The European Union’s missing voice: member states’ forum shopping in military AI governance

This paper investigates why EU member states have largely opted for external forums, rather than the EU itself, to shape the emerging governance of military AI. While the EU's limited competence in security and defence is often cited as the primary constraint, its robust support for Ukraine following Russia's 2022 invasion or past involvement in other arms control forums challenge the idea that institutional limitations are insurmountable. Drawing on the concept of forum shopping, we introduce a two-dimensional analytical framework focused on institutional bindingness (ranging from soft principles to binding rules) and stakeholder engagement (from state-centric to transnational formats). We apply this framework to four key EU member states (Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands) and assess their preferences across four institutional venues: the EU, the United Nations, the Political Declaration, and REAIM, covering the period 2019-2024. Our analysis reveals that, despite divergent policy preferences, these states converge around flexible, plurilateral forums that better match their strategic and procedural goals, leaving the EU marginalised not by default, but by design.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Security
Published
2025-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2025.2570806
Primary Topic
Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The European Union’s missing voice: member states’ forum shopping in military AI governance

Michal Onderčo, Sophie Vanhoonacker, Mahmoud Javadi
European Security
Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
article

The European Union’s missing voice: member states’ forum shopping in military AI governance

Michal Onderčo, Sophie Vanhoonacker, Mahmoud Javadi
article en

Abstract

This paper investigates why EU member states have largely opted for external forums, rather than the EU itself, to shape the emerging governance of military AI. While the EU's limited competence in security and defence is often cited as the primary constraint, its robust support for Ukraine following Russia's 2022 invasion or past involvement in other arms control forums challenge the idea that institutional limitations are insurmountable. Drawing on the concept of forum shopping, we introduce a two-dimensional analytical framework focused on institutional bindingness (ranging from soft principles to binding rules) and stakeholder engagement (from state-centric to transnational formats). We apply this framework to four key EU member states (Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands) and assess their preferences across four institutional venues: the EU, the United Nations, the Political Declaration, and REAIM, covering the period 2019-2024. Our analysis reveals that, despite divergent policy preferences, these states converge around flexible, plurilateral forums that better match their strategic and procedural goals, leaving the EU marginalised not by default, but by design.

European Security
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE), Maastricht University (NL), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The European Union’s missing voice: member states’ forum shopping in military AI governance — Michal Onderčo, Sophie Vanhoonacker, et al. · European Security (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS