Artificial Intelligence redefines the actor in international relations

Artificial Intelligence redefines the actor in international relations

The Peninsula, 9 September 2025

The debate on artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer confined to its technical capabilities or economic applications; it has expanded to encompass its place within the very structure of the international system. At the moment when national security strategies are drafted, military alliances built, and electoral campaigns managed, AI emerges as a hidden force reshaping the equations of influence and dominance. It has transformed from a mere auxiliary tool into an element embedded at the heart of decision-making, compelling scholars and policymakers alike to treat it as more than a “means”—perhaps even as an emerging actor with its own logic within international relations. This shift raises a critical question: are actors in the international system still limited to states and organizations, or have algorithms and intelligent systems begun to acquire features of political agency? Traditional theories of international relations—foremost realism and liberalism—were grounded in the assumption that the primary actors are sovereign states or transnational institutional entities. Yet the rapid digital transformations have exposed the limitations of this view. Non-human systems have emerged that possess the ability to make complex decisions in real time, even influencing large-scale collective behavior. In this regard, post-structuralist approaches and Actor-Network Theory opened new horizons: political agency is no longer confined to human entities, but can also be exercised by technical and digital entities, including AI, which now occupies a central node within global power networks.

Reports from RAND and studies by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) have clearly shown that AI has become indispensable for military forecasting and defense scenario planning. Militaries now rely on it for operating drones and autonomous air-defense systems, as well as for monitoring cyberspace in search of transnational threats. Such applications cannot be dismissed as mere technical improvements; they represent a qualitative leap in which algorithms themselves become part of deterrence and strategic balance equations, such that “artificial intelligence” has entered the calculus of national sovereignty and international dominance.

Three principal features grant AI a degree of agency. The first is its predictive and influential capacity, through analyzing massive volumes of economic, political, and security data at speeds surpassing human abilities. The second is its relative autonomy: some deep-learning systems are capable of making tactical decisions without direct human intervention—opening the door to unexpected behaviors beyond the operator’s control. The third is its impact on collective behavior: digital media algorithms now shape public opinion, influence electoral campaigns and protests, and restructure the public sphere in ways that directly affect state-level political decisions.

Yet this does not mean that AI has become a fully fledged actor. Clear limits to its agency remain. It still depends on human infrastructure for its design, maintenance, and financing. It lacks independent will or interests—it has no political or strategic project of its own apart from that of its users, no matter how complex it becomes. Moreover, the global legal and political framework continues to treat it as a tool, not as an entity to which legal or political responsibility can be assigned. To speak of “absolute agency” is therefore premature.

Nevertheless, the integration of AI into the structure of international relations carries far-reaching implications for classical concepts such as sovereignty, deterrence, and legitimacy. Sovereignty is no longer confined to control over territory and resources; the possession and development of algorithms has itself become a marker of national power. Deterrence is no longer limited to nuclear or conventional weapons; arms races in AI now factor into the balance, in a manner reminiscent of the early 20th-century nuclear buildup. Legitimacy, too, faces a new dilemma: if governments or international organizations rely on AI systems to make fateful decisions—such as launching preemptive strikes or imposing economic sanctions—who bears responsibility if those decisions prove disastrous? The state that used the algorithm, or the system itself? This question opens the door to unprecedented legal and ethical challenges.

To treat AI as an emerging actor does not mean exaggerating its capacities or attributing independent will to it, but rather acknowledging its ability to reshape the environment of international relations in ways that traditional theoretical tools can no longer fully explain. The digital sphere has become a battlefield of hegemony, where the United States, China, and the European Union compete over patents, cloud infrastructures, and data centers. Meanwhile, small states such as Estonia and Singapore have emerged as pioneering laboratories in digital governance through AI, gaining international weight disproportionate to their demographic or military size. This illustrates how technology can reorder the international hierarchy from below, granting unconventional actors new status within the global system.

Amid this shifting landscape, political and legal theory must be reformulated. Realist approaches, which view power as essentially military and material, are no longer sufficient. Liberal approaches, which emphasize international institutions, overlook the decentralized nature of algorithms. Only more flexible frameworks—such as post-structuralism or Actor-Network Theory—are capable of incorporating this new actor into analyses of power. International relations today cannot be understood solely through the lens of states, but through the interplay between humans and digital systems within a network of interwoven decisions, information flows, and influences.

The future holds contradictory potentials. On one hand, AI could enhance peace and security by improving early warning systems and preventing wars before they break out. On the other hand, it could fuel a new arms race, heightening the risk of conflict—particularly if intelligent systems become tools of unchecked hegemony or aggressive use. The danger is compounded by the fact that technological development is proceeding at a pace far faster than the ability of legislators and international organizations to regulate it, creating a dangerous gap between what is technically possible and what is politically and legally feasible.

Thus, incorporating AI into the analysis of international relations is not merely an addition of a new variable to research; it is a call to rethink foundational assumptions about the nature of actors, the limits of sovereignty, and the sources of legitimacy. AI is not just another technology—it embodies a deeper transformation in how we conceive of power, influence, and authority in the age of digital post-modernity.

— Dr. Khaled Walid Mahmoud is a researcher specializing in cyber politics, holding a PhD on the topic of “Cyberspace and Power Shifts in International Relations.”