The article presents peace technology and sustainable AI as tools that can support conflict prevention, inclusion, and ecological limits, but only when embedded in institutions capable of governing them.

It draws on Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević’s Matrix of Sustainable Development and 3M principle (Maximum species, Maximum good, over Maximum time) as a normative framework linking environmental, social, and institutional pillars.

The Global Academy for Future Governance is described as a practical counterpart that builds capacity, foresight, and leadership—especially in the Global South—to translate those principles into accountable policy rather than treating technology as a substitute for governance.

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 to Service Humanity

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’ 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........

© Eurasia Review