The International Community’s Response to the Rise of AI and its Relation to Security and Crime

By AK

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the most dominating topics of the 21^st century. Countries across the globe are scrambling to determine how its use will be managed and regulated, and one of the main reasons why, among others, is because AI is being manipulated by malicious actors to engage in crime.[i] As the Department of Homeland Security put it, “AI technology is evolving quickly, making new kinds of crime possible and transforming old ones.”[ii] Furthermore, due to its rapid evolution and capacity for independently generated insights and intelligence, this blog will focus on the notion that AI poses threats to security and crime as a whole. This blog will explore the reality that, due to the magnitude and scale of the threat of AI, it is now akin to other existential threats to humanity, such as nuclear weapons and climate change, and it demands cooperation within the international and global context. The main thrust of this blog is that the global community has, through debate, policy developments and coordinated initiatives, clearly responded to the rise of AI and its relation to security and crime. By analyzing how institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) have engaged in extensive debate, discussion, and joint-operational initiatives which reflect the rewards and risks of AI, this blog also considers whether the responses within the international community are realistic, practical, or even enforceable.

UN Security Council, AI, Security and Crime: Risks vs Rewards

One of the most striking yet troubling realities of the emergence of AI within the context of international institutions is that different countries have different concerns and views on this ever-changing technology. One of the more pronounced examples of this was seen recently with the United Nations Security Council’s (Council) meeting on July 18^th, 2023.[iii] On this date, the Council met to debate the risks and rewards regarding the rise of AI within the international context–the first meeting of its kind within the Council.[iv] What this meeting produced is a complex yet compelling list of both instructions and precautious for member countries to be mindful of in their engagement with the emergence of AI and its relation to security and crime.[v] 

Risks

When it came to the risks debated, there were nuanced interpretations discussed within the Council. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, for instance, noted that AI can amplify bias, reinforce discrimination and enable new levels of authoritarian surveillance.[vi] Within the context of criminal law, these concerns can result in unlawful police practices such as the misuse of facial recognition or predictive analytics, all of which may engage in international human rights violations. Further, Guterres stated that these discriminatory and predatory risks are amplified by the fact that AI is both ubiquitous and highly accessible.[vii] For instance, when comparing the rise of AI to other unprecedented revolutionary technologies in history, such as the printing press in 1440, Guterres noted that ChatGPT reached 100 million users “in just two months,” while the printing press took more than 50 years to produce widely available books across Europe.[viii] Likewise, the Russian Federation also provided a nuanced perspective on the risks of AI and crime. The representative Dmitry A. Polyanskiy, noted, for instance, that AI may be utilized to create autonomous weapons.[ix] These weapons could pose significant security threats to humans, since they would essentially be independent, self-functioning systems which can “make decisions about the use of force.”[x] Such a subjective force would be lacking the qualities of human emotion or conscience, which could thus result in the deadly use of force without foundational criminal law components, such as mens rea or the attribution of responsibility. Similarly, Jack Clark, Co-founder of Anthropic, an American AI research firm which participated in the Council’s debate, noted that AI systems can fall into the hands of bad-faith actors, who may utilize it to construct biological weapons, all of which would severely undermine global security and peace.[xi] 

Rewards

When it came to debating the rewards of AI and its capacity to benefit societies across the globe in the reshaping of security and crime, there were also nuanced discussions and debate. Guterres noted that AI has a potential to “turbocharge global development and realize human rights,” all of which could strengthen peace and security.[xii] Guterres also noted that AI is currently assisting the UN in identifying patterns of violence and monitoring ceasefires across the globe.[xiii] This could result in a decrease in wars, violence and conflict, which thus benefit global security. In countries where there are high levels of violence, crime, war and famine, AI is assisting the UN in strengthening peacekeeping, humanitarian and mediation efforts.[xiv] Likewise, the representative from Gabon stated that advances in AI are enabling technology to enhance early warning systems, which thus make it easier to detect emergencies and threats.[xv]

