---
name: "Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (CETS 225)"
description: "The first binding international AI treaty: what the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (CETS 225) obliges its Parties to do, who has signed and ratified it, why it is not yet in force, and how the EU, the UK and Switzerland each intend to implement it."
keywords: "CETS 225, Council of Europe AI Convention, Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, AI treaty ratification, Vilnius Convention AI, CETS 225 entry into force, Council of Europe AI human rights democracy rule of law"
type: reference
source_id: coe_ai_convention
source_url: "https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=225"
about_type: Legislation
about_identifier: "CETS No. 225"
about_jurisdiction: "Council of Europe"
last_observed_at: "2026-09-05T00:00:00Z"
last_observed_commit_or_version: "CETS 225 adopted 2024-05-17, opened for signature 2024-09-05; treaty chart status as of 2026-09-05: 21 signatures, 1 ratification (EU, 2026-05-15), not in force; text published in OJ L 2026/1081 (2026-05-13)"
provenance_chain:
  - timestamp: "2026-09-05T00:00:00Z"
    pr: "baseline (manual)"
    change: baseline
---

# Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (CETS 225)

!!! info "Provenance & licence"
    **Source:** [Council of Europe Treaty Office — chart of signatures and ratifications, CETS 225](https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=225) · [Convention text as published in OJ L 2026/1081](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081) · [Explanatory Report (CETS 225)](https://rm.coe.int/1680afae67) ·
    **Last observed:** `2026-09-05` ·
    **Version:** adopted by the Committee of Ministers 2024-05-17, opened for signature Vilnius 2024-09-05; **not in force** (status as of 2026-09-05: one ratification) ·
    **Status:** planned ·
    **Licence:** Council of Europe treaty text and Explanatory Report © Council of Europe — quoted under facts-and-quotation, here via the EU Official Journal (`facts-and-quotation`)

## Summary

The **Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and
Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law** (CETS No. 225) is the first
**legally binding international treaty on AI**. It was adopted by the Committee
of Ministers on 17 May 2024 and opened for signature in Vilnius on
5 September 2024 — to the 46 Council of Europe member states, the European
Union, and the non-member states that took part in drafting it (Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, the Holy See, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Peru, the
United States and Uruguay). It is a *framework* convention: it binds
**states**, not companies, and obliges each Party to "adopt or maintain"
legislative, administrative or other measures so that activities across the AI
lifecycle are consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law
(Art. 1). Its scope is activities by **public authorities and private actors
acting on their behalf**; for other private actors each Party must declare how
it will address the risks (Art. 3). National security and national defence are
carved out (Art. 3(2), (4)). Chapter III sets seven lifecycle principles
(dignity and autonomy, transparency and oversight, accountability, equality and
non-discrimination, privacy, reliability, safe innovation); Chapter IV requires
remedies and procedural safeguards; Chapter V a graduated, documented **risk and
impact management framework** including the assessment of bans or moratoria
(Art. 16); Chapter VII a Conference of the Parties, reporting and **independent
oversight mechanisms** (Art. 26). The Convention is **not in force**: Art. 30(3)
requires five ratifications including three Council of Europe member states,
and as of 5 September 2026 the treaty chart shows **21 signatures and a single
ratification — the European Union, deposited on 15 May 2026** (Council Decision
(EU) 2026/1080). The EU implements it exclusively through the
[EU AI Act](reference_eu_ai_act.md); Switzerland has decided to ratify and
implement it mainly through sector laws
([Switzerland page](reference_ch_ai_data_protection.md)); the United Kingdom
signed on the opening day and has not ratified.

## In plain language

!!! note "Our explanation, not the official text"
    Plain-language summary in our own words — not the normative text. Treaty
    provisions are quoted with attribution. This is general information, not
    legal advice.

