The recent passage of the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence by the Council of Europe marks a significant turning point in the quest for effective and long-lasting control of AI. The document is a statement about how European states will harness AI, a relatively new and powerful technology, to empower humanity while limiting its abuses.

The March 2024 adoption of a US-led United Nations General Assembly resolution on seizing the opportunities of safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development also highlights the common ground the United States shares with Europe and democracies around the world. While the US differs in some important areas with Europe, the significant agreement is valuable. This convention provides a foundation for others to build on.

Although new technologies often appear benign at first glance, there are many ways AI, in particular, can negatively impact the values held dear by so many around the world. From facial recognition systems interfering with privacy to machine learning that amplifies injustice, the potential cost of AI’s misuse is high.

Until now, there was not an effort at global governance of AI. This fostered a string of national laws that lack the capacity to address the transnational nature of AI adequately. A system of fractured development silos creates a wide gap wherein technological advancement is prioritized over ethics.

There are a few AI regulatory developments  around the world for AI management worthy of note. First, the US House of Representatives debated the Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act of 2022 (H.R.6796) and the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 (H.R. 5628). The AI Disclosure Act of 2023 (H.R. 3831) was also introduced before the House of Representatives.

Canada saw the introduction of the Artificial Intelligence Data Act (AIDA). The European Parliament began discussing the EU Artificial Intelligence Act in 2023, which represents a shift toward “hard law.” China is also addressing the issue and undertook the Interim Administrative Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services, which was enacted in 2023.

Recently, the United States passed the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, which included a five-year implementation plan to adopt AI applications to accelerate decision advantage for both business efficacy as well as warfighting capability.

China also released the Global AI Governance Initiative, “calling for all countries under the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits to enhance exchanges and cooperation, work together to prevent risks, and develop an AI governance framework based on broad consensus, to make AI technologies more secure, reliable, controllable, and equitable.”

The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention, discussed above, provides a comprehensive legal structure to protect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, besides promoting innovation. This strikes a balance where the use of technology should not be limited but society must ensure that development is in the right direction—with most of the technologies promoting ethical usage.

The Convention offers a set of guidelines for the advancement of AI that include respecting human dignity and upholding the idea that one should not infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. There is a significant urge to pursue explainability, which requires an explanation for each decision an AI makes and highlights how these systems have the power to significantly impact people’s lives in fields like criminal justice and healthcare. Additionally, the Convention calls for fairness in the creation of AI by considering prejudice in learning systems.

The Convention clearly aspires to international cooperation, which is important because it is a central element of the liberal international order. Numerous states agreed to the treaty, realizing that artificial intelligence is not a local problem. Such collaboration is required since artificial intelligence affects all states, and its advantages and disadvantages can only be addressed jointly. The agreement’s openness to other parties is crucial because it enables people from different backgrounds and cultures to voice their thoughts, enhancing and leveling the playing field.

As AI advances, concerns will grow about the agreement’s direction, applicability, and resource allocation. It implies that ethically right deeds now might turn unethical as technology develops, highlighting the necessity of a progressive framework for a code of ethics.

Since the development of AI must be accompanied by its ethical application, the Convention on Artificial Intelligence represents an important accomplishment in European regulation of the technology. Therefore, this treaty serves as a guide for how human rights, accountability, and openness should be upheld when integrating AI into society. The journey has only just begun. However, the political will and spirit to act, observe, and adopt the proper approach to governance can serve to achieve the benefits of AI.

Nevertheless, it will probably be difficult to put these rules and policies into foolproof practice. It will certainly be a work in progress. The European Council is certainly providing a road map for managing global mutual technology advancement concerns.

Huma Rehman is Director of Research at the Islamabad Policy Institute (IPI) and a Defense & Foreign Affairs Analyst. The views expressed are her own.   

Paving the Ethical Route for AI was originally published on Global Security Review.

