As the world enters an era of digital transformation and ecological fragility, a new vocabulary of governance is emerging. Concepts such as peace technology and sustainable artificial intelligence intersect with the broader discourse on sustainable development. Behind these concepts lies a fundamental question: how can humanity design governance systems capable of harnessing technology for peace, equity and planetary balance?
Two complementary perspectives offer insight into this question. The first is the intellectual tradition shaped by Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević, whose scholarship on institutions and instruments of sustainable development emphasises the foundational role of governance design in shaping human futures. The second is the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG), an initiative devoted to training, advising and equipping institutions — particularly in the Global South — to navigate the governance challenges of a digital and climate-strained world.
Together, these perspectives raise a practical policy question: how can principles of sustainable governance be translated into institutions capable of managing emerging technologies, environmental pressures and geopolitical complexity?
Peace Tech and Sustainable AI: Technology in the Service of Humanity
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Peace tech refers to digital tools and platforms that contribute to conflict prevention, social cohesion and inclusive governance. Examples include online early-warning systems monitoring hate speech, data-driven peacebuilding dashboards and civic-engagement platforms that strengthen public dialogue. Properly designed, such tools can foster what Johan Galtung described as positive peace: not merely the absence of violence, but the presence of justice and equity.
Sustainable AI goes beyond ethics and efficiency, addressing both environmental and societal sustainability. Environmentally, it considers the carbon footprint and resource intensity of AI systems; socially, it seeks to ensure that AI strengthens rather than erodes democracy, fairness and human rights. Sustainable AI must therefore be not only less harmful, but actively beneficial.
Both approaches seek to direct technological progress towards humanity’s collective well-being. Their long-term success, however, depends on the institutions and instruments through which these technologies are governed.
The 3M Framework: Sustainability as a Governance Question
Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević’s Matrix of Sustainable Development situates sustainability at the intersection of three mutually reinforcing dimensions: environmental, social and institutional. Environmental sustainability requires respect for ecological limits; social sustainability advances inclusion, education and equity; and institutional sustainability anchors these objectives in enforceable laws, transparent policies and adaptive governance instruments.
The matrix is systemic rather than linear: when one dimension weakens, the entire structure of sustainability is compromised.
Professor’s complements this framework with his 3M principle — Maximum species, Maximum good, over Maximum time — an ethical compass for sustainable action. This triad extends sustainability beyond a narrowly human-centred perspective. It calls for the preservation of biodiversity (Maximum species), the advancement of collective well-being (Maximum good) and the continuity of human and ecological systems across generations (Maximum time).
Applied to contemporary technology, this framework offers a clear point of reference. Peace tech can strengthen the social dimension by fostering trust, inclusion and dialogue, while sustainable AI can address environmental impacts and institutional accountability. Both must ultimately serve the diversity of life, collective well-being and long-term sustainability.
Peace tech and sustainable AI are therefore not merely technological innovations. Their value depends on whether they advance social inclusion, environmental responsibility and institutional accountability. Together, the matrix and the 3M principle define sustainability as both a governance system and a moral continuum.
Bajrektarević’s Institutional Vision: The Architecture of Sustainable Development
For decades, Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević has argued that sustainable development is not an abstract ideal but a concrete process anchored in institutions — the structures of governance — and instruments — the laws, policies and mechanisms through which sustainability is implemented. By concepting Institutions and Instruments of Sustainable Development as a formal academic subject in 2002, Professor Bajrektarević became the first European professor to introduce sustainable development as a compulsory subject in tertiary education. This early academic initiative reflects his longstanding commitment to understanding sustainability through the institutions and instruments required to put it into practice.
In his work on AI and Global South multilateralism, he highlights the risk that technological progress may amplify existing global asymmetries if governance remains concentrated in a few hands. His writings on environmental crime and transnational law similarly emphasise that sustainability requires institutional coordination and legal coherence across states and sectors.
His approach is systemic and normative. Governance is not merely an administrative function, but an ethical and structural commitment to justice, equity and balance between humanity and nature. Sustainable development consequently requires three interdependent pillars:
- Environmental sustainability — ensuring that human activity respects ecological limits.
- Social sustainability — promoting equity, inclusion and peace within and among societies.
- Institutional sustainability — building transparent, accountable and adaptive governance systems capable of supporting the first two pillars.
The institutional dimension connects sustainability principles to the laws, policies and mechanisms through which they can be implemented in practice.
The Global Academy for Future Governance: Practice and Capacity Building
The GAFG approaches related questions from a practitioner’s perspective. Through advisory services, executive education and leadership programmes, GAFG works with governments, public institutions and policy actors, particularly in the Global South.
Its work focuses on strengthening governance systems through foresight, institutional reform, digital transformation, climate resilience and economic strategy. Through its leadership programmes, the Academy seeks to equip policymakers and public leaders with the capacity to navigate complexity by combining strategic foresight, ethics and innovation.