Think of CETS 225 as a **promise between governments**, not a rulebook for
your AI system. A country that ratifies it promises to make sure — through its
own laws — that AI used by the state (and, depending on its declaration, by
companies) respects human rights, does not undermine elections and courts, is
transparent and overseen, can be challenged by the people it affects, and is
risk-assessed throughout its life. It does not tell a company what to log or
which tests to run; that comes from the national law each Party writes to
honour the promise. For the EU that law is the AI Act (the EU said so in its
ratification decision). For Switzerland it will be a set of sector amendments
plus a data-protection backbone, with a draft due at the end of 2026. For the
UK there is a signature but, so far, no ratification and no implementing act.
Two things matter for anyone citing it: **it is not in force yet**, so nobody
is bound today, and even once it is, you will be audited against the
*implementing* law, not against the Convention itself. What the Convention
does give an auditor is a stable **checklist of expectations** that three of
the jurisdictions tracked here have signed up to — useful as the direction of
travel, and as the vocabulary regulators will share.

## Key terms

- **Framework convention** — a treaty that sets objectives and principles and leaves the choice of measures to each Party ("adopt or maintain … measures", Art. 1(2)); it binds states, and reaches companies only through the domestic law that implements it.
- **Party** — a state or organisation that has ratified (or acceded to) the Convention. A **signatory** has only expressed an intention to become a Party; signature creates no obligations under the Convention.
- **Activities within the lifecycle of AI systems** — the Convention's unit of scope: the Explanatory Report reads it as the whole chain from design and development through use to decommissioning, not the "AI system" as a product. Art. 2 defines the AI system itself, in terms closely aligned with the OECD definition and with the EU AI Act's Art. 3(1).
- **Art. 3(1)(b) declaration** — the statement each Party must make on how it will address AI risks from private actors: by applying Chapters II–VI to them, or by "other appropriate measures". The EU's declaration points to the AI Act.
- **Conference of the Parties** — the follow-up body (Art. 23) that will interpret the Convention, receive Party reports (Art. 24) and consider amendments once the treaty is in force.
- **Entry into force** — first day of the month after three months have passed since **five** signatories, **including at least three Council of Europe member states**, have ratified (Art. 30(3)). The EU counts as a signatory but not as a member state.

## In depth: what the Convention obliges, and what it leaves open

**Object and scope (Chapter I).** Art. 1 states the purpose — AI lifecycle
activities "fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of
law" — and the method: measures "graduated and differentiated" by the severity
and probability of adverse impacts. Art. 2 defines an AI system in terms closely
aligned with the EU AI Act's definition. Art. 3 draws the line that matters most for scope:
the Convention **applies** to activities of public authorities and of private
actors acting on their behalf (3(1)(a)); for all other private actors a Party
must "address risks and impacts" and declare *how* (3(1)(b)). Activities for
national security are exempt if conducted consistently with international law
(3(2)); pre-market research and development is outside scope unless testing
can interfere with rights (3(3)); national defence is outside scope entirely
(3(4)).

**General obligations and principles (Chapters II–III).** Art. 4 (human
rights) and Art. 5 (integrity of democratic processes, judicial independence,
access to justice, fair access to public debate) are the two general
obligations. Chapter III then lists the principles each Party must give effect
to across the lifecycle: human dignity and individual autonomy (Art. 7),
**transparency and oversight**, expressly including identification of
AI-generated content (Art. 8), accountability and responsibility (Art. 9),
equality and non-discrimination, including gender equality (Art. 10), privacy
and personal-data protection (Art. 11), reliability (Art. 12), and safe
innovation through controlled environments (Art. 13).

**Remedies and safeguards (Chapter IV).** Art. 14 requires accessible and
effective remedies and, concretely, that information about AI systems that can
significantly affect human rights is **documented**, provided to authorised
bodies and, where appropriate, to affected persons — sufficient for them to
**contest** the decision. Art. 15 adds procedural safeguards and the duty to
notify people that they are interacting with an AI system rather than a
human.

**Risk and impact management (Chapter V).** Art. 16 is the operational core:
a graduated framework that considers context and intended use, severity and
probability, stakeholder perspectives, applies **iteratively** across the
lifecycle, includes **monitoring** and **documentation** of risks, impacts and
the management approach, and requires testing before first use and after
significant modification "where appropriate" (16(2)). Adverse impacts must be
"adequately addressed" and documented (16(3)), and each Party must **assess
the need for a moratorium or ban** on uses it considers incompatible with
human rights, democracy or the rule of law (16(4)).

