Editor’s Note: This is the final installment of our five-part series “The New Physics of Power,” examining how quantum technologies are reshaping international relations and strategic competition. Part 1 explored quantum as a force multiplier, Part 2 analyzed the quantum arms race, Part 3 examined economic power dynamics, Part 4 investigated strategic stability challenges, and this concluding piece assesses the prospects for international cooperation in the quantum era.
The Quantum Cooperation Paradox
As quantum technologies transition from laboratory curiosities to strategic realities, the international community faces an unprecedented challenge: how to balance the collaborative potential of quantum science with the competitive imperatives of national security. This tension sits at the heart of quantum diplomacy—the emerging field where physics meets foreign policy.
Unlike previous technological revolutions, quantum presents a unique duality. The same quantum entanglement that enables breakthrough medical imaging could power unhackable military communications. The quantum computers designed to accelerate drug discovery might also break the encryption protecting global financial systems. This dual-use nature makes traditional technology governance frameworks inadequate for the quantum era.
The stakes could not be higher. Nations that successfully navigate quantum cooperation while protecting strategic advantages may shape the post-classical international order. Those that fail risk being left behind as quantum technologies reshape everything from economic competitiveness to military power. The question isn’t whether quantum technologies will transform international relations—it’s whether that transformation will unfold through cooperation or competition.
Existing International Quantum Cooperation Frameworks
Despite growing strategic competition, multiple international quantum cooperation initiatives have emerged, revealing both the promise and limitations of collaborative approaches.
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) between the United States, Australia, India, and Japan represents the most ambitious democratic quantum partnership.1 Launched in 2021, QUAD quantum initiatives focus on research collaboration, technology sharing, and developing common standards for quantum communications. The partnership leverages complementary strengths: American innovation capacity, Australian rare earth minerals, Indian software expertise, and Japanese precision manufacturing.
NATO’s comprehensive quantum strategy, adopted in 2024, marks the alliance’s first systematic approach to emerging technologies.2 The strategy emphasizes collective defense applications while maintaining interoperability between member nations’ quantum systems. NATO’s Innovation Fund has allocated $200 million specifically for quantum projects that enhance alliance security capabilities.
The AUKUS partnership has expanded beyond nuclear submarines to include “Pillar II” quantum arrangements for developing generation-after-next capabilities.3 This includes joint quantum sensing research for submarine detection and quantum-secured communications for alliance coordination. However, technology transfer restrictions within AUKUS itself highlight the challenges of sharing even among close allies.
Post-Brexit, the European Union and United Kingdom have maintained quantum cooperation through bilateral research agreements, demonstrating that geopolitical realignments need not preclude scientific collaboration.4 The EU-Japan Digital Partnership has similarly expanded to include quantum computing collaboration, with shared goals of developing quantum-safe cryptography standards.
The Five Eyes intelligence alliance has extended quantum coordination to include early warning systems for quantum threats and shared assessments of foreign quantum capabilities. This intelligence-sharing model provides a template for quantum cooperation that balances transparency with security concerns.
Quantum Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Challenges
The international community increasingly recognizes the need for quantum arms control mechanisms, but developing effective frameworks proves extraordinarily difficult. Several proposals have emerged for a “Quantum Non-Proliferation Treaty” that would establish transparency protocols and compliance monitoring, analogous to nuclear non-proliferation frameworks.5
However, quantum technologies present unique challenges that make traditional arms control approaches inadequate. Unlike nuclear weapons, quantum capabilities are inherently dual-use, with legitimate civilian applications virtually indistinguishable from military ones. A quantum computer designed for pharmaceutical research operates on the same principles as one capable of breaking military encryption.
Verification and compliance monitoring face technical obstacles that don’t exist in nuclear arms control. Quantum states are fragile and often impossible to observe without destroying them, making inspection regimes extremely difficult to design. Unlike uranium enrichment facilities, quantum research laboratories can be relatively small and geographically distributed.
Despite these challenges, some experts propose focusing quantum arms control on specific applications rather than the underlying technology. Agreements might restrict the deployment of quantum-enabled weapons systems or establish protocols for quantum-safe communication channels during crises.6 Others suggest transparency measures that require nations to declare quantum milestones without revealing sensitive technical details.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has begun exploring how its monitoring expertise might apply to quantum technologies, but the dual-use problem remains formidable. Unlike nuclear technology, where weapons applications are relatively clear, quantum technologies blur the line between civilian research and military capability development.
International Standards Organizations as Cooperation Pathways
While formal arms control remains elusive, international standards organizations have emerged as more promising venues for quantum cooperation. Technical standardization often proceeds even when broader political cooperation stalls, providing a pathway for continued collaboration amid strategic competition.
