The Future of Diplomacy: Navigating the Age of Advanced AI and Cyberspace

Vladimir Tsakanyan

Executive Summary

The landscape of international relations is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the pervasive reach of cyberspace. This report examines how these technological forces are fundamentally reshaping diplomacy, presenting both unprecedented opportunities for efficiency, analysis, and global engagement, as well as significant challenges related to security, ethics, and the very nature of state sovereignty. While AI promises to augment diplomatic functions from negotiation to intelligence gathering, it simultaneously introduces risks such as algorithmic bias, data insecurity, and the proliferation of sophisticated information warfare. Cyberspace, as a new domain of diplomatic engagement and conflict, challenges traditional notions of deterrence and international law, creating a complex environment where trust is increasingly vulnerable. The analysis underscores that this digital evolution is irreversible, necessitating a proactive and human-centric approach to global governance. The future of diplomacy will hinge on fostering a symbiotic relationship between human expertise and AI capabilities, developing robust international norms and legal frameworks, strengthening cybersecurity, and significantly upskilling diplomats to become adept digital stewards. This collective effort is imperative for maintaining global stability and fostering cooperation in an increasingly interconnected world.

1. Introduction: Diplomacy at the Digital Crossroads

The traditional realm of diplomacy, historically characterized by human-centric decision-making and formal state-to-state interactions, is being profoundly reshaped by the accelerating impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the pervasive expansion of cyberspace.¹ This is not merely an incremental technological upgrade but a fundamental redefinition of how nations engage and interact on the global stage. The established “dance of institutions,” once focused on territorial integrity and bilateral treaties, is now increasingly concerned with navigating intricate data flows, algorithmic governance, and the assertion of sovereign control within the digital public square.⁴ Where the past relied on physical embassies and secure cables, the contemporary diplomatic environment operates through Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and complex trust mismatches in digital interactions.⁴

This pervasive integration of AI and cyberspace signifies a fundamental paradigm shift in the very currency of power. Traditional geopolitical assets, such as landmass or conventional military might, are being complemented, and in some contexts even superseded, by intangible assets like data, sophisticated algorithms, and control over critical digital infrastructure. The ability to wield AI for advanced analysis, influence operations, and cyber capabilities becomes a paramount determinant of national power, fundamentally altering the means by which states pursue their foreign policy objectives.⁵ This represents a qualitative change in the international system, moving beyond mere technological tools to a new operational environment for statecraft.

Furthermore, the digital transformation of diplomacy inherently creates a highly interconnected global system where vulnerabilities in digital infrastructure or information integrity can rapidly cascade into geopolitical instability and erode trust.⁴ The reliance on “data flows” and “algorithmic governance” implies that diplomatic processes are increasingly dependent on complex, interdependent digital systems.⁴ If the integrity and security of these digital connections are compromised, the consequences can be immediate and far-reaching. A successful cyberattack on a diplomatic institution or the widespread dissemination of AI-generated misinformation can instantly undermine trust, disrupt communication channels, and escalate international tensions.¹ This introduces a novel layer of systemic risk, where digital vulnerabilities pose direct threats to global peace and cooperation, underscoring the urgent need for a collective security approach to cyberspace. The very “algorithm is political,” mediating everything from peacekeeping efforts to international trade agreements, and from surveillance practices to the exercise of free speech, highlighting a profound shift in the underlying mechanisms of international relations.⁴

2. AI’s Transformative Power in Diplomacy

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming an indispensable tool in modern diplomacy, offering significant enhancements across various functions. Its capacity to process, analyze, and generate information at speeds and scales far beyond human capability is fundamentally redefining diplomatic practice.

Enhancing Negotiation, Decision-Making, and Treaty Drafting

AI currently augments crucial diplomatic tasks, improving efficiency and strategic depth. This includes sophisticated text analysis, providing real-time simultaneous translations (e.g., through tools like Google language translation glasses), and offering data-driven recommendations during complex negotiations.¹ Such capabilities drastically reduce the time traditionally spent on consecutive interpretation, thereby streamlining communication and accelerating diplomatic processes.

More advanced AI models are capable of analyzing vast amounts of diplomatic data and historical agreements to suggest optimal negotiation strategies.² This extends to simulating various scenarios and identifying potential areas of agreement, proving particularly useful in delicate peace negotiations. Initiatives like the Ukraine-Russia Peace Agreement Simulator exemplify this, allowing users to input preferences across key themes and have AI draft and score potential agreements.¹ Furthermore, cognitive assistants, such as “Adam,” can parse thousands of legal and economic text pages, significantly quickening the preparatory phase of negotiations. This allows diplomats to dedicate more time to strategic decision-making rather than being bogged down by granular details.¹ AI-powered Natural Language Processing (NLP) and decision-support systems are reshaping multilateral negotiations by enabling real-time multilingual analysis, scenario simulations, and automated diplomatic communication, enhancing precision and speed.²

In the realm of treaty drafting, AI legal tools like DocDraft, Paxton AI, Taskade, Aline, LEGALFLY, DocLegal.AI, and Spellbook are revolutionizing the process. These tools offer automated document creation, suggest relevant contract clauses, identify potential risks, and facilitate collaborative editing, thereby streamlining what was once a highly time-consuming and labor-intensive endeavor.¹¹

While AI offers immense efficiency and data-driven insights, its primary value in diplomacy lies in augmenting human capabilities rather than fully replacing the nuanced, human-centric aspects of diplomatic engagement. Terms such as “augments negotiators’ efforts” ¹ and “freeing human analysts” ⁵ consistently appear, indicating that AI is seen as a powerful assistant for information processing and efficiency. The notion that “the art of negotiation now meets the science of AI” ¹ points to a symbiotic relationship. Essential human qualities like empathy, cultural sensitivity, ethical reasoning, and the ability to navigate complex, unpredictable human interactions are not replicable by current AI systems.¹⁰ Therefore, the future of diplomacy will likely involve highly skilled human diplomats leveraging AI as an advanced tool, ensuring that critical decisions, especially in sensitive areas like peace deals or crisis management, remain under human control.¹

Revolutionizing Intelligence Gathering and Conflict Prediction

AI-driven intelligence-gathering tools offer unprecedented capabilities for monitoring global developments. By analyzing vast amounts of data from diverse sources, including social media, satellite imagery, and communication networks, AI can identify emerging threats and trends with greater accuracy and in real-time.⁵ This real-time analysis is critical for maintaining national security and fostering international stability. For instance, AI algorithms can monitor social media platforms for early signs of radicalization or coordinated misinformation campaigns, enabling governments to take proactive measures to prevent or mitigate their impact.⁵