**Implementation, follow-up, oversight (Chapters VI–VII).** Non-discrimination
in implementation (Art. 17), rights of persons with disabilities and children
(Art. 18), public consultation (Art. 19), digital literacy (Art. 20) and a
safeguard clause that nothing limits existing human-rights protection
(Art. 21–22). Chapter VII establishes the Conference of the Parties (Art. 23),
a reporting duty — a first report within two years of becoming a Party
(Art. 24) — international cooperation (Art. 25), and **effective oversight
mechanisms** that act "independently and impartially" with the powers,
expertise and resources to do so (Art. 26).

**Final clauses (Chapter VIII).** Art. 30 governs signature and entry into
force (see above), Art. 31 accession by other states after entry into force,
Art. 33 a federal clause, and Art. 34 permits **no reservations** other than the
federal-clause one.

**What it is not.** The Explanatory Report (which "does not constitute an
instrument providing an authoritative interpretation") stresses that the
Convention creates no new individual rights and does not prescribe a
regulatory model; the flexibility is deliberate so that Parties with very
different legal systems — including non-European observer states — could join.
That flexibility is also the auditor's caution: two Parties can both be
compliant with entirely different domestic rules.

**How the three watched jurisdictions map onto it.**

- **European Union** — approved the Convention on 21 April 2026 (Council
  Decision (EU) 2026/1080) and deposited its instrument on 15 May 2026. Art. 3
  of the Decision: the Convention "shall be implemented in the Union
  exclusively through Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and other relevant Union
  acquis". Because the Union claims **exclusive external competence**, the EU
  member states do not sign individually — their blank rows on the treaty
  chart are by design, not an omission. The EU's Art. 3(1)(b) declaration
  applies Chapters II–VI to private actors through the AI Act.
- **Switzerland** — signed 27 March 2025 after the Federal Council's decision
  of 12 February 2025 to ratify and to implement mostly through sector laws,
  with a consultation draft due by the end of 2026. Detail on the
  [Switzerland page](reference_ch_ai_data_protection.md).
- **United Kingdom** — signed on the opening day, 5 September 2024; no
  ratification and no implementing statute as of the observation date. The
  UK's principles-based model is on the
  [UK AI White Paper page](reference_uk_ai_white_paper.md).

## Application timeline (as it stands)

| Date | What | Status |
| ---- | ---- | ------ |
| 2024-05-17 | Convention adopted by the Committee of Ministers (133rd Session) | adopted |
| 2024-09-05 | Opened for signature in Vilnius; signed that day by Andorra, Georgia, Iceland, Norway, Republic of Moldova, San Marino, the United Kingdom, Israel, the United States and the European Union | **signatures only** |
| 2024-11-05 → 2025-03-27 | Further signatures: Montenegro, Canada, Japan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland | signatures |
| 2025-05-15 → 2026-06-15 | Further signatures: Ukraine, Uruguay, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Armenia, North Macedonia, Albania | signatures |
| 2026-04-21 | Council Decision (EU) 2026/1080 — EU approves the Convention; implementation exclusively via the AI Act | adopted |
| 2026-05-13 | Convention text and Decision published in OJ L 2026/1080–1081 | published |
| 2026-05-15 | EU deposits its instrument of approval | **first and only ratification** as of 2026-09-05 |
| open | Entry into force — five ratifications incl. three CoE member states, then the first day of the month after three months (Art. 30(3)) | **not in force** |
| open | Conference of the Parties adopts its rules of procedure within 12 months of entry into force (Art. 23(4)) | not started |

Status figures are read from the Treaty Office chart and are valid **only** for
its "status as of" date; re-read the chart before quoting them.

