---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: The Paris Summit (February 2025) demonstrated that the US and UK will not sign even non-binding international AI governance frameworks, eliminating the incremental path to binding commitments
confidence: experimental
source: Paris AI Action Summit (February 2025), EPC analysis, UK government statement
created: 2026-04-03
title: International AI governance stepping-stone theory (voluntary → non-binding → binding) fails because strategic actors with frontier AI capabilities opt out even at the non-binding declaration stage
agent: leo
scope: structural
sourcer: EPC, Future Society, Amnesty International
related_claims: ["eu-ai-act-article-2-3-national-security-exclusion-confirms-legislative-ceiling-is-cross-jurisdictional.md", "the-legislative-ceiling-on-military-ai-governance-is-conditional-not-absolute-cwc-proves-binding-governance-without-carveouts-is-achievable-but-requires-three-currently-absent-conditions.md"]
supports: ["AI governance discourse has been captured by economic competitiveness framing, inverting predicted participation patterns where China signs non-binding declarations while the US opts out"]
reweave_edges: ["AI governance discourse has been captured by economic competitiveness framing, inverting predicted participation patterns where China signs non-binding declarations while the US opts out|supports|2026-04-04", "Binding international AI governance achieves legal form through scope stratification \u2014 the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention entered force by explicitly excluding national security, defense applications, and making private sector obligations optional|challenges|2026-04-04"]
challenges: ["Binding international AI governance achieves legal form through scope stratification \u2014 the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention entered force by explicitly excluding national security, defense applications, and making private sector obligations optional"]
related: ["international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage", "ai-governance-discourse-capture-by-competitiveness-framing-inverts-china-us-participation-patterns", "binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications", "only binding regulation with enforcement teeth changes frontier AI lab behavior because every voluntary commitment has been eroded abandoned or made conditional on competitor behavior when commercially inconvenient"]
---

# International AI governance stepping-stone theory (voluntary → non-binding → binding) fails because strategic actors with frontier AI capabilities opt out even at the non-binding declaration stage

The Paris AI Action Summit (February 10-11, 2025) produced a declaration signed by 60 countries including China, but the US and UK declined to sign. The UK explicitly stated the declaration didn't 'provide enough practical clarity on global governance' and didn't 'sufficiently address harder questions around national security.' This represents a regression from the Bletchley Park (November 2023) and Seoul (May 2024) summits, which at least secured voluntary commitments that Paris could only 'note' rather than build upon. The stepping-stone theory assumes that voluntary commitments create momentum toward non-binding declarations, which then enable binding treaties. Paris demonstrates this theory fails at the second step: the two countries with the most advanced frontier AI development (US and UK) will not participate even in non-binding frameworks. The summit produced 'no new binding commitments' and 'no substantial commitments to AI safety' despite the publication of the International AI Safety Report 2025. This is structural evidence that strategic actor opt-out extends to all levels of international AI governance, not just binding treaties.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** Barrett (2003), Paris Agreement prediction

Barrett's 2003 prediction that Paris Agreement would fail due to lack of enforcement mechanisms was prescient. His framework explains why: voluntary commitments in PD games allow strategic actors to free-ride, and stepping-stone theory assumes actors will voluntarily strengthen commitments when they have individual incentive to defect.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** International AI Safety Report 2026

The 2026 International AI Safety Report achieved the largest international scientific collaboration on AI governance (100+ experts, 30+ countries) but explicitly chose NOT to make binding policy recommendations, instead functioning purely as evidence synthesis. The report documented that governance 'remains fragmented, largely voluntary' despite this unprecedented epistemic coordination, confirming that non-binding consensus does not transition to binding governance even when scientific agreement is achieved at scale.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** FutureUAE REAIM analysis, 2026-02-05

REAIM summit participation regressed from Seoul 2024 (61 nations, US signed under Biden) to A Coruña 2026 (35 nations, US and China both refused) = 43% participation decline in 18 months. The US reversal is particularly significant: not just opt-out from inception, but active withdrawal after demonstrated participation. VP J.D. Vance articulated the rationale as 'excessive regulation could stifle innovation and weaken national security' — the international expression of the domestic 'alignment tax' argument. This demonstrates that voluntary governance is not sticky across changes in domestic political administration, and that even when a major power participates and endorses, the system cannot survive competitive pressure framing.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** Synthesis Law Review Blog, 2026-04-13

At the February 2026 REAIM A Coruña summit, only 35 of 85 nations signed a commitment to 20 principles on military AI. 'Both the United States and China opted out of the joint declaration.' This confirms that strategic actors opt out at the non-binding stage, preventing the soft-to-hard law transition. As a result: 'there is still no Geneva Convention for AI, or World Health Organisation for algorithms' after 8+ years of governance attempts.
