Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Dial E for Ethical Enforcement: institutional VETO power as a governance primitive

Subramanyam Sahoo, Vinija Jain, Aman Chadha, Divya Chaudhary

TL;DR

It is argued that communities most vulnerable to military uses must lead governance design, and that institutional veto power is a prerequisite for converting symbolic safeguards into enforceable responsibility and for achieving meaningful model disarmament.

Abstract

The persistent militarization of large reasoning models stems not from technical necessity but from governance arrangements that strip researchers of meaningful authority to refuse harmful transfers and deployments. Existing accountability mechanisms such as model cards and responsible AI statements operate as reputational signals detached from decision making architecture. We identify institutional veto power as a missing governance primitive: a formal authority to halt subsequent use or distribution of research when credible risks of weaponization emerge. Drawing on precedents in nuclear nonproliferation and biomedical ethics, the paper maps unprotected veto points across the research lifecycle, diagnose why compliance without enforceable constraints fails, and offer concrete institutional designs that embed veto authority while reducing the risk of political capture. The paper argues that communities most vulnerable to military uses must lead governance design, and that institutional veto power is a prerequisite for converting symbolic safeguards into enforceable responsibility and for achieving meaningful model disarmament.

Dial E for Ethical Enforcement: institutional VETO power as a governance primitive

TL;DR

It is argued that communities most vulnerable to military uses must lead governance design, and that institutional veto power is a prerequisite for converting symbolic safeguards into enforceable responsibility and for achieving meaningful model disarmament.

Abstract

The persistent militarization of large reasoning models stems not from technical necessity but from governance arrangements that strip researchers of meaningful authority to refuse harmful transfers and deployments. Existing accountability mechanisms such as model cards and responsible AI statements operate as reputational signals detached from decision making architecture. We identify institutional veto power as a missing governance primitive: a formal authority to halt subsequent use or distribution of research when credible risks of weaponization emerge. Drawing on precedents in nuclear nonproliferation and biomedical ethics, the paper maps unprotected veto points across the research lifecycle, diagnose why compliance without enforceable constraints fails, and offer concrete institutional designs that embed veto authority while reducing the risk of political capture. The paper argues that communities most vulnerable to military uses must lead governance design, and that institutional veto power is a prerequisite for converting symbolic safeguards into enforceable responsibility and for achieving meaningful model disarmament.
Paper Structure (38 sections, 12 equations, 2 figures, 4 tables)

This paper contains 38 sections, 12 equations, 2 figures, 4 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. The Governance Paradox: Why Ethics Without Power Enables Militarization
  2. Related Work: Veto Power in Governance
  3. Mapping Discretionary Militarization: Unprotected Veto Points
  4. From Ethics Without Veto to Enforceable Governance
  5. Centering Justice: Veto Power Requires Marginalized Community Leadership
  6. Limitations and Future Work
  7. Conclusion: The Choice Before Research Communities
  8. Writing Assistance.
  9. Limitations of LLM Use.
  10. Toy model: why ethics without veto power fails
  11. Notation
  12. Failure mode 1: responsibility diffusion
  13. Failure mode 2: adverse selection under voluntary restraint
  14. Failure mode 3: ethics laundering and intervention
  15. Derived summary metrics
  16. ...and 23 more sections

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: Workflow of discretionary militarization in AI research, highlighting institutional veto points and the competitive incentive pressures that reinforce downstream military integration and community harms.
  • Figure 2: Why ethics without veto power fails to constrain militarization. (a) Responsibility diffusion: enforceable responsibility falls as governance chains lengthen. (b) Adverse selection: competition drives low restraint without enforcement; veto stabilizes higher restraint. (c) Ethics laundering: documentation inflates perceived responsibility without intervention absent enforceable authority. (d) Derived outcomes (responsibility enforced, restraint, community safety) under no governance, ethics-only, and ethics+veto regimes.