## Key Sections

- **[Art. 1 — Object and purpose](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "CETS 225 Article 1 — the aim (AI lifecycle activities consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law), the method (graduated and differentiated legislative, administrative or other measures) and the follow-up mechanism. Text as published in OJ L 2026/1081.")** — the method clause: Parties choose the measures, the Convention fixes the outcome.
- **[Art. 3 — Scope](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "CETS 225 Article 3 — applies to public authorities and private actors acting on their behalf; other private actors via a declared approach (3(1)(b)); national security conditionally exempt; pre-market R&D and national defence outside scope.")** — decides whether a given actor is reached, and how.
- **[Art. 8 — Transparency and oversight](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "CETS 225 Article 8 — transparency and oversight requirements tailored to context and risk, expressly including the identification of AI-generated content.")** — the treaty-level root of content-marking duties such as EU AI Act Art. 50.
- **[Art. 14–15 — Remedies and procedural safeguards](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "CETS 225 Articles 14 and 15 — documented information on rights-affecting AI systems, sufficient to contest decisions; complaint route; procedural guarantees; notification that one is interacting with an AI system.")** — documentation and contestability as human-rights remedies.
- **[Art. 16 — Risk and impact management framework](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "CETS 225 Article 16 — graduated, iterative, monitored and documented risk and impact management across the lifecycle; testing before first use and after significant modification; duty to assess the need for a moratorium or ban.")** — the clause an AI risk framework (NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 23894) most directly evidences.
- **[Art. 23–24 — Conference of the Parties, reporting](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "CETS 225 Articles 23 and 24 — the follow-up body and each Party's report within two years of becoming a Party and periodically thereafter.")** — where interpretation and implementation reports will surface.
- **[Art. 26 — Effective oversight mechanisms](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "CETS 225 Article 26 — one or more independent, impartial oversight mechanisms with the powers, expertise and resources to oversee compliance.")** — the treaty basis for national AI supervisory authorities.
- **[Art. 30 — Signature and entry into force](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "CETS 225 Article 30 — open to CoE member states, the drafting non-member states and the EU; enters into force on the first day of the month after three months once five signatories including three CoE member states have ratified.")** — the arithmetic behind "not in force".

## Audit-Relevant Anchors

- **[Treaty chart — signatures, ratifications, entry into force](https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=225 "Council of Europe Treaty Office chart for CETS 225 — the only authoritative source for who has signed, who has ratified, declarations and whether the Convention is in force. Single-page application: read it in a browser and quote the 'status as of' date.")** — the single source of truth for status; every other page here links to it through this page.
- **[Council Decision (EU) 2026/1080](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2026/1080/oj/eng "Council Decision (EU) 2026/1080 of 21 April 2026 on the conclusion of the Convention on behalf of the EU — Art. 3: implemented exclusively through Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and other Union acquis; annexed declarations on private actors (Art. 3(1)(b)) and territorial scope.")** — proof that, in the EU, "CETS 225 compliance" means AI Act compliance.
- **[Explanatory Report to CETS 225](https://rm.coe.int/1680afae67 "Council of Europe Explanatory Report (Vilnius, 5 September 2024) — drafting history (CAHAI → CAI, observer states), article-by-article commentary; expressly not an authoritative interpretation. rm.coe.int refuses automated clients — open in a browser.")** — the reasoning behind each article; cite paragraphs, not pages.
- **[Convention text — OJ L 2026/1081](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081 "Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI as published in the EU Official Journal L 2026/1081 (13 May 2026), annexed to Council Decision (EU) 2026/1080 — eight chapters, 36 articles; the English text is authentic, the German OJ text is marked as a translation.")** — the citable text when `rm.coe.int` is unreachable.

## Auditor Checklist

Evidence-oriented checks whenever a client, a policy or a report invokes the Convention:

