---
type: source
title: "Why Global AI Governance Remains Stuck in Soft Law"
author: "Synthesis Law Review Blog"
url: https://synthesislawreviewblog.wordpress.com/2026/04/13/why-global-ai-governance-remains-stuck-in-soft-law/
date: 2026-04-13
domain: grand-strategy
secondary_domains: [ai-alignment]
format: analysis
status: unprocessed
priority: medium
tags: [AI-governance, soft-law, hard-law, Council-of-Europe, REAIM, international-governance, national-security-carveout, stepping-stone]
intake_tier: research-task
---

## Content

Analysis of why AI governance remains in soft law territory despite years of treaty negotiation, using the Council of Europe Framework Convention and REAIM as case studies.

**Key finding:** Despite the Council of Europe's Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence being marketed as "the first binding international AI treaty," the treaty contains national security carve-outs that make it "largely toothless against state-sponsored AI development." The binding language applies primarily to private sector actors; state use of AI in national security contexts is explicitly exempted.

**REAIM context:** Only 35 of 85 nations in attendance at the February 2026 A Coruña summit signed a commitment to 20 principles on military AI. "Both the United States and China opted out of the joint declaration." As a result: "there is still no Geneva Convention for AI, or World Health Organisation for algorithms."

**Structural analysis:** Hard law poses a strategic risk for superpowers because stringent restrictions on AI development could stifle innovation and diminish military or economic advantage if competing nations do not impose similar restrictions. This creates a coordination problem where no state wants to be the first to commit. This is the same Mutually Assured Deregulation dynamic at the international level.

**The Council of Europe treaty:** While technically binding for signatories, the national security carve-outs mean it doesn't govern the applications where AI governance matters most. Form-substance divergence at the international treaty level: binding in text, toothless in the highest-stakes applications.

**Net assessment:** "Despite multiple international summits and frameworks, there is still no Geneva Convention for AI." The soft law period has been running for 8+ years without producing hard law in the high-stakes applications domain.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This article synthesizes what the KB's individual claim files document in pieces — the pattern is that international AI governance is persistently stuck in soft law, not transitioning toward hard law. The article provides a clean cross-domain articulation of why the transition fails (coordination problem, strategic risk, national security carve-outs).

**What surprised me:** The Council of Europe Framework Convention is being cited as "binding international AI treaty" while simultaneously containing national security carve-outs that exempt precisely the state-sponsored AI development it ostensibly governs. This is the form-substance divergence claim operating at the highest level of international treaty law. The "first binding AI treaty" characterization is technically accurate but substantively misleading.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any mechanism that could break the soft-law trap without meeting the enabling conditions. The article confirms: no such mechanism has been identified. The "no Geneva Convention for AI" observation is the meta-conclusion from 8+ years of failed governance attempts.

**KB connections:**
- [[international-ai-governance-form-substance-divergence-enables-simultaneous-treaty-ratification-and-domestic-implementation-weakening]] — the CoE treaty is the purest form-substance divergence example
- [[binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications]] — the national security carve-out IS scope stratification
- technology-governance-coordination-gaps-close-when-four-enabling-conditions-are-present — this article confirms: AI has zero enabling conditions, so soft-law trap is permanent until conditions change
- [[epistemic-coordination-outpaces-operational-coordination-in-ai-governance-creating-documented-consensus-on-fragmented-implementation]] — this is the international expression of that claim

**Extraction hints:**
Enrichment of [[binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications]]: Add CoE Framework Convention as the most advanced example — technically binding, strategically toothless due to national security carve-outs. The "first binding AI treaty" marketing vs. operational substance is the clearest case of the claim.
LOW PRIORITY for standalone extraction — the pattern is already well-documented in the KB. Primary value is as a confirmation source for existing claims.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Clean synthesis of the soft-law trap pattern that validates multiple existing KB claims simultaneously. Good as a confirmation source for extractor reviewing the international governance claims.
EXTRACTION HINT: Enrichment priority LOW — KB already has strong claims here. Use as corroboration for existing claims in the binding-international-governance cluster.