While this is a welcome comment from the former president, it is not a new argument to have a Space National Guard. This argument, however, was much maligned, mocked, and ignored for years. Lately, much reporting on the topic is misinformation that confuses both the American people and Congress.

Many who oppose the Space National Guard wrongly believe that space defense is a strictly federal mission. They believe the Guard’s deployable space operations, a function since the 1990s, and the nearly 300 years of the Guard’s legal and constitutional role does not justify a Guard element for Space Force. They argue that bypassing the constitutional framework and the law of the land, which requires a governor’s consent on decisions regarding their state guard forces, is a “one off.”

If the federal government is allowed to eliminate the role of governors, this would set a dangerous precedent. During congressional testimony, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendell discussed a legislative proposal that would do just that and suggested that going around the law “is not a big deal” and that National Guard is “an artifact of history.” Legislation requiring the support and inclusion of governors is not supported by Kendell.

The opponents of the Space National Guard repeat questionable arguments to confuse and distract the American people and Congress. The false arguments are many.

First, they claim a Space National Guard will result in increased and unsustainable costs and bureaucracy that are not supported by the Space Force and Air Force. This is false as documented by no less than six studies by the Department of the Air Force that supported a Space National Guard.

Five of these studies were deliberately withheld from Congress by actors external to the Pentagon. Importantly, these studies proved that the costs of establishing a space guard are insignificant because the existing budget will transfer from one line of accounting to another. They also dispute the findings of a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study (2020) that did not use actual Air Force and National Guard budget data points to project the cost of establishing a Space National Guard.

Shockingly, the CBO did not interview anyone from the National Guard Bureau, the individual state guard components, or the Department of the Air Force’s working groups when it conducted the study. In truth, no additional bureaucracy is needed to establish the Space Guard because the staff support and operational squadrons already exist in the Air National Guard and would transfer into the Space National Guard.

Second, detractors argue that states do not need a Space Guard for the limited protection of individual states. This is a mistaken perspective because the National Guard is the nation’s primary combat-reserve force—regardless of operating domain—and has been since 1636. It delivers strategic and operational depth to the nation. It is a lower cost alternative to the larger and more expensive federal force. For example, most of the nation’s air sovereignty mission is owned by the Air National Guard because the threat to American air space is not constant.

It is also important to remember that the states are dependent upon space systems for their domestic emergency operations and the capabilities of the National Guard are leveraged for events like wildfires, earthquakes, floods, and others. Space systems are linked to critical infrastructure and therefore fall into the state roles and missions for homeland security. Those who want to use the opportunity to consolidate military space power at the federal level ignore these realities.

Third, the military must have the support of the American people when it is time to go to war. The National Guard, by design, provides a clear and deep connection with the American citizenry. Support for a robust Space National Guard is vital if the nation is to field the force required to win in a time of war. Connecting main streets across the nation with space defense cannot occur through a single component service and the absorption of what is rightfully National Guard capability into the federal military.

The talking points used by Space National Guard opponents are fundamentally misleading and fail to acknowledge the immediate readiness costs associated with taking Air National Guard space units away from their respective states and governors. Keep in mind, about 80 percent of Guard personnel surveyed suggested that they will not transfer to the US Space Force unless there is a Space National Guard. All 50 governors oppose the removal of the space missions from the National Guard.

If opponents of a Space National Guard succeed, units and capabilities will become ineffective. Enormous experience will be lost from the loss of personnel. The Department of Defense will then have to fund recruiting and training efforts for the Space Force to rebuild that capability. Those who oppose the Space National Guard leave out that this would cost taxpayers at least $1 billion. Former President Trump, NGAUS, and all 50 state governors are correct; the Space National Guard should exist as the “primary combat reserve of the US Space Force.”

National Defense Authorization Act language should not ignore the states and their governors. It is time to establish a Space National Guard.

Christopher Stone is senior fellow for space deterrence at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. He is the former Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy. The thoughts, opinions, and statements are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the Department of Defense.

Correcting the Record on the Space National Guard was originally published on Global Security Review.