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has launched extensive quantum communication standards work, including the “Quantum for Good” initiative aimed at ensuring quantum benefits reach developing nations.7 ITU standards for quantum key distribution networks and quantum internet protocols provide the foundation for global quantum communications infrastructure.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) have jointly developed quantum computing standards and quantum key distribution protocols.8 These technical specifications enable interoperability between different quantum systems while remaining neutral on questions of strategic application.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has focused on quantum network interoperability, developing protocols that allow quantum systems from different manufacturers and nations to communicate securely.9 This standardization work proves that technical cooperation can continue even as geopolitical tensions increase.
Standards development offers several advantages over formal regulatory approaches. Technical specifications can evolve rapidly as quantum technologies advance, unlike treaty frameworks that require lengthy negotiation and ratification processes. Standards also create positive-sum outcomes by expanding market opportunities for all participants rather than zero-sum competitive dynamics.
Quantum Technology Diffusion and Global Inequality
The current concentration of quantum capabilities among major powers raises concerning questions about global technological inequality. The United States, China, and European Union account for approximately 80 percent of global quantum investment, creating risks of quantum “have” and “have-not” nations.10
However, diffusion patterns remain uncertain. Middle-income countries are developing national quantum strategies, with India committing $1 billion to quantum research and development.11 Brazil, South Korea, and Canada have similarly announced substantial quantum investments, suggesting broader capability development may be possible.
The resource requirements for quantum technologies present both barriers and opportunities. While quantum computers require specialized facilities and expertise, quantum communication networks could enable developing nations to leapfrog traditional communication infrastructure, similar to how mobile phones enabled countries to skip landline networks.
International cooperation initiatives increasingly emphasize capacity building in developing nations. The World Bank has proposed quantum development assistance programs that would help middle-income countries build quantum research capabilities while ensuring technologies benefit civilian applications.12
Yet the concentration of quantum expertise in advanced economies suggests that meaningful capability diffusion will require sustained international cooperation. Without deliberate technology transfer and capacity building programs, quantum technologies risk exacerbating rather than reducing global inequality.
Academic Research vs. National Security Restrictions
Perhaps nowhere is the cooperation-competition tension more visible than in academic research, where traditional open science principles increasingly clash with national security concerns. Export controls limit quantum technology transfer, while classification pressures move sensitive research from open to restricted environments.
Major research universities struggle to balance international collaboration with security requirements. MIT’s quantum research partnerships with European institutions continue, but similar collaborations with Chinese universities have been restricted or terminated.13 This selective cooperation approach attempts to preserve beneficial knowledge sharing while limiting sensitive technology transfer.
Academic institutions increasingly implement “controlled collaboration” models that allow international cooperation in basic research while restricting access to applications-focused work. Stanford’s quantum initiative maintains open research partnerships for theoretical physics while limiting participation in engineering projects with clear military applications.
The National Science Foundation has developed new guidelines for quantum research that encourage international collaboration in fundamental science while requiring security reviews for applied research projects.14 These frameworks attempt to preserve the collaborative nature of academic research while addressing legitimate security concerns.
However, the line between basic and applied quantum research proves increasingly difficult to maintain. Theoretical breakthroughs in quantum mechanics often have immediate practical applications, making traditional distinctions between “open” and “sensitive” research problematic in the quantum field.
Alliance Structures and Emerging Quantum Blocs
Clear alignment patterns are emerging between quantum cooperation approaches and broader geopolitical orientations. Democratic nations tend to emphasize collaborative research, shared standards, and alliance-based technology sharing. Authoritarian states pursue more centralized, state-directed development with explicit military integration.
The democratic quantum cooperation model, exemplified by AUKUS and QUAD partnerships, emphasizes burden-sharing, interoperability, and collaborative standard-setting. These partnerships leverage market mechanisms and academic collaboration while maintaining security through alliance structures rather than secrecy.
China’s quantum program operates largely independently, with centralized coordination through state planning mechanisms and substantial military integration.15 China’s $15 billion quantum investment emphasizes self-reliance and indigenous innovation rather than international cooperation, though Beijing participates in international standards organizations when beneficial.
Russia has similarly pursued independent quantum development with explicit military applications, though resource constraints limit the scope of Russian quantum programs compared to Chinese and Western efforts. India’s quantum strategy attempts to balance partnership with major powers while maintaining strategic autonomy through indigenous development capabilities.
These alignment patterns suggest quantum technologies may contribute to broader technological bifurcation along geopolitical lines, with parallel quantum development tracks within democratic and authoritarian alliance systems.
International Law Challenges and Space-Based Quantum Networks
Space-based quantum networks present novel challenges for international law that existing frameworks struggle to address. China’s quantum communication satellite constellation and planned quantum internet infrastructure raise questions about sovereignty, space militarization, and peaceful use of outer space principles.16
Current space law, primarily based on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, proves inadequate for quantum-enabled capabilities. Quantum satellites could enable unhackable military communications or facilitate quantum sensing systems with surveillance applications, blurring the line between civilian and military space activities.
