Observers could easily dismiss Pope Leo XIV’s “Magnifica Humanitas” as just another document on artificial intelligence. But under the surface lies a deeper question: whether modern political elites still have both the ability and the moral clarity to place restraints on power.
The era of technology poses a choice between power domination and collective responsibility. Leo writes that technology “takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it.” The pope’s analysis has consequences for international affairs: for the regulation of AI development and deployment, the conduct of war and cyber wars, the process of deterrence, and the very nature of international order.
The greatest danger posed by technology is that it might enable, or even encourage, leaders to evade their responsibilities and pursue wanton escalation. While “Magnifica Humanitas” is certainly concerned with ethical issues related to artificial intelligence, its primary provocation is to challenge the culture of foreign policy that sees militarization, retaliation, and great-power rivalries as permanent realities of politics.
Against "false realism" and the "culture of power"
Pope Leo rails against the “false realism” that has come to mean a political culture characterized by dominance and access to scarce resources. In this zero-sum approach, the common good becomes an unattainable illusion; in wars, strategic interest prevails over the needs of people, and military escalation is considered an inherent characteristic of international relations rather than a failed form of politics.
The “culture of power” that Leo describes is an attitude in politics where more attention is paid to the quest for domination, technology, and military advantage rather than to the general welfare of individuals. This culture is dangerous because it is not presented as an ideology, but as a practice. It implies warfare, militarization, weakening of international organizations, and “a false realism that insists that there is no alternative.”
In its place, Leo proposes “healthy realism,” which “avoids both political idealism and cynicism.” He defines healthy realism as one that does not overlook the reality of competition, aggression, and insecurity but asks pragmatically how it can help minimize violence and uphold human dignity. Healthy realism involves creating credible structures, engaging in good faith negotiations, preventing conflicts, creating verifiable guarantees, and protecting civilians. These elements present a useful definition of strategic restraint.
Strategic restraint implies a rejection of the idea that military force should play a dominant role in foreign policy. Achieving this task requires effective institutions that will slow down attempts at escalation. Negotiations allow leaders to explore alternative solutions and preserve possibilities of cooperation that can open pathways to de-escalation and produce rules designed to protect civilians during unavoidable wars.
AI makes restraint harder and more necessary
Leo’s warnings concerning artificial intelligence are important for security policy, since the development of AI technology reduces decision-making time, obscures responsibility , and lowers the threshold for escalation . As Leo notes, the digital revolution gave birth to various types of hybrid warfare, including cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, manipulation of data, and even “ automation of strategic decisions.”
Speed is an advantage in traditional warfare. However, in cyber conflict and AI-assisted warfare, decisions often have to be made before leaders have gathered enough information to respond. In a cyberattack, officials may know that a breach or intrusion has occurred, yet remain uncertain about who was responsible, whether a government was involved, or what kind of response would be proportional and appropriate. Similarly, AI systems can identify threats, suggest targets, or prioritize actions before human decision-makers fully understand the situation and create a plan. As a result, a response can be made under conditions of extreme pressure and confusion, thus causing even greater risks : the cyberattacks, disinformation, and manipulations can affect the functioning of the country before the full-scale war starts, and the problem of attribution makes escalation, and even military aggression, more likely.
Leo’s key insight here is that as warfare becomes more automated, keeping human accountability in the decision loop becomes increasingly difficult. Strategic restraint requires leaders to reject the idea that every new technological capability should be used just because it is available. A state should not deploy a weapon, launch a cyber operation, or intensify a crisis merely because technology makes those actions quicker or more convenient. Decisions about whether and how to act must remain matters of sound political judgment, rather than being driven solely by military capabilities.
Why…
Read the full article at Responsible Statecraft →
United States