The Underlying Themes

The benefits and the rewards debated demonstrates that AI can not only facilitate unethical conduct in crime but also produce positive results in both security and crime prevention. A consistent theme, however, across the representatives of the Council was that despite the different perspectives across different countries, there is an opportunity for all of them to work together in a coordinated response to the rise of AI.  Moreover, the Council recognized that AI-related security and crime risks cross borders and thus demand global cooperation.[xvi] As Guterres put it, “we need to work together for AI and bridge social, digital and economic divides” rather than “push us further apart.”[xvii] The statement from the Assistant Minister for Advanced Sciences and Technology of the United Arab Emirates, Omran Sharaf, epitomized the urgency of sentiment when he stated that there is a “brief window of opportunity” before it is too late for nations to come together to establish rules, guardrails and regulations over the use of AI.[xviii]

Institutional Law Enforcement and Combating AI-Enabled Crime

In addition to the UN Security Council’s high-level meeting and debate, there have been other significant developments in the international context regarding the rise of AI and its relationship to security and crime. Such an example was seen recently with the details found in a report by Europol, the European Union’s central law enforcement agency, which is dedicated to combatting serious and organized international crime, such as cybercrime.[xix] On March 18^th, 2025, the agency warned that “organized crime gangs are turning to AI-powered scams and payment systems to target victims, allowing them to rapidly and more cheaply scale up operations globally and making them harder to detect.”[xx] This underscores how AI is driving crime in the global context. The agency noted that criminals across the globe are using AI to impersonate individuals, engage in blackmail, and produce child sexual abuse material.[xxi] Europol stated that the same qualities which make AI great, such as its ability to be adaptable, accessible, and sophisticated, also simultaneously make it a “powerful tool” which can be exploited by criminal networks and enterprises.[xxii]

Europol’s Operational Response

Europol’s report stated that it has been vigorous in counteracting these deleterious effects of AI, most notably in February 2025 when it arrested 25 people for distributing AI-generated child abuse images.[xxiii] This global operation, coined “Operation Cumberland” and led by Danish law enforcement, targeted criminals across 19 different countries and resulted in 273 suspects identified and 172 electronic devices seized.[xxiv]

Policy Recommendations

In addition to this operation, the agency put forth several notable recommended laws which it believes member countries within the EU should implement in order to combat AI and its use in cybercrimes. Such examples include enhancing cross-border law enforcement cooperation and intelligence sharing between the EU countries, updating legislation to provide more regulatory oversight, and engaging with the private sector to strengthen public-private partnerships (this last one has already been developing, as evident by the fact that the Security Council’s recent meeting included delegates from private corporations).[xxv] Europol’s recommendations, when coupled with the operational initiatives such as joint-police investigations and targeted takedowns of organized digital crime, offer a practical solution to combating the misuse of AI.

What’s Missing in the Debate

Despite these initiatives, the international response to AI can be evaluated using three practical criteria: speed, scope and enforceability. First, the pace of technological development appears to significantly outstrip the speed of international policymaking. Second, it appears that AI-enabled crime often operates across borders and jurisdictions, making comprehensive global oversight difficult. Third, the enforcement of AI remains uncertain, since international law generally relies on voluntary state compliance rather than binding regulatory authority.

Further, while there has evidently been great debate regarding the risks and rewards surrounding AI in the global context of crime and security, as noted earlier, there is a general consensus that “the international community must urgently confront the new reality of generative and other artificial intelligence.”[xxvi] In other words, rather than urgently try to discourage its use and function as a whole, the UN has essentially accepted that AI is now an accepted form of technology, and it is now time to identify how humanity will regulate its use. At the same time, if the risks of AI become too existential, people like Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO, have suggested that “humans can just unplug it.”[xxvii] This seems to be the status quo approach across societies across the world, that humans can manage the emergence of AI and that if it ever got too powerful, humans could just simply turn it off. Yet, this may not be the right framework. It is worthwhile to ponder why there is not more pushback against the acceptance of AI as a whole. If AI is a technology which produces independent generated intelligence without the assistance of humans, then is it not an oxymoron to believe that humans can dictate the rules of how this intelligence functions and operates? If humans cannot control AI, then maybe societies across the globe should stop developing it or outright destroy it.

