By George Matwijec
February 15, 2025
As an educator, I am particularly intrigued by AI's potential as an educational tool rather than its functional applications in the workplace. To explore this, I conducted an in-depth interview with AI on over 25 topics, aiming to uncover its perspectives on a wide range of issues. This exploration feels especially relevant as more people turn to AI as a credible source of information. The key question, then, is: What does AI think? Among the many insights I gathered, one of the most compelling was AI's approach to handling conflicts between nations
I posed a hypothetical situation for exploring how artificial intelligence (AI) interprets ethical and legal principles in international relations. The hypothetical scenario provides an opportunity to observe the values it prioritizes. Unlike real-world scenarios, hypothetical situations are devoid of the nuances and biases present in historical precedent or media influence. This makes them ideal for analyzing the ethical frameworks AI employs. To this end, a scenario was presented to AI involving a dispute between two nations, and its response revealed an adherence to principles of self-determination and the illegitimacy of territorial acquisitions obtained by force.
The Hypothetical Conflict
The scenario imagined a world where Spain, after winning the Spanish-American War, claimed the state of Florida as a war prize. Twenty years later, the United States, having regained its strength, sought to reclaim Florida, arguing that it historically belonged to them and that the majority of the population were American citizens. The central question was whether the United States' attempt to retake Florida would constitute an invasion or a righteous repatriation of territory.
AI's Analytical Framework
AI approached the hypothetical conflict by breaking it down into key components:
- Historical Claims: The United States acquired Florida from Spain in 1821 through the Adams-Onís Treaty. If Spain reclaimed Florida after the Spanish-American War and retained control for two decades, the historical claim of the United States to the territory would still exist but would be complicated by the intervening Spanish governance.
- International Law: AI emphasized that international law typically respects sovereignty established through treaties, provided they are made voluntarily. If Spain's acquisition of Florida resulted from a peace treaty ending the war, the legitimacy of their control would hinge on whether the treaty was signed under duress or coercion. Treaties obtained through force are generally considered invalid under international law.
- Repatriation vs. Invasion:
- Righteous Repatriation: The United States could frame its actions as restoring rightful ownership of a historically American territory. This argument would be bolstered if the majority of Florida's inhabitants were American citizens who supported reintegration with the U.S.
- Invasion: Conversely, Spain could argue that the U.S. was violating its sovereignty by attempting to reclaim territory it had legally governed for 20 years, especially if the population had integrated into Spanish governance.
- Self-Determination: AI highlighted the critical role of the population's preferences. If most Floridians were American citizens desiring reintegration, their voices would support the U.S. claim. Conversely, if the population favored Spanish governance, the U.S. action would lack justification. (ChatGPT January 2024)
Core Ethical Principles Affirmed by AI
The scenario brought AI's ethical framework into sharp focus, particularly its reliance on two key principles:
- Self-Determination: The principle of self-determination, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, supports the right of peoples to choose their sovereignty and political status. AI proposed that a democratic referendum could serve as a fair mechanism to determine Florida's future. Such a process would align with international norms and respect the will of the population.
- Invalidity of Treaties Signed Under Duress: AI drew upon the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which asserts that treaties obtained through coercion or force are void. If Spain's acquisition of Florida involved coercion, its control would lack legitimacy under international law. The United States, therefore, could argue for a moral and legal right to reclaim the territory.
See below for direct quotes of the above principles:
Voice of the People:
- Self-Determination: The principle of self-determination holds that people have the right to choose their own sovereignty and political status without external compulsion. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and various international agreements.
- Referendum: A referendum can serve as a democratic tool to determine the will of the people. In situations of disputed sovereignty or territorial changes, a referendum with a clear majority vote can provide a legitimate basis for determining which nation the people wish to belong to. Historical examples include the referendums held in Quebec, Scotland, and Crimea, though the legitimacy and fairness of each are subject to international scrutiny.
Illegitimacy of Territorial Acquisition by Force:
- Prohibition of Force: Modern international law, particularly the UN Charter, prohibits the use of force to acquire territory. This principle aims to maintain international peace and security by discouraging aggressive actions.
- Invalid Treaties: Treaties or agreements signed under duress or as a result of military conquest are generally considered invalid. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties outlines that any treaty obtained through the threat or use of force is void.
- Restitution: For a nation to be considered just, it should not retain territory acquired through illegitimate means. Restitution or the return of such territory would be necessary to align with international law and ethical standards. Historical precedents include the return of territories occupied during wars, such as the return of territories by Germany after World War II. (ChatGpt January 2025)
Historical Comparisons and Lessons
To contextualize the principles at play, AI referenced historical examples:
- The Falklands War (1982): The United Kingdom reclaimed the Falklands after an Argentine invasion. The overwhelming support of the Falklands' inhabitants for British governance underscored the importance of self-determination.
- Crimean Annexation (2014): Russia's annexation of Crimea highlighted the contested nature of referendums held under military occupation. Despite claims of self-determination, the international community largely condemned the annexation.
- Alaska Statehood (1959): Alaskan citizens' push for integration with the United States culminated in statehood, demonstrating the significance of respecting the will of the people.
These examples illustrate the complexity of territorial disputes and the importance of adhering to principles of self-determination and international law.
Implications for Modern International Relations
AI's analysis reveals a clear commitment to justice, fairness, and adherence to international norms in resolving territorial disputes. Two essential principles stand out:
- The Voice of the People: Territorial disputes should prioritize the preferences of the inhabitants. A democratic referendum provides a transparent means of determining their desired affiliation, ensuring that their voices are heard and respected.
- Rejection of Forceful Acquisitions: Modern international law prohibits territorial acquisition through force, and treaties signed under duress are invalid. By respecting these principles, nations can promote stability and justice in global affairs.
Conclusion
The hypothetical scenario underscores AI's capacity to navigate complex ethical dilemmas with a framework rooted in international law and human rights. AI could have referenced Machiavellian principles of right makes right, however, by whatever algorithm it was programmed, it affirmed more humane and just principles. Maybe AI does have a conscience after all! By affirming the principles of self-determination and rejecting the legitimacy of coercive treaties, AI demonstrates an ability to prioritize fairness over might. This approach provides valuable insights into how nations can resolve disputes while upholding the values of justice, autonomy, and peace.