Machine learning models can forecast geopolitical scenarios and predict conflicts before they escalate, allowing policymakers to anticipate and respond proactively to potential threats and opportunities.² AI also automates routine intelligence tasks such as data collection, sorting, and preliminary analysis. This automation frees human analysts to concentrate on more complex, nuanced aspects of data interpretation and the development of actionable insights, thereby increasing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of intelligence agencies.⁵ The utility of AI in crisis management was notably demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, where AI models were instrumental in predicting virus spread, managing healthcare resources, and implementing effective containment measures.⁵

The increasing reliance on AI for data analysis and predictive modeling introduces a critical vulnerability: the potential for biased, incomplete, or misinterpreted data to lead to skewed policy recommendations and diplomatic missteps. AI has been observed to struggle with detecting sarcasm and irony in sentiment analysis, leading to potentially “skewed policy recommendations due to limitations in the availability of high-quality and reliable datasets”.¹ This represents a significant “algorithmic blind spot.” If AI models are trained on biased historical data or fail to grasp the nuances of human communication, their outputs, whether policy recommendations, sentiment analyses, or negotiation strategies, will be flawed. This could inadvertently perpetuate existing inequalities ⁸, misinterpret foreign public opinion, or lead to miscalculations in delicate diplomatic situations. Therefore, ensuring the quality, representativeness, and ethical sourcing of data used to train AI becomes a paramount diplomatic and technical challenge, requiring human oversight to validate and contextualize AI-generated insights.

Reshaping Public and Virtual Diplomacy

AI-based sentiment analysis tools empower governments to gauge public opinion in foreign nations, enabling more targeted and effective diplomatic messaging.¹ This capability allows for real-time adjustments to diplomatic strategies based on public feedback, enhancing the responsiveness of public diplomacy efforts. AI-driven chatbots and virtual assistants are already supporting consular services, assisting with visa applications, consular registrations, and legal aid for refugees, significantly enhancing efficiency and accessibility for citizens interacting with diplomatic missions.¹

A new frontier for diplomatic engagement is emerging with the advent of virtual embassies in metaverse platforms, pioneered by nations like Barbados, Sweden, and Estonia.¹⁵ These virtual spaces can offer consular services, promote national culture, and enable broader public engagement, transcending geographical limitations.¹⁵ Looking ahead, advancements in virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies are expected to facilitate more immersive and interactive virtual diplomatic meetings, potentially reducing travel costs and carbon emissions while expanding the reach and frequency of diplomatic interactions.¹⁷

While virtual platforms offer unprecedented accessibility and “diplomatic parity” for smaller nations, they simultaneously concentrate power in the hands of the private tech companies that own and operate these platforms, potentially creating new forms of digital influence or dependence. The initiative by Barbados to establish a virtual embassy highlights the democratizing potential of metaverses, offering “diplomatic parity with larger nations” by negating economic and demographic resource differences.¹⁵ This suggests greater inclusivity in global engagement. However, these virtual spaces and their underlying technologies are largely controlled by private tech giants.¹⁷ This creates a critical paradox: while smaller nations gain a voice, the infrastructure for that voice is not sovereign. This could lead to new forms of “digital colonialism” ⁸, where the terms of engagement, data privacy, and even censorship are dictated by corporate policies rather than international law or diplomatic norms. The implication is that while virtual diplomacy expands reach, it also necessitates new diplomatic efforts to govern these private platforms and ensure equitable access and control, preventing the emergence of new power imbalances.

Table 1: Key AI Applications in Modern Diplomacy

| Category | Specific Application | Benefits |

| :— | :— |:— | :— | | Negotiation & Decision-Making | Real-time translation | Reduced time, improved multilingual communication | 1 | | | Scenario simulation & strategy recommendations | Improved insights, proactive strategy development | 1 | | | Treaty drafting (automated tools) | Streamlined process, risk identification, compliance | 11 | | Intelligence & Conflict Prediction | Data analysis & geopolitical forecasting | More informed & timely decisions, conflict anticipation | 2 | | | Threat detection (social media, satellite imagery) | Early warning, enhanced national security | 5 | | Public & Virtual Diplomacy | Sentiment analysis | Targeted messaging, real-time public opinion gauge | 1 | | | Chatbots & virtual assistants (consular services) | Enhanced efficiency, accessibility for citizens | 1 | | | Virtual embassies & VR/AR meetings | Expanded public engagement, reduced travel costs | 15 | | Administrative Support | Compiling reports, monitoring news/social media | Automation of humdrum tasks, freeing diplomat time | 1 |

3. Cyberspace: The New Frontier of Diplomatic Engagement and Conflict

Cyberspace has emerged not only as a new medium for diplomatic engagement but also as a critical domain for international conflict, fundamentally altering the strategic landscape.

Defining Cyber Diplomacy and its Strategic Imperatives

Cyber diplomacy is specifically defined as the activity of deploying international cooperation in cyberspace and utilizing actions within cyberspace to achieve foreign-policy goals.¹⁹ Its core focus is on establishing norms to regulate state behavior and prevent or manage conflict in this non-physical realm.¹⁹ This is distinct from “digital diplomacy,” which broadly refers to the use of digital tools for traditional foreign policy objectives, such as a diplomat using digital communication during a pandemic without focusing on cyberspace stability itself.¹⁹

Given the borderless nature of cyberspace, a multi-stakeholder governance approach is essential, requiring collaboration among governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other non-state actors.¹⁹ Historical instances, such as Estonia’s robust response to a large-scale politically motivated cyberattack in 2007, underscored the urgent need for highly qualified cyber experts within governments.¹⁹ In response to these evolving threats, nations like the United States have established dedicated offices, such as the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy within the State Department, to engage with foreign stakeholders and promote national interests in the cyber domain.²¹ Cyber diplomats are crucial in countering threats, leveraging opportunities, tracking sophisticated state and non-state actors, and promoting peace, stability, human rights, and economic relations within the digital sphere.¹⁹

The Evolving Landscape of Cyber Warfare and Digital Espionage

Cyberspace has rapidly become a critical domain for national security, presenting unconventional and asymmetric challenges. Adversaries can exploit vulnerabilities without engaging in direct, conventional warfare, making cyberattacks a potent tool in modern conflict.²¹ AI significantly enhances both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. On the offensive side, AI can automate malware generation, accelerate vulnerability detection, and create more complex, adaptable, and elusive attacks.⁷ Conversely, AI also strengthens defensive tactics by analyzing vast amounts of network traffic for threats and spotting anomalies at machine speed.⁷

A growing number of states are developing their own cyber tools for defense, offense, and intelligence, leading some to declare cyber as the “fifth military domain” alongside land, sea, air, and space.⁷ Historical examples like the Stuxnet attack, which inflicted physical damage on Iranian nuclear centrifuges through code, and Operation Aurora, an espionage campaign attributed to China, illustrate the destructive and intelligence-gathering potential of cyber operations.²² Cyberattacks can originate from international relations tensions or escalate rapidly to political and diplomatic crises.⁷ Future trends in digital espionage include the increased use of AI and machine learning for sophisticated infiltration, the deployment of deepfake technologies for manipulation, and the weaponization of emerging technologies such as 5G, the Internet of Things (IoT), and quantum computing.²³ The rise of hybrid and asymmetric warfare tactics means cyber operations are increasingly intertwined with traditional military and psychological warfare, with an expanded role for cyber proxies allowing nations to maintain plausible deniability.²⁴

