June’s G7 meeting, chaired by Canada, focused mainly on issues such as cybersecurity and artificial intelligence (AI), as well as latest conflicts, including those between Israel and Iran and Russia and Ukraine. The objective of the event in terms of cyberspace was to change strategy regarding the relevant use of these ‘new’ tools. The proposed new strategy aims to shift from the reactive defence we currently employ in cybernetic terms towards the construction of standard rules of use, with conflict prevention as the primary objective.
At first glance, this change appears beneficial for the benign evolution of these new tools, but one can also foresee the problems that this strategy may cause: who will decide these new guidelines? Who will be left out of this new dynamic? What role will the Global South have in this new technological era?
The concept of cyber diplomacy
Diplomacy has been a vital profession for centuries, playing an important role in managing global conflicts in an objective manner. Unfortunately, we are currently living in a time where conflicts are frequent, making diplomacy more necessary than ever. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected through globalization, the tools of diplomacy must adapt to keep pace with the swift developments occurring in cyberspace.
The concept of cyber diplomacy, as outlined in the EU cyber diplomacy toolbox, can be defined as a framework of negotiations, agreements, and rules that address the challenges of cyberspace, including cyber attacks, espionage, and the misuse of digital technology. The continuous emergence of new threats highlights the necessity for evolving strategies and establishing a comprehensive set of rules applicable to all.
In recent years, initiatives such as the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UN GGE) and the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) have been established to reform the use of cyberspace. However, their progress has been complicated by several factors. One of the most contentious issues is the problem of attribution; according to the 2017 Tallinn Manual 2.0, uncertainty in attribution complicates the application of traditional international law to cyberspace and makes it politically charged. Additionally, the rise of artificial intelligence, particularly since its widespread adoption in 2023, adds another layer of complexity. This development makes managing risks, such as malware and the rapid escalation of advanced models, much more challenging. Addressing these issues requires clear rules, international cooperation, and mutual trust among the nations involved.
Against this backdrop, what changes are necessary in cyber diplomacy to address these challenges? First of all, the principle goal should be to move away from any temptation of elitist dynamics and choose to stand out in terms of neutrality in norm-setting without being guided by national interests. A real-world example that illustrates the importance of successful norm-setting dynamics is the current cyber conflict between Iran and Israel. The retaliatory attacks and malware campaigns of both parties serve as a cautionary example, highlighting the dangers of escalating the conflict without clear guidance to follow.
The G7 artificial intelligence cyber security pact: Progress or new divide?
The G7 meeting was divided into various topics for discussion, but it is clear that cyberspace and AI were important issues that required special attention. The goal of the talks on these topics was to effect a shift from reactive defence to the establishment of common standards.
The Canadian presidency followed the Digital Resilience Agenda, which aimed to coordinate policies, adapt, develop, and share artificial intelligence technology to align it with democratic values and basic security principles. The predecessor to this commitment was forged at the Hiroshima AI process at the G7 meeting in Japan in 2023, which created International Guiding Principles and a Code of Conduct for AI, addressing issues such as transparency. “Advance international discussions on inclusive artificial intelligence (AI) governance and interoperability to achieve our common vision and goal of trustworthy AI, in line with our shared democratic values.These new talks in 2025 promise to take the principles discussed in Hiroshima further by defining standards and avoiding an atmosphere of catastrophe and chaos.
Power, exclusion, and the Global South
The implementation of these standards is closely tied to issues of power and international inclusion. The G7 is an exclusive forum composed of the seven major global economic powers, known for their expertise in technology, financial resources, and geopolitical influence. Therefore, these nations, often referred to as world leaders, should strive for a neutral approach when making decisions and avoid becoming elitist or exclusionary.
The concept of the Global South extends beyond a simple imaginary line dividing the hemispheres. It is a geopolitical term that distinguishes between countries that are traditionally more developed, primarily located in the northern hemisphere (with some exceptions like Australia and New Zealand, which are part of the global north), and countries typically considered developing, which are generally found in the southern hemisphere (belonging to the Global South).
For these countries, the rules established by the G7 for the use of cyberspace can be viewed as “imposed obligations.” These nations may struggle to comply with these rules because implementing them requires advanced cybersecurity capabilities, which involve technical expertise, infrastructure, and significant financial resources that some countries lack. Without investment in developing these capabilities, there’s a risk of creating a form of bipolarity where wealthier states have the power to define, enforce, and benefit from the rules, while the less affluent countries are left to comply.
Parallel examples: The EU–Australia security and defence partnership
Alongside the G7 agreements, new negotiations for a Security and Defence Partnership (SPD) between the European Union and Australia were announced in Canada. Given its global significance, cybersecurity will be one of the primary focus areas of the agreement. The agreement centers attention on several key areas: the defense industry, cybersecurity, and counter-terrorism. As the report highlights, the goal is to enhance global cooperation without imposing any military obligations.
These negotiations reflect the strong relationships between allies, but they can also create potential inequalities that may contribute to geopolitical fragmentation. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, stated in June 2025, “In a time of rising tensions and strategic competition, trusted partners must stand together.”
The issue with these power-to-power agreements is that they often lack meaningful consultation with countries from the Global South. Additionally, while partnerships between entities like the EU and Australia are justifiable, they may reinforce a world where global security is predominantly shaped by coalitions of interests.
Building an inclusive cyber diplomacy: Lessons and recommendations
The AI and Cybersecurity pact represents a significant step forward in international cyber diplomacy. It has become evident that a reactive defense alone is inadequate to tackle the challenges posed by emerging technologies. To effectively adapt our defenses against these threats, we need clear rules and guidelines.
However, governments should not be the only entities adhering to these standards; the private sector, civil society, and academia must also participate in this dialogue using practical and balanced language. The B7 (Business Seven) summit put forth several important recommendations, including the creation of a common language to define key terms. It was also suggested that the new standards should be based on existing frameworks, such as the Hiroshima Process of 2023. It is crucial to begin with small, flexible working groups that can develop pilot projects and set the stage for future progress.
The main goals of conflict prevention, confidence building, and international security must be inclusive. Achieving international security requires investment in capacity building, engagement with diverse stakeholders, and the establishment of spaces that allow everyone to participate in the creation of the norms that will shape our digital future. Security should not be a privilege; it must be accessible to all.
Click to show page navigation!
