What a Complete Technology Treaty Covers

One common misconception about a complete technology treaty is that these agreements fail purely because of political disagreement. From what I’ve seen, the real problem is murkier: nobody can agree on what counts as a “covered technology” in the first place. If the definitions are fuzzy at the start, the whole thing unravels before negotiations get anywhere serious.

Traditional arms are the easiest part. The Arms Trade Treaty, which came into force in December 2014, handles conventional weapons reasonably well. The Wassenaar Arrangement, set up in 1996 with 41 participating states, adds a layer of transparency around arms transfers. And the Missile Technology Control Regime from 1987 limits missiles capable of carrying 500 kg payloads over 300 kilometers. Solid foundations, all of them, but they were built for a different era.

Where things get complicated is dual-use technology. AI systems, quantum computing tools, advanced semiconductors: none of these fit neatly into the old categories. A complete technology treaty needs to stretch beyond hardware and into capabilities, which is genuinely hard to write treaty language around.

Existing Frameworks and Their Gaps

The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime had 68 parties as of 2023, which sounds promising. But it targets criminal offenses, not the broader question of how states develop or transfer dangerous technologies. There’s a gap there that nobody has cleanly filled.

The more glaring problem is AI and quantum computing. Zero binding global treaties currently cover either one. I find that remarkable, honestly, given how fast both fields are moving into defense applications. When I look at how quickly autonomous systems are appearing in military procurement, the absence of any agreed framework feels like a real liability.

Export controls are another rough patch. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) reach roughly 130 countries through U.S. licensing requirements. But disputes over dual-use classifications have held up EU export control reforms for about three years now, which tells you something: even sophisticated regulatory systems struggle to keep pace. A complete technology treaty that ignores this pattern is likely to hit the same wall.

Building a Workable Technology Agreement

The first fix is boring but essential: define “emerging technology” with actual precision before treaty text goes anywhere near a negotiating table. Vague language is where these agreements go to die. A working group tasked specifically with definitions, before the political negotiations begin, would help (a client of ours who works in export compliance calls this “doing the taxonomy first,” and he’s right).

Second, any agreement needs a built-in review cycle. Technology moves fast enough that a treaty written in 2025 will look dated by 2030. Regular scheduled reviews, with clear processes for adding new technology categories, would keep the framework from becoming irrelevant almost immediately after signing.

Third, countries can’t treat this as a bilateral issue. Multilateral buy-in is necessary, and that means finding shared security concerns rather than leading with national interests. The dual-use angle is actually useful here: most states have reasons to worry about advanced technologies spreading without governance, and that common ground is worth building on.

I’ll admit I’m skeptical about how quickly real political will can form around something this technically complex. But a complete technology treaty that addresses definitions, adaptability, and genuine multilateral collaboration would at least give the international community something more durable than what exists now.

Where Things Stand

The existing pieces (Wassenaar, MTCR, Budapest) are not useless, but they were never designed to work together as a system. Patching them together is not the same as building a complete technology treaty from coherent principles. And the gaps around AI and quantum computing are not minor oversights you can fix later; they’re structural absences that matter right now.

Getting definitions right, building in adaptability, and bringing enough countries to the table: none of that is easy. But the alternative is watching technology outpace governance indefinitely, which has its own risks.

FAQs

What is a complete technology treaty?

It’s an international agreement designed to regulate arms, dual-use technologies, and emerging capabilities like AI to prevent dangerous proliferation across borders.

Which countries have signed technology control agreements?

The U.S., EU member states, and dozens of others participate in agreements like the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Arms Trade Treaty.

Does any treaty regulate artificial intelligence?

No binding global treaty currently covers AI, which remains one of the most significant gaps in international technology governance.