an authoritative  assessment of one of the defining international security challenges of the twenty-first century.

Read the Original Chapter

Note - This Review is by Stuti Sharma a research intern with Security Risks Asia on probation.