A tool for preparation
Preparing for a negotiation involves reading, comparison and anticipation. AI tools can assist with organising public material, producing a preliminary summary or generating questions for a briefing. Their value depends on whether the user can verify the underlying material. A fluent paragraph is not evidence that a quotation, source or interpretation is correct.
A practical distinction is between assistance and authority. Asking a tool to identify possible themes in published speeches is different from accepting its prediction of another government’s intentions. The first can help structure research; the second risks hiding uncertainty behind confident language.
Context is not optional
A diplomatic expression may carry a meaning that depends on who used it, the language, the occasion and earlier exchanges. Summaries can remove these signals. Translation should therefore be checked against the original where the wording matters, particularly when a small change affects the scope of a commitment.
UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence places human rights, transparency, fairness and human oversight at the centre of its framework. Applied to briefing work, these principles suggest keeping a clear record of sources, documenting important corrections and identifying a person responsible for the final text.
Build a reviewable workflow
A sensible workflow begins with an approved information boundary. Public-source research and sensitive communications should not automatically use the same systems. Staff need to know what information a tool receives, how it is handled and which uses require additional authorisation.
Before a briefing is circulated, a reviewer should check factual claims against the cited material, distinguish evidence from inference and preserve meaningful uncertainty. AI may change the speed of preparation. It does not remove the need for a diplomat who can explain and defend a judgement.
Sources & further reading
An introductory editorial analysis based on public sources. Interpretations and hypothetical examples are provided for discussion; this is not a report of original empirical research.