The inherent difficulty in attributing cyberattacks and the blurring lines between state and non-state actors fundamentally challenge traditional notions of deterrence, increasing the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation. The problem of “attribution and accountability” in cyberspace, where attackers use sophisticated techniques to disguise their identities, makes it difficult to prove culpability “beyond reasonable doubt”.²⁰ This lack of clear attribution directly impacts the effectiveness of deterrence, which relies on the ability to identify and punish an aggressor. When states cannot reliably attribute an attack, it fosters “distrust among states, hindering dialogue, transparency, and cooperation”.²⁶ This leads to a “security paradox” ²⁶ where states feel compelled to invest more in offensive capabilities to gain an advantage, perpetuating mutual suspicion and increasing the likelihood of miscalculation or unintended escalation, as exemplified by a simulation where “battle was never joined, even by accident” due to attribution difficulties.²⁷ The “fog of war” ²⁸ is intensely magnified in the digital realm, making de-escalation difficult and increasing the potential for cyber incidents to spiral into broader conflicts.

AI’s dual-use nature in cyber warfare, enhancing both offensive and defensive capabilities, creates a continuous “cat-and-mouse” dynamic that accelerates a digital arms race, potentially favoring offensive capabilities due to the inherent complexity of defense. AI can improve both offensive (e.g., malware generation, vulnerability detection) and defensive (e.g., threat detection, anomaly spotting) cyber capabilities.⁷ This “dual-use nature means there is a constant cat-and-mouse dynamic”.²⁹ However, AI-powered attacks can be “more complex, adaptable, and elusive, making them more difficult to identify and stop”.⁷ This suggests a potential asymmetry where offensive capabilities might gain a temporary advantage, requiring defenders to constantly adapt at an accelerated pace. The observation that “AI accelerates the technical arms race, with governments competing for AI dominance” ³⁰ highlights a self-reinforcing cycle where states are compelled to invest heavily in AI for national security, driving an ever-escalating competition that makes global stability more precarious, as the speed of AI operations outpaces human decision-making and traditional defense mechanisms.

Navigating Information and Cognitive Warfare in the Digital Sphere

Information warfare involves the strategic use of information and communication technologies to disrupt, corrupt, or steal an adversary’s information while protecting one’s own. This is achieved through various means, including cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and social media manipulation.⁶ The advent of the internet and social media has significantly amplified the scope and impact of information warfare, with widespread use of bots, trolls, and fake news.⁶

AI is revolutionizing psychological operations (PsyOps) by enabling the instant generation of thousands of tailored, persuasive messages that dynamically adapt to real-time shifts in public sentiment.³¹ AI-powered chatbots and digital personas can seamlessly infiltrate social media platforms, subtly steering conversations and influencing perceptions without users detecting their artificial nature.³¹ Even more troubling is AI’s ability to fabricate convincingly real “deepfake” videos and audio, which can be used to manipulate diplomatic relations, create false crises, and erode trust.¹ A stark example is the deepfake video portraying Ukrainian President Zelenskyy telling troops to surrender.⁷

An alarming trend is the growing public trust in AI-generated content, such as political summaries, which can be higher than that in traditional news sources. This makes AI systems extraordinarily powerful conduits for influence operations.³¹ This new form of “cognitive warfare” targets the human mind as the primary battlefield, aiming to undermine credibility, destabilize institutions, and disrupt societies, with tangible real-world consequences.³¹ Russia’s use of AI-powered disinformation during the 2016 US presidential election exemplifies AI’s rising involvement in hybrid warfare.³⁰

The confluence of AI bias, pervasive misinformation, and persistent data insecurity creates a profound and systemic “trust deficit” that directly undermines the very foundation of international relations and cooperation. Ethical concerns regarding AI bias ¹ mean that AI-driven insights or decisions might inherently be unfair or misrepresentative. Simultaneously, AI’s capacity to generate convincing deepfakes and disinformation ¹ actively erodes the shared reality upon which diplomacy operates. When combined with the constant threat of cyberattacks compromising sensitive diplomatic data ⁸, the ability of states to trust each other’s communications, intentions, and even the “facts” themselves becomes severely compromised. Diplomacy fundamentally relies on mutual trust and a common understanding of reality to build consensus and resolve disputes. A persistent lack of trust makes cooperation on critical global issues, from arms control to climate change, exponentially more difficult, potentially leading to increased isolationism, miscalculation, and conflict. This is not merely a technical problem but a core geopolitical challenge.

Table 2: Major Cyber Threats and Diplomatic Responses

| Threat Category | Specific Examples | Diplomatic Response/Implication |

| :— | :— | :— | :— | | Cyber Warfare/Espionage | State-sponsored attacks, critical infrastructure sabotage (Stuxnet, NotPetya), economic espionage, AI-powered malware | Cyber diplomacy, multi-stakeholder governance, international norms development, attribution mechanisms, information sharing, enhanced cybersecurity protocols, challenges to trust and accountability | 7 | | Information/Cognitive Warfare | Deepfakes, disinformation campaigns (2016 US election), social media manipulation, AI-powered PsyOps | Digital literacy, ethical AI guidelines, counter-narratives, international cooperation on information integrity, erosion of trust | 1 | | Data Security Breaches | Confidential diplomatic cable leaks, commercial malware exploitation, social engineering of diplomats | Enhanced cybersecurity protocols, secure data management, human vulnerability mitigation, need for robust encryption | 9 |

4. Challenges and Risks: Navigating the Digital Minefield

While AI and cyberspace offer transformative opportunities for diplomacy, they also introduce significant challenges and risks that must be carefully navigated to prevent destabilization of the international system.

