iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The AI Convention is the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (CETS No. 225), a treaty opened for signature on 5 September 2024. It aims to ensure that covered AI activities respect human rights, democracy and the rule of law. But its reach is not uniform: public bodies and contractors acting for them are expressly covered, while each party has a choice about how to address other private actors; national-security activities may be left outside the treaty under stated conditions, and national-defence matters are excluded from scope.
What the AI Convention is designed to do
The Council of Europe describes the convention as “the first-ever international legally binding treaty in this field.” That is the Council’s characterization. The instrument is a framework treaty: it sets obligations for its parties, while leaving room for national measures to put them into effect.
Its central requirement is that each party adopt or maintain measures to ensure that AI-system lifecycle activities within the treaty’s scope are consistent with its obligations under applicable international and domestic law on human rights. The convention also calls for measures to ensure AI is not used to undermine the integrity, independence or effectiveness of democratic institutions and processes. It specifically identifies separation of powers, judicial independence and access to justice.
The stated aim is to protect these interests while keeping AI development and use conducive to technological progress and innovation. The Council of Europe presents the convention as complementing existing standards and addressing legal gaps associated with rapid technological change.
#1 Best Overall
Which AI activities and actors are covered?
Article 3 focuses on activities throughout an AI system’s lifecycle that have the potential to interfere with human rights, democracy or the rule of law. The rules distinguish between public-sector use, private actors working on behalf of public authorities, and other private actors.
| Activity or actor | Treaty approach | Discretion or qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Public authorities and private actors acting on their behalf | Parties must apply the convention to relevant lifecycle activities. | Coverage concerns activities with the potential to interfere with human rights, democracy or the rule of law. |
| Other private actors | Parties must address risks and impacts in a way that conforms with the convention’s object and purpose. | Each party must declare whether it applies the principles and obligations in Chapters II–VI to these actors or uses other appropriate measures. It may amend its declaration. |
| Research and development of systems not yet made available for use | Generally outside the convention’s scope. | The exclusion is qualified: testing or similar activity that could interfere with protected interests may be covered. |
| Activities related to protecting national-security interests | A party need not apply the convention to these activities. | The provision states that the activities are to be conducted consistently with applicable international law, including international human-rights obligations, and with respect for democratic institutions and processes. |
| Matters relating to national defence | Outside the convention’s scope. | This is a separate exclusion, not the optional non-application rule for national-security-related activities. |
Does the convention apply to private companies?
Yes, but not identically to every company. A company using AI on behalf of a public authority falls within the express rule for private actors acting on public authorities’ behalf when the activity has the potential to affect protected interests. For other private actors, the treaty requires parties to address relevant risks and impacts, but lets each party choose between applying the principles and obligations in Chapters II–VI or taking other appropriate measures. Parties must declare their choice and may change it.
Rank #2
That flexibility does not erase parties’ existing international obligations to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Article 3 says the implementation choice for other private actors cannot derogate from or limit those obligations. The treaty therefore matters to private-sector governance, but does not itself impose one identical set of direct company duties across every party.
What the national-security and defence provisions mean
The two security-related clauses work differently. Article 3(2) says a party need not apply the convention to AI lifecycle activities related to protecting its national-security interests, with the stated international-law and democratic-process conditions. Article 3(4), separately, excludes matters relating to national defence from the treaty’s scope.
These provisions create significant room around security-related AI, but “loophole” is a characterization rather than a settled legal conclusion. Whether a particular system or state measure falls under either provision depends on its facts and the applicable law. The treaty text does not establish a universal test that resolves every national-security or defence case.
How implementation and oversight are meant to work
The convention establishes a Conference of the Parties as a follow-up mechanism. Its role is to assess implementation and support the treaty’s long-term effectiveness; the Council of Europe says it may facilitate cooperation with stakeholders, including through public hearings. This is treaty-level follow-up, not a single supranational regulator licensing AI products or supervising every company day to day.
Implementation can also differ by jurisdiction. In the EU context, Council Decision 2026/1080 identifies Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the EU AI Act, as the main Union legal act for implementing the convention. That statement concerns the EU and does not make domestic implementation identical in every treaty party.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Has the AI Convention entered into force?
The convention opened for signature in Vilnius on 5 September 2024. Its entry-into-force condition is five ratifications, including at least three Council of Europe member states. The Council of Europe Treaty Office status result dated 12 September 2026 states that threshold but does not establish in the available result that it had been met. Accordingly, that status information is insufficient to state definitively whether the treaty is currently in force or to identify the current parties. Entry-into-force status can change; consult the Treaty Office’s current status chart for an as-of-publication answer.
Best Value
The EU’s 2026 decision to conclude the convention is a separate procedural development. It should not be confused with the treaty’s entry into force for all parties.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
