U.S. and China Decline to Join Military AI Responsibility Declaration
The Third Summit on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain took place from February 4 to 5, 2026, in A Coruña, Spain. This meeting focused on how military AI can be leveraged to enhance international peace and security, while also addressing the risks associated with irresponsible use or system failures.
China’s Position on Military AI
Led by Li Chijiang, the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Arms Control of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Chinese delegation emphasized a human-centered military artificial intelligence. During the summit, Li advocated for:
- Maintaining a strategic balance and stability while abandoning the pursuit of absolute military advantage.
- Adhering to international humanitarian law and ensuring that weapon systems remain under human control.
- Implementing the principle of AI for good to promote military applications of AI that contribute to peace and security.
- Establishing agile governance that balances security controls with technological development.
- Supporting multilateralism and the role of the United Nations in governance frameworks.
Li noted that the responsible use of AI in military contexts is a shared challenge that concerns the future of humanity. China aims to promote a governance philosophy characterized by extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits.
Reasons for Non-Signature by the U.S. and China
Despite 85 countries participating in the summit, only 35 signed the joint declaration regulating AI technologies in warfare. Notably, both the United States and China abstained from signing.
U.S. Concerns
The U.S. refusal to endorse binding rules on military AI is driven by strategic considerations. Key points include:
- Fears that international regulations could limit the flexibility required for rapid technological advancements.
- A preference for establishing exclusive governance frameworks within its alliance system to maintain technological dominance.
- A need to preserve strategic ambiguity regarding autonomous weapons and battlefield AI decision-making.
China’s Perspective
China’s decision to abstain stems from concerns regarding vague principles like “responsible use” and potential biases in the declaration that could entrench Western technological hegemony. They argue that:
- The declaration lacks mechanisms to balance the advantages of early-mover states.
- Existing frameworks might undermine the technological autonomy and security of developing nations.
Shared Structural Obstacles
Both nations face shared challenges that complicate the signing of the declaration:
- The sensitive nature of military AI makes it difficult to verify and enforce any international regulations.
- The rapid pace of AI technological advancement outstrips the slower cycles of rule-making, rendering many provisions ineffective against real-world risks.
Ultimately, both China and the U.S. view the declaration as “incomplete” and lacking practical binding force, which diminishes its value as an instrument for governance in the military AI domain.