Ethical Dilemmas, Bias, and Accountability in AI Systems

A significant risk in the integration of AI into diplomacy is the potential for algorithms to reinforce existing biases in decision-making.¹ This can lead to unfair or even destabilizing diplomatic actions, such as perpetuating inequality in trade negotiations or international policies. AI’s current limitations, including its struggle with detecting sarcasm and irony in sentiment analysis, can result in skewed policy recommendations due to misinterpretation of public opinion.¹ The inherent “black box” problem, referring to the opacity of AI model outputs, makes it challenging to understand how decisions are reached, thereby hindering transparency and eroding trust in AI-driven processes.¹

A critical challenge is the absence of clear legal frameworks to assign accountability when an AI-driven diplomatic decision results in an adverse outcome.⁸ This ambiguity can undermine trust and complicate dispute resolution processes. Without robust oversight and “Human-in-the-Loop” (HITL) mechanisms, there is a tangible danger that AI could perpetuate stereotypes or reinforce divisive narratives, further complicating already delicate diplomatic efforts.¹ Broader ethical concerns surrounding AI use in government and diplomacy encompass transparency, accountability, human oversight, non-discrimination, and privacy.² A fundamental principle emerging in this domain is that life-and-death decisions or those affecting fundamental human rights must never be ceded to AI systems, as these decisions inherently require human intervention and moral reasoning.³³

Data Security, Misinformation, and Deepfakes: Threats to Trust

AI-driven cyberattacks represent a severe and growing threat to national security and international stability, rendering diplomatic communications and national interests highly vulnerable.⁸ Incidents where confidential diplomatic cables were found online due to inadequate encryption highlight critical weaknesses in existing data security protocols.⁹ The accessibility of commercial malware, costing as little as $100, can enable adversaries to exploit sensitive diplomatic information, incurring immeasurable diplomatic loss.⁹ Diplomats themselves are particularly susceptible to social engineering tactics like phishing and impersonation, which exploit human weaknesses to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information.⁹

The proliferation of AI-generated fake news and deepfake videos poses a direct threat to the integrity of diplomatic relations. These fabricated contents can be used to create false crises and profoundly erode trust between nations.¹ Misinformation and propaganda campaigns actively undermine trust and can escalate conflicts, making it difficult for diplomats to establish common ground and verify information.¹⁸

Impact on State Sovereignty and the Evolution of International Law

The borderless nature of cyberspace fundamentally challenges traditional notions of state sovereignty, which have historically formed the cornerstones of international law since the Treaty of Westphalia.²⁵ This lack of physical boundaries makes it inherently difficult to define jurisdiction and enforce laws effectively in the digital realm. The pursuit of AI supremacy is accelerating geopolitical rivalries, with AI development increasingly linked to national security and economic strategy, thereby redefining the global balance of power.⁴⁰ Discussions on power distribution in the digital age range from a “level playing field,” where power is diffused among many actors, to a concentration of power in the hands of a few dominant states or corporations closely tied to sovereign powers.²⁶

Cyberspace is often characterized as anarchic, lacking a centralized authority or universally enforceable laws, much like the traditional international system.²⁶ The blurred lines between state and non-state actors in cyber operations further complicate accountability under existing international law.²⁵ The application of established international legal frameworks, such as the UN Charter’s provisions on the use of force or international humanitarian law (IHL), to cyberattacks remains contentious and difficult to implement effectively due to the unique characteristics of digital conflict.²⁵ There is an urgent need for new international legal frameworks and norms for AI and cyberspace.⁷ However, developing these “cyber norms” is challenging due to the novel and rapidly changing nature of the digital realm, contested underlying values among states, and the inherent difficulty in identifying and holding relevant actors accountable.⁴⁷

The rapid evolution and borderless nature of AI and cyberspace have created a significant vacuum in international legal and governance frameworks, challenging traditional notions of sovereignty and threatening to undermine the existing international legal order. The observation that existing governance frameworks “lag behind” ⁴ the speed of AI development creates a critical vulnerability. This vacuum is exacerbated by differing national interests and ideological divides ⁴⁶ on how to regulate AI. The inability to effectively apply existing international law, such as the laws of armed conflict ²⁵, to AI-driven cyber actions means there is no clear “rulebook” for state behavior, fostering an environment of uncertainty. This lack of clear, universally accepted, and enforceable international law directly contributes to instability, increases the likelihood of miscalculation, and risks a breakdown of the rules-based international order in the digital domain.

Addressing the Digital Divide and Ensuring Equitable Participation

Customized AI tools for advanced negotiation can be capital-intensive and inaccessible to diplomats from less technologically advanced nations, thereby placing them on an unequal footing in critical negotiations.¹ This “digital inequality” or “digital divide” means that not all nations possess equal access to digital tools or the necessary expertise for effective cyber diplomacy, which can exacerbate existing geopolitical inequalities.¹⁸ The risk of “digital colonialism” emerges, where AI is monopolized by a few leading powers, potentially leading to unequal diplomatic relationships where less-developed nations are at a disadvantage in global discussions on AI governance and policy.⁸ The increasing inclusivity and participation in global cyber and AI diplomacy place larger burdens on smaller states and foreign ministries with less capacity, highlighting the urgent need for capacity building and resource allocation.⁵²

Unequal access to advanced AI and cyber capabilities risks exacerbating existing geopolitical inequalities and creating new forms of power imbalances, potentially leading to a form of “digital colonialism” where technologically advanced nations exert disproportionate influence. The observation that advanced AI tools are “capital-intensive” and “inaccessible to diplomats from less technologically advanced nations” ¹ means they are placed on an “unequal footing.” The explicit mention of the “digital divide” exacerbating “existing geopolitical inequalities” ¹⁸ and the concept of “digital colonialism” where AI is “monopolized by a few leading powers” ⁸ illustrate this concern. This disparity extends beyond mere access to technology; it impacts the fundamental ability to

shape global norms, influence narratives, participate effectively in multilateral discussions, and defend against cyber threats. Nations lacking advanced AI/cyber capabilities risk marginalization in global governance, becoming targets of influence operations, or facing cyberattacks without adequate defense. This creates a new dimension of power politics, where technological prowess directly translates into diplomatic leverage and vulnerability, potentially deepening global disparities and fostering resentment.

5. Forging the Future: Strategic Imperatives for Digital Diplomacy

Navigating the complexities of AI and cyberspace requires a proactive and collaborative approach to ensure that these technologies serve the interests of global stability and cooperation.

Developing Robust AI Governance and Ethical Frameworks

Establishing global AI norms and ethical guidelines is paramount to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability in diplomatic applications.¹ This includes setting guidelines for ethical AI use in diplomacy, trade, and conflict resolution. Leading examples include the EU AI Act, which implements a risk-based classification system; the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, providing voluntary guidelines; and the OECD AI Principles, which establish human-centric standards.³⁵ Notably, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on AI stands as the first legally binding international treaty aimed at ensuring human rights, the rule of law, and democratic standards in AI systems.⁴³

Crucially, ethical frameworks must emphasize human oversight and “Human-in-the-Loop” (HITL) mechanisms, ensuring that humans retain meaningful control and decision-making authority, especially for critical applications.¹ Effective AI governance frameworks must ensure safety, fairness, compliance, robust risk management strategies, transparency, and accountability in AI decision-making.³⁵ This requires clear policies embedding security, data protection, and transparency from the ground up.³⁵ Organizations should conduct AI risk assessments, establish internal AI ethics policies, implement continuous monitoring and auditing, and provide mandatory training for employees on AI ethics and compliance.³⁵ Global initiatives like the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, its “Governing AI for Humanity” report ³³, and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence ³³ are vital in establishing a comprehensive global governance framework. The “Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace” also promotes principles for responsible behavior.¹⁸