- [ ] The report states the treaty chart's "status as of" date and says plainly whether the Convention is **in force** (as of 2026-09-05: it is not).
- [ ] "Signed" and "ratified" are not conflated — a signatory has no obligations under the Convention yet.
- [ ] For an EU client, Convention compliance is evidenced through the [EU AI Act](reference_eu_ai_act.md) (Council Decision (EU) 2026/1080, Art. 3) — no separate "CETS 225 control set" is invented.
- [ ] For a Swiss client, the Convention is cited as the **direction of travel** behind the sectoral approach, not as binding Swiss law ([Switzerland page](reference_ch_ai_data_protection.md)).
- [ ] For a UK client, the signature of 2024-09-05 is noted together with the absence of ratification and implementing legislation.
- [ ] If the client is a public authority or acts on behalf of one, Art. 3(1)(a) scope is flagged — this is where the Convention will bite first once in force.
- [ ] Risk and impact management evidence (NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 23894 records) is mapped to the Art. 16(2) elements: context, severity/probability, stakeholders, iteration, monitoring, documentation, pre-release and post-change testing.
- [ ] Contestability: affected persons can obtain documented information about a rights-affecting AI decision and challenge it (Art. 14(2)); people are told when they interact with an AI system (Art. 15(2)).
- [ ] The Party's Art. 3(1)(b) declaration has been read before assuming the Convention reaches private-sector activity.

## Cross-Framework Mapping

Indicative cross-references, **not** authoritative equivalences — confirm against
the source texts before relying on them.

| CETS 225 | EU AI Act | NIST AI RMF | ISO/IEC 42001 | ISO/IEC 23894 |
| -------- | --------- | ----------- | ------------- | ------------- |
| Art. 2 (definition of AI system) | [Art. 3(1)](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/3/) | AI system definition (AI 100-1) | Cl. 3 terms | Cl. 3 terms |
| Art. 8 (transparency and oversight, AI-generated content) | [Art. 13](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/13/), [Art. 50](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/) | [GOVERN](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/govern/) 1.x, [MAP](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/map/) 1.x | Cl. 7.4, Annex A (transparency) | Cl. 6.4 (communication) |
| Art. 10 (equality and non-discrimination) | [Art. 10](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/10/) (data governance, bias) | [MEASURE](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/measure/) 2.11 | Annex A (fairness) | Annex B (bias as risk source) |
| Art. 14–15 (remedies, contestability, notification) | [Art. 26](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/26/) (deployer duties), [Art. 86](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/86/) (right to explanation) | [MANAGE](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/manage/) 4.x | Annex A (human oversight, impact on individuals) | Cl. 6.5 (risk treatment) |
| Art. 16 (risk and impact management, moratoria) | [Art. 9](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/9/) (risk management), [Art. 27](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/27/) (FRIA), [Art. 5](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/5/) (prohibitions) | [MAP](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/map/), [MEASURE](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/measure/), [MANAGE](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/manage/) | Cl. 6.1.2–6.1.4 (risk and impact assessment) | Cl. 6 (whole process) |
| Art. 24 (Party reporting) | [Art. 112](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/112/) (Commission evaluation and review) | — | Cl. 9 (performance evaluation) | Cl. 6.6 (monitoring and review) |
| Art. 26 (independent oversight mechanisms) | [Art. 70](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/70/) (national competent authorities) | [GOVERN](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/govern/) | Cl. 5 (leadership) | — |

## Recent Changes (rolling, last 5)

| Date | Severity | What changed |
| ---- | -------- | ------------ |
| `2026-09-05` | baseline | Initial baseline: Convention text (OJ L 2026/1081), Explanatory Report, Council Decision (EU) 2026/1080, treaty chart as of 2026-09-05 (21 signatures, 1 ratification, not in force), EU/Swiss/UK implementation paths captured. |

## Sources

- **Primary (web):** [CoE Treaty Office — chart of signatures and ratifications, CETS 225](https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=225) · [CoE — Convention text (rm.coe.int)](https://rm.coe.int/1680afae3c) · [CoE — Explanatory Report](https://rm.coe.int/1680afae67) · [EUR-Lex — Convention text, OJ L 2026/1081](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601081) · [EUR-Lex — Council Decision (EU) 2026/1080](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2026/1080/oj/eng) — all retrieved 2026-09-05.
- **Note:** the treaty chart is a single-page application and `rm.coe.int` refuses automated clients (HTTP 403) — both are read in a browser; the watch stores dated text snapshots and the OJ publication serves as the machine-readable copy of the text. Secondary commentary is deliberately not cited here.