UK Declines to Sign AI Declaration at Paris Summit over Governance Concerns
Downing Street cites insufficient clarity on global governance and national security as reasons for not endorsing the joint communique.
On February 11, 2025, the United Kingdom chose not to sign a joint communique on artificial intelligence (AI) during the AI Action Summit held in Paris, citing concerns regarding the document's alignment with the UK government's position on the opportunities and security of AI technologies.
According to Downing Street, the decision reflects a lack of sufficient 'practical clarity' on global governance structures proposed in the declaration and an inadequate address of national safety issues posed by AI.
The summit, hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, brought together world leaders, technology executives, civil society representatives, and academics to discuss the future of AI. The UK's refusal to endorse the declaration comes amid reports that the United States also rejected the text, reportedly due to concerns over its language, including references to 'sustainable and inclusive AI.'
A spokesperson for Number 10 reiterated that the UK's decision was independent and focused on national interests.
'This isn’t about the US. This is about our own national interest, ensuring the balance between opportunity and security,' they stated, emphasizing that the declaration did not adequately capture the UK's policy stance.
Despite questions regarding potential diplomatic ramifications with France, the spokesperson maintained that the UK remains committed to ensuring safety is integrated within AI frameworks from the onset.
During the summit, US Vice President JD Vance advocated for a light-touch regulatory approach in Europe to foster AI innovation, warning against collaborations with authoritarian regimes in the technology sector.
He cautioned that excessive regulation could hinder the AI industry, which he described as being at a transformative phase.
Vance's remarks aligned with President Macron's call for increased international cooperation on AI, coupled with the necessity for 'smart regulation' to establish essential rules for its development.
While the discussion underscored varying perspectives on regulation and cooperation, the responses highlighted significant geopolitical considerations in the evolving landscape of AI governance.
According to Downing Street, the decision reflects a lack of sufficient 'practical clarity' on global governance structures proposed in the declaration and an inadequate address of national safety issues posed by AI.
The summit, hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, brought together world leaders, technology executives, civil society representatives, and academics to discuss the future of AI. The UK's refusal to endorse the declaration comes amid reports that the United States also rejected the text, reportedly due to concerns over its language, including references to 'sustainable and inclusive AI.'
A spokesperson for Number 10 reiterated that the UK's decision was independent and focused on national interests.
'This isn’t about the US. This is about our own national interest, ensuring the balance between opportunity and security,' they stated, emphasizing that the declaration did not adequately capture the UK's policy stance.
Despite questions regarding potential diplomatic ramifications with France, the spokesperson maintained that the UK remains committed to ensuring safety is integrated within AI frameworks from the onset.
During the summit, US Vice President JD Vance advocated for a light-touch regulatory approach in Europe to foster AI innovation, warning against collaborations with authoritarian regimes in the technology sector.
He cautioned that excessive regulation could hinder the AI industry, which he described as being at a transformative phase.
Vance's remarks aligned with President Macron's call for increased international cooperation on AI, coupled with the necessity for 'smart regulation' to establish essential rules for its development.
While the discussion underscored varying perspectives on regulation and cooperation, the responses highlighted significant geopolitical considerations in the evolving landscape of AI governance.
