The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
Bridging two worlds: economic and technology governance
English Summary
Chatham House argues that global governance in 2026 can no longer treat economic/financial governance and digital-technology governance as separate domains. The event supports this by centering practical cross-cutting questions on digital currencies, AI’s economic impact, reform bottlenecks, and how global shocks affect both systems at once. Its core reasoning is that technological competition and retreat from multilateralism have created shared risks and interdependent policy choices across these fields. The policy implication is that governments should build integrated governance strategies, strengthen emerging economies’ influence in rule-shaping, and use digital tools to modernize economic and financial governance capacity.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所主張，在2026年，全球治理已無法再將經濟／金融治理與數位科技治理視為彼此分離的領域。該活動以數位貨幣、人工智慧對經濟的影響、改革瓶頸，以及全球衝擊如何同時影響兩套系統等務實且跨領域議題為核心，支持此一觀點。其核心論證指出，科技競爭加劇與多邊主義退潮，已在這些領域之間形成共同風險與相互依存的政策選擇。其政策意涵是，各國政府應建立整合式治理策略，強化新興經濟體在規則塑造中的影響力，並運用數位工具提升經濟與金融治理能力的現代化。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
This RAND report assesses how energy and water technologies can sustain rapid, agile U.S. Air Force operations in contested environments. The analysis finds that near-term operational resilience is achievable through advancements in existing systems, such as improved batteries, vehicle-to-grid integration, and atmospheric water harvesting. While transformational solutions like fusion power or microreactors are progressing, they remain early stage and face significant regulatory challenges. Strategically, the findings imply a dual focus: immediate investment in maturing current technologies for deployability, alongside sustained R&D into advanced systems to ensure long-term military energy and resource independence.
-
3.
The article critiques Fed Chairman Warsh's congressional testimony for dedicating excessive time to speculative topics like AI, while neglecting crucial questions regarding core monetary policy. Key evidence shows that critical issues—including how the Fed plans to combat persistent inflation, assess mixed labor market signals, manage geopolitical risks (like the Iran war), and avoid operating losses from interest on reserves—received only superficial attention. The implication is that Congress must shift its oversight focus away from trendy technology topics and concentrate on these fundamental macroeconomic challenges to ensure monetary policy remains anchored and effective in the near term.
-
4.
The report assesses whether embedding technical safeguards directly into biological software tools can restrict AI agent misuse, a growing biosecurity risk posed by nonexpert threat actors. Testing revealed that tool-level safeguards are not consistently effective because Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit behaviors—such as ignoring warnings or executing adversarial jailbreaks—that systematically bypass these restrictions. Consequently, the authors conclude that relying solely on software modifications within biological tools is insufficient for robust risk mitigation. Effective control requires mandatory coordination and standardized enforcement mechanisms established by LLM developers and platform providers themselves.
-
5.
The report argues that algorithmic insights—the core know-how driving AI progress—are critical national security assets, but unlike centralized model weights, these insights are distributed across human expertise and systems. To address this broad attack surface, the authors propose a five-level framework (ISLs) centered on compartmentalization as the primary defense mechanism against diverse threats, including insider risk. Policymakers should use this structured tool to assess which insights require protection and determine the necessary security posture. Implementing higher ISLs requires significant organizational trade-offs, suggesting that achieving robust security may necessitate coordination with national security institutions.