The International Day of Peace, observed every year on 21 September, provides an opportunity to reflect on peace in Europe and around the world. But what do we actually mean by peace? The absence of direct violence? Protection from threats? Anyone seeking to make peace a lasting reality must also ask how people can live together without fear and mistrust defining their relationships. This question takes on new urgency in light of the possibilities offered by artificial intelligence (AI).

Evelyne Tauchnitz, lecturer and postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Social Ethics (ISE), explores peace in the age of AI by bringing together the philosophy of peace and the ethics of new technologies. Her research focuses on the use of AI to counter external threats posed by autonomous weapons systems and to manage risks within society through state surveillance. Both are based on a similar promise: greater security through better information and more comprehensive control. But what happens to human dignity and freedom in the process?

The socio-technical approach adopted in the research examines the interplay between technology and society. The consequences of AI depend on who develops it, what purposes it serves and how its use is regulated. At the same time, these systems can alter power relations within society and affect the scope for human decision-making.

When security comes at a price

At the international level, AI-powered autonomous weapons are intended to counter external threats more swiftly and enable military force to be deployed with greater precision. However, when systems independently select and engage targets, questions arise about how compliance with international humanitarian law and human accountability can be ensured. Human dignity is also at stake: what does it mean when people are reduced to data points on the basis of which machines decide whether lethal force should be used? The dynamics of conflict may change as well. Accelerated military responses risk reducing the scope for ethical reflection and diplomacy, while a technological arms race may create new forms of insecurity.

At the national level, AI-supported surveillance brings the balance between security and freedom to the fore. AI can analyse large volumes of data and categorise people according to perceived risks. This can help protect the population. Problems arise, however, when people find themselves effectively forced to prove their "innocence" or refrain from expressing their views for fear of being monitored. This puts civil and political rights under pressure. Surveillance can also exacerbate structural violence – for example, when certain groups are subjected to more frequent police checks as a result of algorithmic risk assessments and have little opportunity to challenge such classifications.

This highlights a common dilemma: the constant pursuit of greater security for some can increase insecurity for others – and ultimately jeopardise everyone's security. Military build-up can trigger an arms race, while comprehensive surveillance can deepen mistrust both among people and between the public and the state. Greater control, therefore, does not automatically mean greater peace.

Fostering trust rather than reinforcing mistrust

Control seeks to manage both actual and perceived threats. Trust, by contrast, requires a willingness to accept one's own vulnerability and acknowledge the vulnerability of others. This means allowing others room to act, even when their behaviour cannot be entirely predicted or controlled. Treating others primarily as potential threats makes mutual understanding and cooperation more difficult. This applies both to relations between states and to the relationship between state institutions and the public.

This is where the concept of "relational peace" comes in. It focuses on the quality of these relationships. Can people and states resolve conflicts without denying each other's right to exist? Can citizens question state power without fear of repression? Peace requires relationships in which mutual recognition and well-founded trust can flourish.

This sets a demanding standard for the design and use of artificial intelligence: AI must also be judged by how it changes these relationships. Human rights provide a binding benchmark, while democratic participation creates opportunities to debate and shape the use of AI in public. The crucial question is whether AI helps people resolve conflicts non-violently and build relationships based on trust – and where its use must be restricted in order to preserve these possibilities.

Evelyne Tauchnitz's postdoctoral thesis on this subject, provisionally entitled "Relational Peace and the Limits of Security: An Ethics of Emerging Technologies in the Context of Autonomous Weapons and Surveillance", is due to be published by Oxford University Press in the coming year.