treaty

Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (CETS No. 225)

Council of Europe · published 2024-09-05 · Opened for signature 5 September 2024

coe-framework-convention · last checked 2026-09-06 · voice: government · origin: global north

The Council of Europe overview page was reviewed, not the treaty text itself. The Convention binds only parties for which it has entered into force, and is largely framed as obligations on states to adopt measures. Signature and ratification status changes; verify before relying on it. The treaty text itself (CETS 225) was opened on 19 October 2026 for the definitions comparison.

Claims that cite this source · 5

Source assertion· confidence high· passage checked
The Council of Europe Framework Convention is presented as the first legally binding international treaty on AI; it requires parties to ensure documentation sufficient to challenge decisions and an effective possibility to lodge complaints.
Used in: Liability exposure, Complaint and appeal routes
Interpretation· confidence medium· passage checked
A principle states a value; in this framework, a safeguard is a specified mechanism with an actor, a trigger, a record and a consequence. Specifying the mechanism lets us inspect how the value reaches a decision.
Used in: Internal safety and governance team, Pre-deployment evaluation and red teaming, Safety
Synthesis· confidence high· passage review pending
Governance obligations attach across the lifecycle of AI systems rather than at a single pre-deployment checkpoint.
Used in: Standards body, Incident reporting and post-deployment monitoring
Interpretation· confidence high· passage checked
Unlike the Council of Europe Convention, Brazil’s bill and the African Commission’s resolution, the definition does not name human rights, democracy or the rule of law. In AIGovSpec, rights enter through safeguards and the legitimacy test, so a reader who expects them in the definition itself will not find them there.
Synthesis· confidence high· passage checked
Of the 29 governmental, intergovernmental and standards documents compared here, only two, Japan’s AI Guidelines for Business and Kenya’s AI strategy, define AI governance in a sentence. Most use the term without defining it, and some laws, including the Council of Europe Convention and Korea’s framework act, do not use it at all.

Checked passages · 2

Overview page — introduction; 'What does the Framework Convention require states to do?': fundamental principles; remedies, procedural rights and safeguards
The Council of Europe describes the Convention as the first international legally binding treaty in the field, opened for signature on 5 September 2024, covering activities within the lifecycle of AI systems. It lists principles including transparency and oversight and accountability and responsibility, and says parties must ensure documentation sufficient for affected people to challenge decisions and the use of a system, with an effective possibility to complain to competent authorities.
checked 2026-09-06
Preamble; Articles 1, 2 and 16
Aims to ensure activities within the lifecycle of AI systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It defines only “artificial intelligence system”; the word governance does not appear in the text we read. Article 16 requires risk and impact management applied iteratively across the lifecycle, including testing before first use.
checked 2026-10-19