The European Space Agency has proposed international guidelines for quantum space systems that would establish protocols for peaceful applications and transparency measures.17 However, enforcement mechanisms remain unclear, and major space powers have shown limited enthusiasm for restrictions on quantum space capabilities.
Quantum-enabled space systems also raise questions about the militarization of space. While quantum communication satellites might be classified as civilian infrastructure, their military applications are obvious and immediate. This dual-use problem complicates traditional approaches to space governance that distinguish between civilian and military systems.
Future Scenarios: Cooperation vs. Competition Outcomes
The future of quantum diplomacy likely depends on how successfully the international community can develop governance frameworks that enable cooperation while managing competitive dynamics. Several scenarios appear possible.
The most optimistic scenario involves continued technical standards cooperation amid strategic competition, similar to how internet protocols developed through international collaboration despite Cold War tensions. In this scenario, quantum communications standards and basic research collaboration continue while strategic applications develop within alliance systems.
A middle scenario sees parallel quantum development tracks within democratic and authoritarian alliance systems, with limited cooperation on purely civilian applications but divergent development of strategic capabilities. This “quantum bifurcation” would resemble the internet’s fragmentation along geopolitical lines but maintain some interoperability for non-sensitive applications.
The most pessimistic scenario involves complete quantum technological decoupling, with isolated development within rigid alliance structures and minimal international cooperation even for civilian applications. This outcome would maximize security concerns while minimizing the benefits of collaborative development and global standards.
The possibility of meaningful quantum arms control agreements remains uncertain but not impossible. If quantum technologies demonstrate clear strategic risks—such as the ability to disable critical infrastructure—international pressure for control mechanisms may overcome current resistance to restrictions.
Conclusion: The Post-Classical International Order
Quantum technologies present the international community with an unprecedented challenge: managing revolutionary capabilities that simultaneously enable cooperation and competition. Unlike previous technological revolutions, quantum’s dual-use nature makes traditional governance approaches inadequate.
The evidence suggests that meaningful quantum cooperation remains possible but requires new frameworks that account for quantum technologies’ unique characteristics. Technical standards development provides the most promising pathway, enabling continued collaboration while allowing nations to protect strategic interests.
Democratic nations appear better positioned to leverage quantum cooperation through alliance structures and burden-sharing mechanisms. However, success requires addressing the tension between academic openness and security concerns while maintaining technological advantages through collaborative innovation.
The stakes extend beyond quantum technologies themselves. How the international community manages quantum cooperation will establish precedents for governing emerging technologies more broadly. Success in quantum diplomacy could provide a template for managing artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other dual-use technologies that blur traditional boundaries between civilian and military applications.
The post-classical international order shaped by quantum technologies need not be a zero-sum competition. But realizing quantum cooperation’s potential requires deliberate choices about institutional frameworks, alliance structures, and governance mechanisms. The decisions made in the next decade will determine whether quantum technologies contribute to international cooperation or exacerbate strategic competition.
Ultimately, quantum diplomacy reflects a fundamental truth about technological power in the 21st century: the most advanced capabilities often require the most sophisticated cooperation. Nations that master this paradox will shape the quantum future. Those that cannot may find themselves spectators to the post-classical transformation of international relations.
References
1 Center for New American Security, “The Quad’s Quantum Leap: Advancing Democratic Technology Partnerships,” April 2024.
2 NATO, “Alliance 2030: NATO’s Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies,” June 2024.
3 Australian Department of Defence, “AUKUS Pillar II: Advanced Capabilities Development,” March 2024.
4 European Commission, “EU-UK Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement: Quantum Technologies Annex,” January 2024.
5 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Towards Quantum Arms Control: Lessons from Nuclear Governance,” July 2024.
6 Council on Foreign Relations, “Quantum Technologies and Strategic Stability: Governance Challenges,” September 2024.
7 International Telecommunication Union, “Quantum for Good: Standards for Global Quantum Communications,” November 2024.
8 ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee, “Quantum Computing Standards: Interoperability Framework,” October 2024.
9 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “Quantum Network Protocols: Standards for Global Connectivity,” December 2024.
10 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Quantum Technologies Policy Primer,” January 2025.
11 Government of India, “National Quantum Mission: Investment and Implementation Strategy,” August 2024.
12 World Bank, “Quantum Development: Technology Transfer for Emerging Economies,” February 2024.
13 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “International Quantum Research: Security Guidelines and Partnerships,” May 2024.
14 National Science Foundation, “Quantum Research Collaboration: Security Review Framework,” September 2024.
15 Center for Strategic and International Studies, “China’s Quantum Strategy: Investment, Organization, and Military Integration,” November 2024.
16 Secure World Foundation, “Quantum Satellites and Space Security: Legal and Policy Challenges,” June 2024.
17 European Space Agency, “Guidelines for Quantum Space Systems: Peaceful Applications Framework,” August 2024.