The rapid, borderless proliferation of AI and cyber threats necessitates a fundamental shift from reactive national responses to proactive, internationally coordinated governance frameworks that anticipate future risks. The consistent indication that existing governance frameworks “lag behind” ⁴ the speed of AI development highlights a critical vulnerability. The call for “common understanding not just about values but also taxonomies, standards, and future scenarios” ⁴² is crucial because fragmented or reactive approaches ⁵³ will inevitably fail to contain threats that are inherently international.²⁰ The emphasis on “risk-based classification” (EU AI Act) ³⁵ and “identifying, assessing, preventing, and mitigating possible risks” ⁴³ demonstrates a move towards anticipatory risk management. Without a concerted, proactive global effort to establish norms, legal frameworks, and ethical guidelines, the risks of AI and cyber warfare will continue to outpace the ability to control them, leading to a more chaotic and unstable international environment. This implies that diplomacy’s role is shifting from managing existing conflicts to actively shaping the future digital landscape.

Strengthening Cybersecurity Protocols and Fostering International Cooperation

Enhancing defenses against AI-driven cyber threats is critical to protect diplomatic communications and national interests.⁸ International cooperation is vital for effective protection against these borderless threats.⁸ Negotiating bilateral and multilateral agreements for information sharing and establishing confidence-building measures (CBMs) are essential steps to foster mutual trust and reduce skepticism in individual cyber activities. The OSCE’s 16 CBMs serve as a good example of such initiatives.²⁰

Promoting international AI collaboration is necessary to prevent technological monopolization by a few dominant powers, ensuring that AI developments benefit all countries and avoid geopolitical domination.⁸ A multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, the private sector, and civil society is crucial for addressing complex issues like cybercrime and data privacy, as private actors often own and operate much of the critical digital infrastructure.¹⁸ International organizations like the UN and other multilateral institutions should integrate AI into their peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, leveraging its analytical capabilities for global stability.⁸ Developing effective countermeasures against information warfare, including improving cybersecurity, enhancing media literacy, developing counter-narratives, and fostering international cooperation, is paramount to safeguarding public discourse and diplomatic integrity.⁶ The U.S. Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) and its Foreign Affairs Cybersecurity Center (FACC) exemplify governmental efforts to maintain a secure digital environment for foreign policy, demonstrating a commitment to proactive cyber defense.⁵⁵

Upskilling Diplomats and Institutions for the Digital Age

Digital literacy is no longer an optional skill but a core competency for modern diplomats.¹⁸ Diplomats must develop a comprehensive understanding of how to navigate social media, analyze big data, and effectively utilize AI-driven technologies.¹⁸ Foreign ministries must become more “cyber literate” and adapt to the rising prominence of “AI diplomacy,” ensuring that AI and cyber policy are not pursued in silos but rather as integrated components of national strategy.⁵² This requires significant investment in research, analysis, and the ability to access external expertise when internal capacities are limited.⁵²

Dedicated training programs for diplomats are emerging to address this evolving need. Examples include the FSI School of Applied Information Technology (SAIT) ⁵⁶, Master’s programs in Digital International Relations & Diplomacy offered by institutions like UNITAR ⁵⁷, and Executive Diplomacy Training courses from organizations such as the Diplomatic Academy and the World Council for Youth Diplomacy (WCFYD).⁵⁸ Curricula for these programs cover essential topics such as digital communication strategies, social media engagement, crisis management in the digital sphere, cybersecurity considerations, and the exploration of virtual reality and other emerging technologies in diplomatic engagement.⁶⁰

The future of effective diplomacy hinges not on AI replacing human diplomats, but on human diplomats becoming highly proficient in leveraging AI, while critically maintaining and asserting human judgment, ethical reasoning, and cultural nuance. While AI offers immense efficiency gains, the sources explicitly state that AI “must never replace the unique human skills that diplomacy demands” and “can enhance—not replace—the human values that diplomacy is meant to defend”.¹ This underscores the enduring importance of human empathy, moral reasoning, and the ability to navigate complex, unpredictable human interactions, which AI cannot replicate. This necessitates a significant investment in “digital literacy as a core competency” ¹⁸ for diplomats, enabling them to understand, interpret, and critically evaluate AI outputs, rather than passively accepting them. Without this upskilling and a commitment to “Human-in-the-Loop” mechanisms ¹, diplomats risk becoming mere conduits for algorithmic decisions, potentially exacerbating biases or misinterpretations. The core competence of a diplomat is evolving from traditional statecraft to a blend of geopolitical acumen and digital stewardship.

The Promise of AI-Assisted Multilateralism and Collaborative Governance

AI can significantly enhance UN peacebuilding efforts, improve monitoring of conflict zones, and support the implementation of diplomatic strategies on a global scale.⁸ In conflict resolution, AI offers predictive models, NLP tools for real-time multilingual communication, and automated mediation platforms, aiding in de-escalation and agreement facilitation.¹⁰ AI is becoming vital for strategic forecasting and diplomatic planning, allowing governments to anticipate outcomes and prepare for various scenarios with greater foresight.¹⁰

Models of “science diplomacy,” such as the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Synchrotron-Light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME), exemplify how international cooperation in scientific and technological fields can transcend geopolitical divisions and build trust among nations.⁶¹ This collaborative spirit can be effectively applied to open-source AI development and the creation of ethical frameworks, fostering a shared understanding and approach to these powerful technologies.⁶¹ AI also offers tangible benefits in humanitarian aid, such as optimizing supply chains for organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), demonstrating its potential for positive global impact in critical areas.⁶¹ The long-term vision includes creating collaborative human-AI platforms where human experts and AI systems jointly make event forecasts and informed decisions for complex conflict zones, combining the best of both human intuition and algorithmic power.⁶¹

The borderless and interconnected nature of AI and cyberspace makes unilateral or fragmented national approaches to governance fundamentally ineffective, elevating unprecedented levels of international cooperation from a diplomatic ideal to a pragmatic necessity for global stability. The consistent emphasis on the international nature of cyber threats ²⁰ and the need for “unprecedented level of international coordination, engagement and cooperation” ⁵⁴ underscores this point. Efforts like the UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE), the UN Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) ⁷, the Council of Europe treaty ⁴³, and the Paris Call ¹⁸ all highlight the global consensus on the need for collective action. The challenge of “technological monopolization by a few dominant powers” ⁸ further emphasizes the need for collaborative frameworks to ensure equitable benefits and prevent geopolitical domination.⁸ The success of “science diplomacy” models like CERN ⁶¹ provides a template for how cooperation can transcend geopolitical divides. The implication is that the very survival of a stable international order in the digital age hinges on the ability of nations to overcome competition and ideological differences to collectively govern these dual-use technologies. National security in the digital era is increasingly a function of collective security, making multilateralism not just a choice, but an imperative.