This sentiment is echoed by AI researcher and notable contrarian, Roman Yampolskiy, who has publicly stated that there is a 99% chance that AI results in the extinction of the human race.[xxviii] Based off this prediction, Yampolskiy advocates for humanity eliminating any future use of AI. While this may seem like hyperbole, it is relevant in the context of crime and security, since the safety and livelihood of all humans should be at the forefront of any technological innovation or change. In the context of security, the prospects of a bleak future involving robot police officers are not far-fetched.[xxix] Such examples are already seen in places such as Dubai and Singapore, where “humanoid patrol units, quadruped robot dogs, and surveillance drones” are being used by law enforcement to patrol the streets in cities.[xxx] Likewise, in the context of crime, it has already been established that AI is capable of independently committing felonies without the assistance of humans.[xxxi] While the Security Council and Europol believe that it can regulate a society with terminator-like police forces or invisible, non-human digital criminals, it almost seems unpractical for the world to keep up with the ever-expanding risks. Another issue is enforceability. Since international law is non-binding, countries are not obligated to follow the rules of the UN or Europol. Even if these bodies enact legislation or regulations which completely forbid the use of AI or scaled down its development, there is no guarantee that any countries would honor these rules. Similar to the Cold War, where the Arms Race and Space Race involved a race to the top, or as what some coined ‘mutually ensured destruction,’ the rise of AI is similar in nature. Ultimately, what is missing in the global debate of AI is a scrutinized outlook on the assumption that AI can be controlled. In the realm of crime and security, this gap is especially concerning, given the evident threats to traditional models of enforcement and deterrence.

Conclusion

The risks and benefits of AI have been rigorously debated and engaged within the international community. Global institutions such as the UN and Europol have engaged with its emergence and its implications on security and crime. There are notable concerns regarding the threats to global peace and violence, as well as the radical change to police forces. While benefits include enhancements to ceasefires and the upholding of human rights, risks remain constant, notably regarding the lack of restrain of AI and its inevitable unenforceable rules and regulations. Without stronger international governance mechanisms, such as verification systems, coordinated regulatory standards, and enforceable oversite frameworks, the global community may struggle to keep pace with the rapid evolution of AI-enabled crime and security threats.

Endnotes

[i] Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, Annual Report 2022 (Canada: Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2022) [Report].

[ii] Department of Homeland Security, “Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Criminal and Illicit Activities” (2024) online: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_0927_ia_aep-impact-ai-on-criminal-and-illicit-activities.pdf.

[iii] United Nations, “International Community Must Urgently Confront New Reality of Generative, Artificial Intelligence, Speakers Stress as Security Council Debates Risks, Rewards,” (18 July 2023) online: <https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15359.doc.htm> [Nations].

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Reuters, “Europol Warns of AI-Driven Crime Threats” (18 March 2025) online: <https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/europol-warns-ai-driven-crime-threats-2025-03-18/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22314562799&gbraid=0AAAAA-> [Reuters].

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Europol, “25 Arrested in Global Hit Against AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material,” (26 February 2025) online: < https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/25-arrested-in-global-hit-against-ai-generated-child-sexual-abuse-material>

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Europol, The Changing DNA of Serious and Organized Crime, (European Union: Serious and Organized Threat Assessment, 2025) [Europol].

[xxvi] Nations, supra note 3.

[xxvii] Business Insider, “Why This AI Researcher Thinks There’s a 99% Chance AI Wipes Us Out,” (4 June 2024) online: <https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-researcher-roman-yampolskiy-lex-fridman-human-extinction-prediction-2024-6>.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Standards Bots, “What are police robots? Types, real examples, and challenges in 2025” (18 September 2025) online https://standardbots.com/blog/police-robot.

[xxx] Ibid.

[xxxi] Lawfare, “AI Might Let You Die to Save Itself” (31 July 2025) online: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-might-let-you-die-to-save-itself.