This practical orientation is particularly relevant to emerging technologies. AI, digital platforms and data systems depend on regulatory frameworks, administrative capacity, public trust and effective leadership. GAFG therefore approaches technology as part of a wider institutional ecosystem, rather than treating innovation as an end in itself.
Where professor’s framework provides a theoretical and normative foundation for sustainable governance, GAFG offers a practical setting in which these principles can inform leadership, institutional capacity and policy development.
Points of Convergence
Professor’s sustainable development framework and GAFG’s institutional mandate converge in four principal areas.
1. Institutions and Instruments at the Core
Both recognise that sustainability depends not merely on what societies aspire to achieve, but on how they govern. Bajrektarević’s academic work places institutions and instruments at the centre of sustainable development, while GAFG focuses on strengthening the institutions responsible for implementing governance reforms.
2. Integrated and Multidimensional Governance
Bajrektarević connects environmental sustainability, technology, law and geopolitics within a single analytical framework. GAFG similarly brings together climate policy, digital transformation and economic reform under the broader concept of future governance. Both approaches reject fragmented, silo-based policymaking.
3. Commitment to the Global South and Inclusive Development
Bajrektarević’s writings highlight imbalances in global governance and the need to strengthen multilateralism so that the Global South can exercise a more meaningful role. GAFG shares this emphasis through its focus on governance capacity, institutional development and equitable progress in developing countries.
4. Human-Centred Capacity Building
Bajrektarević’s academic and pedagogical work seeks to equip future leaders with a sound understanding of sustainability, law and governance. GAFG complements this approach through executive education and practical training designed to help leaders translate principles into policy and administration.
Together, these areas of convergence point towards a common objective: moving beyond fragmented governance by connecting sustainability, technology, institutions and human capacity. The challenge is to embed technological innovation in institutions capable of anticipating risks and managing its social, environmental and geopolitical consequences.
From Theory to Application: The GAFG Perspective
Institutional theory defines the principles of sustainable governance, while GAFG focuses on developing the leadership, skills and institutional mechanisms needed to apply them. Its approach combines foresight, capacity building, policy advice and institutional reform, ensuring that digital transformation remains connected to ethics, accountability, inclusion and institutional capacity.
This practical approach does not eliminate the need for wider systemic reform, but provides a pathway through which governance improvements can be developed, tested and implemented.
Technology is an instrument of future governance, not a substitute for it. The task is to ensure that technological development strengthens institutions and supports the wider objectives of sustainable development.
The Policy Challenge: From Technological Possibility to Governance Capacity
The central challenge is not whether technology will transform governance, but whether governance systems are prepared to manage that transformation. Peace tech can strengthen early warning, participation and social cohesion; sustainable AI can improve decision-making while addressing environmental and societal impacts. Neither, however, can substitute for capable institutions.
Investing in technology without investing in governance capacity risks creating tools that institutions cannot use responsibly. Technological capability must therefore develop alongside the institutional capacity required to govern it.
| Technological development | Governance requirement | Sustainability objective |
| Peace tech & early-warning systems | Institutional coordination and public trust | Conflict prevention and social cohesion |
| Sustainable AI | Environmental and ethical standards | Responsible and resource-efficient innovation |
| Digital governance platforms | Data governance and accountability | Inclusive and transparent decision-making |
| AI-enabled policymaking | Human oversight and legal frameworks | Evidence-based and accountable governance |
Table 1. Linking emerging technologies with institutional capacity and sustainable governance.
From a GAFG perspective, the priority is to build institutions that can anticipate technological change, assess risks, involve affected communities and translate innovation into accountable policy. This requires more than technical expertise: it requires leadership, foresight, legal coherence and the capacity to adapt as technologies and risks evolve.
Naturally, the future of sustainable technology governance will depend not on choosing between innovation and regulation, but on developing institutions capable of making both work together.
Toward a Future of Practical Governance
The relationship between professor’s institutional vision and GAFG’s practical orientation is complementary rather than divisive. The former helps explain why sustainable governance requires coherent institutions and instruments; the latter focuses on how leadership, education, policy development and institutional reform can help put these principles into practice.
Peace tech and sustainable AI cannot flourish in a vacuum of governance. They require institutions and instruments that make sustainability a guiding principle of technological development. Equally, sustainable governance must move beyond theory into practical application, supported by education, institutional reform and responsible leadership.
The objective is to move beyond technological efficiency alone towards governance that advances accountability, inclusion and justice.
Conclusion
The future of governance will depend on whether institutions can translate technological innovation into sustainable, inclusive and accountable practice. Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević’s emphasis on institutions and instruments provides an important conceptual foundation, while GAFG’s focus on capacity building, foresight, digital transformation and institutional reform offers a pathway towards its practical application.
Peace tech and sustainable AI should not be understood simply as technological solutions. Their success depends on the institutions that govern them, the people who use them and the policies that shape their development. The task ahead is to build governance systems capable of keeping innovation connected to peace, sustainability, equity and long-term human and ecological well-being.
The real measure of technological progress may ultimately be not how advanced our tools become, but how responsibly our institutions learn to govern them.