Table 3: International AI/Cyber Governance Frameworks and Initiatives

| Initiative/Framework | Focus/Key Principles | Significance |

| :— | :— | :— | :— | | EU AI Act | Risk-based regulation, ethical AI, human rights, safety, transparency, accountability | First comprehensive legal framework for AI, global influence on standards | 35 | | NIST AI Risk Management Framework (USA) | Voluntary guidelines for trustworthy AI systems, risk management | Provides a flexible framework for AI development and deployment | 35 | | OECD AI Principles | Human-centric AI development, fairness, transparency, accountability | Establishes global ethical AI standards, widely adopted | 35 | | Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI | Human rights, rule of law, democracy standards in AI systems, legally binding | First international legally binding treaty on AI ethics | 43 | | UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) & Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) | Responsible state behavior in cyberspace, international law applicability, norms development | Key platforms for negotiating global cyber norms and rules of the road | 7 | | Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace | Promoting principles for cybersecurity and responsible behavior in cyberspace | Multi-stakeholder initiative for cyber norms | 18 | | UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI | Comprehensive ethical framework for AI, human rights, sustainability, human oversight | Central piece for UN system on AI ethics, recognized by General Assembly | 33 | | Global Digital Compact (UN) | Shared principles on digital governance, data sovereignty, responsible AI use | Aims to establish global norms for digital technologies, including AI | 4 |

6. Conclusion: A Symbiotic Future for Human and AI Diplomacy

The integration of AI into diplomatic processes offers both immense promise and significant peril, truly representing a “double-edged sword”.¹ While AI enhances efficiency, expands access to information, and provides unprecedented analytical capabilities, it also introduces profound risks related to inherent bias, accountability gaps, persistent data security vulnerabilities, and the potential erosion of trust.

The future of diplomacy must foster a symbiotic relationship where AI enhances human expertise, streamlines processes, and offers new strategic tools, while leaving the nuanced art of diplomacy and critical human judgment firmly in human hands.¹ AI and diplomacy are set to continue merging, fundamentally reshaping how diplomacy is conducted, far beyond mere efficiency gains.¹⁰ This integration is not a temporary trend but an irreversible, fundamental transformation of international relations, making the

responsible design and governance of this integration paramount for global stability. The “double-edged sword” metaphor underscores that the benefits (efficiency, insights) are inextricably linked to the risks (bias, cyber warfare, trust erosion). Therefore, the future of diplomacy depends less on whether these technologies are adopted, and more on how they are governed and integrated. The imperative shifts to designing systems and policies that prioritize ethical use, human oversight, and international cooperation to mitigate risks and maximize benefits, rather than simply adopting technology for its own sake. This means diplomacy itself must become a proactive force in shaping technological development and its ethical implications.

The borderless nature of cyberspace and the rapid evolution of AI necessitate an unprecedented level of international coordination and cooperation. The potential for cyber diplomacy to create a more equitable, peaceful, and cooperative global order is boundless, but only if nations can overcome competitive instincts and ideological divides to establish shared norms and governance frameworks.⁵ The role of the diplomat is fundamentally changing from a traditional state representative focused on physical interactions and treaties to a multifaceted “steward of digital trust” and “interpreter of systems” in a hyper-connected, information-saturated world. As stated, “the diplomat must be more than a representative. They must be curators of narrative, interpreters of systems, and stewards of digital trust”.⁴ This is a profound redefinition of the diplomatic profession. It moves beyond traditional state-to-state relations to encompass multi-stakeholder engagement ¹⁸, digital literacy ¹⁸, and a deep understanding of the underlying technological and algorithmic forces shaping international affairs. The ability to navigate misinformation, ensure data integrity, and build trust in a digitally fragmented world becomes central. This implies a significant shift in diplomatic training, recruitment, and institutional structures, moving from a sole focus on geopolitical tradecraft to a blend of traditional diplomacy with technological, ethical, and digital communication expertise. The “village voice” must not be lost in the “noise of the system” ⁴, highlighting the need for human values and inclusivity to guide technological integration. The debates and decisions made in multilateral forums over the coming years will critically determine the trajectory of international relations in this new digital age.⁵⁴

