French defence technology company Thales is calling for an international framework to govern the development of artificial intelligence as the technology becomes increasingly important in both civilian and military applications.
Thales CEO Patrice Caine made the call on September 17 while presenting the company’s latest AI-enabled defence technology. He said technical safeguards can help keep AI systems under control, but argued that governments also need to establish an international framework for the technology.
The comments come amid a wider debate over how quickly artificial intelligence should develop, how much oversight should be imposed on advanced systems and how governments can manage the risks associated with increasingly capable AI.
Thales Says AI Governance Cannot Be Only a Technical Issue
Caine said the ability to control AI should not be treated solely as an engineering problem.
His position is that technical safeguards need to operate alongside government oversight and international rules.
The comments reflect a growing debate over whether voluntary measures by technology companies are sufficient as AI systems become more capable and are increasingly integrated into sensitive sectors.
Thales published its own position paper on trustworthy AI earlier in September, arguing that AI development should be guided by ethics, transparency and sustainability.
The company therefore appears to be linking its latest call for international rules with a broader corporate position on responsible AI development.
AI Is Already Being Used in Military Operations
One reason the debate has become more urgent is the expanding role of AI in defence.
AI systems can process large quantities of information from sources such as drones, satellites and other sensors. Military organisations can use these systems to help analyse information and support commanders as they make decisions.
Reuters reported that AI is increasingly being used to analyse drone footage and satellite imagery for intelligence and targeting purposes.
The growing military use of AI creates additional questions about human oversight, accountability and the circumstances in which automated systems should be allowed to influence military decisions.
Those questions extend beyond the capabilities of any individual technology company because they involve governments, armed forces and international law.
Thales Unveils HexaForce
The comments from Caine came as Thales unveiled HexaForce, an AI-enhanced command-and-control system designed for NATO and allied armed forces.
According to Thales, the system can operate across land, sea, air, cyber, space and information domains. The company says HexaForce was successfully tested during NATO’s CWIX 2026 exercise.
Thales says the system is designed to help armed forces manage the growing volume of information generated by sensors, drones and other sources.
The company describes HexaForce as a sovereign system, meaning it is intended to give countries greater control over the technology and data used in their military command structures.
European Concerns Over Dependence on US Technology
Thales’ announcement also comes against a backdrop of debate in Europe about dependence on American technology.
NATO has selected Palantir Technologies’ Maven Smart System for command operations, while European defence companies are developing alternative AI systems.
Reuters reported that Thales presented HexaForce as an option that could provide greater technological sovereignty for NATO members and other allied countries.
Thales has not presented its system simply as a direct replacement for Palantir’s technology. Instead, company officials have emphasised sovereignty and the ability to operate across multiple defence domains.
The debate reflects a broader European concern about maintaining control over critical digital and defence infrastructure.
France Wants Europe to Move Faster on AI
The discussion is also taking place as European governments debate how to compete with the United States and China in artificial intelligence.
French Finance Minister Roland Lescure recently argued that France and Europe need to accelerate AI development to avoid becoming dependent on American technology providers.
This creates a difficult policy balance.
European governments want to develop competitive AI capabilities while also establishing safeguards around the technology.
Thales’ position suggests that the two objectives do not necessarily have to be treated as opposites, with the company arguing for continued technological development alongside international oversight.
AI Regulation Is Becoming a Global Issue
Calls for international AI rules are not limited to Thales.
Governments, technology executives and international organisations have increasingly discussed standards covering AI safety, transparency, security and accountability.
The United Nations has also raised concerns about the potential risks of increasingly advanced AI systems. UN human rights chief Volker TΓΌrk warned earlier in September that AI could pose serious risks to humanity and said his office would press AI companies to reduce potential harms.
There have also been calls for international rules governing autonomous weapons.
The United Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross warned in August that weapons capable of selecting and engaging targets without meaningful human involvement require urgent international negotiations.
These discussions show how AI governance is increasingly overlapping with defence policy and international security.
The Challenge of Creating International Rules
Creating a common international framework would be difficult.
Countries have different approaches to technology regulation, national security and military development.
The United States, China and European countries are also competing for leadership in AI, creating potential tensions between cooperation on safety and competition over technological capabilities.
An international framework would therefore have to address questions about safety while avoiding rules that individual governments consider harmful to their technological or national-security interests.
The scope of any eventual framework would also matter.
Rules covering consumer AI applications could look very different from rules governing military AI, autonomous weapons or systems used for critical infrastructure.
Thales Wants Governments to Take the Lead
Caine’s argument places governments at the centre of the AI governance debate.
His position is that companies can develop technical safeguards, but governments need to establish the wider rules under which AI development takes place.
That approach would potentially require countries to agree on common principles, monitoring mechanisms and responsibilities for developers and users.
It could also require international cooperation over military applications, particularly where AI systems interact with weapons or sensitive intelligence.
No such global framework has been created as a result of Thales’ announcement.
The company’s call is instead part of a wider international discussion about how AI should be governed.
AI Development and Military Competition
The debate is occurring while defence companies around the world are investing heavily in AI.
Modern military operations generate enormous amounts of information from satellites, drones, radar systems, communications networks and other sensors.
AI can help process that information more quickly than traditional manual systems, potentially changing how commanders receive and interpret battlefield intelligence.
But faster processing also creates risks if systems produce inaccurate information or if humans rely too heavily on automated recommendations.
That is why questions about verification, human oversight and accountability have become increasingly important.
What Happens Next?
Thales’ proposal does not establish a new international regulation.
Any binding international framework would require negotiations between governments and potentially involve international organisations, technology companies, defence firms and civil-society groups.
The details would likely determine whether such a framework could gain broad support.
Issues such as military AI, autonomous weapons, data security, model testing, transparency and responsibility for harmful outcomes would all need to be addressed.
For now, Thales is adding its voice to a growing debate over whether AI development should be accompanied by stronger international coordination.
As AI becomes more deeply integrated into defence and other critical systems, the question is increasingly about not only what the technology can do, but also which rules should govern how it is developed and used.
Community
Comments
Keep discussion respectful and relevant. Comments never affect rewards.
No comments yet. Start a respectful conversation.