7. References

• https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-future-of-diplomacy-ai-s-expanding-role-in-international-affairs
• https://thegeopolitics.com/ai-and-diplomacy-the-next-geopolitical-battlefield/
• https://diplomaticacademy.us/2025/04/27/cyber-diplomacy/
• https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2025/02/09/the-digital-shield-using-cyber-diplomacy-to-strengthen-national-cyber-resilience/
• https://www.unisci.es/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/UNISCIDP67-1GARRIDO.pdf
• https://www.wgi.world/how-artificial-intelligence-is-reshaping-international-politics/
• https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/mastering-information-warfare-foreign-policy
• https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA367662.pdf
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23742917.2024.2312671
• https://www.eiir.eu/strategic-affairs/cyber-security-challenges-involved-in-protecting-sensitive-diplomatic-data/
• https://www.cfr.org/cyber-operations/
• https://www.iiss.org/
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388752290_AI’s_Role_in_Global_Stability_Diplomacy_and_Peacebuilding
• https://dig.watch/topics/cyberconflict
• https://industrialcyber.co/industrial-cyber-attacks/zetter-details-how-stuxnet-marked-a-turning-point-in-cyberwarfare-by-enabling-physical-sabotage-through-code/
• https://cris.unibo.it/retrieve/3c1a84d8-d7ef-497b-af21-a72cf6d7915f/JG_2024_2_Martino.pdf
• https://trendsresearch.org/insight/ai-rivalries-redefining-global-power-dynamics/
• https://ippdr.org/diplomacy-in-the-digital-age-the-rise-of-cyber-diplomacy/
• https://gordoninstitute.fiu.edu/cybersecurity-policy/research/cybersecurity-policy-research-initiative/assets/artificial-intelligence-and-cyber-power_5.23.24.pdf
• https://ega.ee/podcast-global-conversation-on-ai-governance-feat-tallinn-cyber-diplomacy-summer-school/
• https://afsa.org/diplomacy-cyberspace
• https://www.ie.edu/uncover-ie/ai-and-diplomacy-master-in-technology-and-global-affairs/
• https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/future-of-digital-diplomacy
• https://www.therainbowstrategy.ng/2024/02/02/future-of-public-affairs-navigating-digital-diplomacy/
• https://proceedings.cybercon.ro/index.php/ic3/article/download/2023-11/115/384
• https://www.fairly.ai/blog/policies-platform-and-choosing-a-framework
• https://consilien.com/news/ai-governance-frameworks-guide-to-ethical-ai-implementation
• https://www.state.gov/foreign-service-institute/applied-information-technology-training
• https://www.caidp.org/resources/coe-ai-treaty/
• https://fpf.org/blog/the-worlds-first-binding-treaty-on-artificial-intelligence-human-rights-democracy-and-the-rule-of-law-regulation-of-ai-in-broad-strokes/
• https://www.qeh.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-08/DigDiploROxWP6.pdf
• https://trendsresearch.org/insight/ai-powered-diplomacy-the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-global-conflict-resolution/
• https://purplesec.us/learn/cybercriminals-launching-ai-powered-cyber-attacks/
• https://www.cyber-espionage.ch/Cyber_Espionage_Threat_Landscape.html
• https://www.fikerinstitute.org/publications/metaverse-diplomacy
• https://diplomatmagazine.eu/2022/08/30/barbados-to-establish-the-world-first-embassy-in-the-metavesre/
• https://pppescp.com/2025/07/21/ais-invisible-invasion-how-artificial-intelligence-is-becoming-the-newest-weapon-in-hybrid-warfare/
• https://tdhj.org/blog/post/governance-artificial-intelligence/
• https://thecfma.org/2024/12/03/the-application-of-international-law-in-cyberspace-gaps-in-existing-frameworks/
• https://djilp.org/international-legal-frameworks-on-cybersecurity-and-data-protection-law/
• https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/science-diplomacy-global-collaboration-genai/
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/geotech-cues/navigating-the-new-reality-of-international-ai-policy/
• https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/ai-data-security-best-practices-securing-data-used-train-operate-ai-systems
• https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ethics-and-ai-part-4/
• https://www.techpolicy.press/a-proposed-scheme-for-international-diplomacy-on-ai-governance/
• https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/strategic-foresight-and-eu-cyber-threat-landscape-2025
• https://www.cimphony.ai/insights/top-10-ai-legal-drafting-tools-2024-features-and-pricing
• https://www.aline.co/post/ai-contract-drafting-software
• https://doclegal.ai/
• https://www.spellbook.legal/
• https://ts2.tech/en/artificial-intelligence-in-the-military-how-ai-is-reshaping-the-future-of-war/
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.11486
• https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/autonomous-weapons-and-international-law
• https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11294
• https://ccdcoe.org/library/publications/international-cyber-norms-legal-policy-industry-perspectives/
• https://carnegieendowment.org/projects/cybernorms
• https://cioafrica.co/diplomacy-in-the-age-of-ai/
• https://coe.gsa.gov/coe/ai-guide-for-government/print-all/index.html
• https://www.intelligence.gov/ai/ai-ethics-framework
• https://diplomaticacademy.us/diplomacy-courses/
• https://www.wcfyd.org/executive-diplomacy-program
• https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13523260.2024.2365062
• https://konghq.com/blog/learning-center/what-is-ai-governance
• https://unitar.org/courses-learning-events/individual-learners/master-degree-related-qualifications/master-digital-international-relations-diplomacy
• https://blackbird-training.com/Mastering-Digital-Diplomacy/184727/Mastering-Digital-Diplomacy.htm

Works cited

1. The Future of Diplomacy: AI’s expanding role in International Affairs, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-future-of-diplomacy-ai-s-expanding-role-in-international-affairs
2. (PDF) AI’s Role in Global Stability, Diplomacy, and Peacebuilding – ResearchGate, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388752290_AI’s_Role_in_Global_Stability_Diplomacy_and_Peacebuilding
3. AI-Powered Diplomacy: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Global Conflict Resolution, accessed July 23, 2025, https://trendsresearch.org/insight/ai-powered-diplomacy-the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-global-conflict-resolution/
4. Diplomacy In The Age Of AI | CIO Africa, accessed July 23, 2025, https://cioafrica.co/diplomacy-in-the-age-of-ai/
5. How Artificial Intelligence is Reshaping International Politics – World …, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.wgi.world/how-artificial-intelligence-is-reshaping-international-politics/
6. Mastering Information Warfare in Foreign Policy – Number Analytics, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/mastering-information-warfare-foreign-policy
7. Cyberconflict and warfare in 2025 | DW Observatory, accessed July 23, 2025, https://dig.watch/topics/cyberconflict
8. AI and Diplomacy: The Next Geopolitical Battlefield?, accessed July 23, 2025, https://thegeopolitics.com/ai-and-diplomacy-the-next-geopolitical-battlefield/
9. Cyber Security Challenges Involved in Protecting Sensitive Diplomatic Data, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.eiir.eu/strategic-affairs/cyber-security-challenges-involved-in-protecting-sensitive-diplomatic-data/
10. How AI is shaping the future of diplomacy – IE, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.ie.edu/uncover-ie/ai-and-diplomacy-master-in-technology-and-global-affairs/
11. Top 10 AI Legal Drafting Tools 2025: Features & Pricing – Cimphony.ai, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.cimphony.ai/insights/top-10-ai-legal-drafting-tools-2024-features-and-pricing
12. 9 Best AI Contract Drafting Software for Legal Teams – Aline, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.aline.co/post/ai-contract-drafting-software
13. DocLegal.AI: Your AI Legal Assistant Online, accessed July 23, 2025, https://doclegal.ai/
14. Spellbook: Legal AI Contract Review & Drafting, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.spellbook.legal/
15. Metaverse Diplomacy – Publications ‹ Fiker Institute, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.fikerinstitute.org/publications/metaverse-diplomacy
16. Barbados to Establish the World’ First Embassy in the Metavesre – Diplomat magazine, accessed July 23, 2025, https://diplomatmagazine.eu/2022/08/30/barbados-to-establish-the-world-first-embassy-in-the-metavesre/
17. Future of Public Affairs: Navigating Digital Diplomacy – The Rainbow …, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.therainbowstrategy.ng/2024/02/02/future-of-public-affairs-navigating-digital-diplomacy/
18. Diplomacy in the Digital Age: The rise of Cyber Diplomacy – IPPDR, accessed July 23, 2025, https://ippdr.org/diplomacy-in-the-digital-age-the-rise-of-cyber-diplomacy/
19. Cyber Diplomacy and Writing the Rules of an Invisible Domain, accessed July 23, 2025, https://diplomaticacademy.us/2025/04/27/cyber-diplomacy/
20. Full article: Cyber diplomacy: defining the opportunities for cybersecurity and risks from Artificial Intelligence, IoT, Blockchains, and Quantum Computing – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23742917.2024.2312671
21. The Digital Shield: Using Cyber Diplomacy to Strengthen National Cyber Resilience, accessed July 23, 2025, https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2025/02/09/the-digital-shield-using-cyber-diplomacy-to-strengthen-national-cyber-resilience/
22. Zetter details how Stuxnet marked a turning point in cyberwarfare by enabling physical sabotage through code – Industrial Cyber, accessed July 23, 2025, https://industrialcyber.co/industrial-cyber-attacks/zetter-details-how-stuxnet-marked-a-turning-point-in-cyberwarfare-by-enabling-physical-sabotage-through-code/
23. AI-Powered Cyber Attacks: The Future Of Cybercrime – PurpleSec, accessed July 23, 2025, https://purplesec.us/learn/cybercriminals-launching-ai-powered-cyber-attacks/
24. The Evolving Cyber Espionage Threat Landscape, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.cyber-espionage.ch/Cyber_Espionage_Threat_Landscape.html
25. The Application of International Law in Cyberspace: Gaps in Existing Frameworks, accessed July 23, 2025, https://thecfma.org/2024/12/03/the-application-of-international-law-in-cyberspace-gaps-in-existing-frameworks/
26. International Law, State Sovereignty and Competition in the Digital …, accessed July 23, 2025, https://cris.unibo.it/retrieve/3c1a84d8-d7ef-497b-af21-a72cf6d7915f/JG_2024_2_Martino.pdf
27. What Is Information Warfare? – DTIC, accessed July 23, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA367662.pdf
28. Artificial Intelligence and Diplomatic Crisis Management: – Oxford Department of International Development, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.qeh.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-08/DigDiploROxWP6.pdf
29. Artificial Intelligence in the Military: How AI Is Reshaping the Future of War – TS2 Space, accessed July 23, 2025, https://ts2.tech/en/artificial-intelligence-in-the-military-how-ai-is-reshaping-the-future-of-war/
30. Strategic And Political Manoeuvring In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence – TDHJ.org, accessed July 23, 2025, https://tdhj.org/blog/post/governance-artificial-intelligence/
31. AI’s invisible invasion: how artificial intelligence is becoming the newest weapon in hybrid warfare – ESCP International Politics Society, accessed July 23, 2025, https://pppescp.com/2025/07/21/ais-invisible-invasion-how-artificial-intelligence-is-becoming-the-newest-weapon-in-hybrid-warfare/
32. Designing AI-Enabled Countermeasures to Cognitive Warfare – arXiv, accessed July 23, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.11486
33. Ethics and AI | Part 4 – Diplo – DiploFoundation, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ethics-and-ai-part-4/
34. Artificial Intelligence, Cyberspace and International Law – UI Scholars Hub, accessed July 23, 2025, https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1745&context=ijil
35. AI Governance Frameworks: Guide to Ethical AI Implementation – Consilien, accessed July 23, 2025, https://consilien.com/news/ai-governance-frameworks-guide-to-ethical-ai-implementation
36. Cyber Operations Tracker | CFR Interactives – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/cyber-operations/
37. Navigating the new reality of international AI policy – Atlantic Council, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/geotech-cues/navigating-the-new-reality-of-international-ai-policy/
38. Best Practices for Securing Data Used to Train & Operate AI Systems – CISA, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/ai-data-security-best-practices-securing-data-used-train-operate-ai-systems
39. AI Governance Guide: Implementing Ethical AI Systems – Kong Inc., accessed July 23, 2025, https://konghq.com/blog/learning-center/what-is-ai-governance
40. AI Rivalries: Redefining Global Power Dynamics – TRENDS Research & Advisory, accessed July 23, 2025, https://trendsresearch.org/insight/ai-rivalries-redefining-global-power-dynamics/
41. IMPACT OF THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: TOWARDS A GLOBAL ALGORITHMS GOVERNANCE – UNISCI, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.unisci.es/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/UNISCIDP67-1GARRIDO.pdf
42. The global conversation on AI governance feat Tallinn Cyber Diplomacy Summer School, accessed July 23, 2025, https://ega.ee/podcast-global-conversation-on-ai-governance-feat-tallinn-cyber-diplomacy-summer-school/
43. International AI Treaty – Center for AI and Digital Policy, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.caidp.org/resources/coe-ai-treaty/
44. The World’s First Binding Treaty on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law: Regulation of AI in Broad Strokes – The Future of Privacy Forum, accessed July 23, 2025, https://fpf.org/blog/the-worlds-first-binding-treaty-on-artificial-intelligence-human-rights-democracy-and-the-rule-of-law-regulation-of-ai-in-broad-strokes/
45. International Legal Frameworks on Cybersecurity and Data Protection Law, accessed July 23, 2025, https://djilp.org/international-legal-frameworks-on-cybersecurity-and-data-protection-law/
46. AI Regulation Across Borders: Legal Challenges and Prospects for International Cooperation, accessed July 23, 2025, https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1366&context=ilj
47. International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives – CCDCOE, accessed July 23, 2025, https://ccdcoe.org/library/publications/international-cyber-norms-legal-policy-industry-perspectives/
48. Beyond ‘Quasi-Norms’: The Challenges and Potential of Engaging with Norms in Cyberspace – NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, accessed July 23, 2025, https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/InternationalCyberNorms_Ch5.pdf
49. Full article: How cyberspace affects international relations: The promise of structural modifiers – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13523260.2024.2365062
50. A Proposed Scheme for International Diplomacy on AI Governance | TechPolicy.Press, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.techpolicy.press/a-proposed-scheme-for-international-diplomacy-on-ai-governance/
51. The Future of Digital Diplomacy – Number Analytics, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/future-of-digital-diplomacy
52. FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS – Jack D. Gordon Institute for …, accessed July 23, 2025, https://gordoninstitute.fiu.edu/cybersecurity-policy/research/cybersecurity-policy-research-initiative/assets/artificial-intelligence-and-cyber-power_5.23.24.pdf
53. Strategic Foresight and the EU Cyber Threat Landscape in 2025 …, accessed July 23, 2025, https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/strategic-foresight-and-eu-cyber-threat-landscape-2025
54. Diplomacy in Cyberspace – American Foreign Service Association, accessed July 23, 2025, https://afsa.org/diplomacy-cyberspace
55. Cybersecurity – United States Department of State, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.state.gov/cybersecurity
56. Applied Information Technology Training – United States Department of State, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.state.gov/foreign-service-institute/applied-information-technology-training
57. Master in Digital International Relations & Diplomacy – UNITAR, accessed July 23, 2025, https://unitar.org/courses-learning-events/individual-learners/master-degree-related-qualifications/master-digital-international-relations-diplomacy
58. Diplomacy Courses Online and In Person — Practical Professional Training – Washington International Diplomatic Academy, accessed July 23, 2025, https://diplomaticacademy.us/diplomacy-courses/
59. Executive Diplomacy Program, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.wcfyd.org/executive-diplomacy-program
60. Mastering Digital Diplomacy – Blackbird Training Center, accessed July 23, 2025, https://blackbird-training.com/Mastering-Digital-Diplomacy/184727/Mastering-Digital-Diplomacy.htm
61. These 3 GenAI examples show the power of science diplomacy | World Economic Forum, accessed July 23, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/science-diplomacy-global-collaboration-genai/
62. International Cybersecurity Norms – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed July 23, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/projects/cybernorms