15 July 2026,
the Global Scientific Centre for Strategic Research on Artificial Intelligence POLLYPRIANY took part in the Joint Constructive Dialogue on Technical Assistance and International Cooperation — one of the most consequential gatherings in the annual calendar of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, convened in Vienna following the 17th meetings of the Working Group of Government Experts on Technical Assistance and the Working Group on International Cooperation, in accordance with paragraph 53 of the Procedures and Rules for the Functioning of the UNTOC Review Mechanism.
The Dialogue was chaired by Her Excellency Angela Vigliotta Mella, the newly appointed Permanent Representative of the Dominican Republic to the United Nations Office at Vienna, and Mr. Khaled Elmenshawy, Minister Plenipotentiary of the Embassy and Permanent Mission of Egypt to the United Nations in Vienna.
The scale of this year's convening speaks for itself. As Ambassador Vigliotta Mella announced during the meeting, over 190 non-governmental organizations registered for the Joint Constructive Dialogue, joined by 40 representatives of the private sector and 18 academic institutions —
more than 250 stakeholders in total,
drawn from every region of the world. Against this remarkable field, only a select handful of institutions were invited to address the Dialogue from the panel itself. That the Global Scientific Centre POLLYPRIANY was among them — selected to present within the substantive discussion on best practices and challenges in combating trafficking in cultural property under the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime — is a distinction the Centre receives with both pride and a profound sense of responsibility.
For the second consecutive year, the Centre has contributed to this forum where governments, experts, and civil society meet as equals to shape the global response to transnational organized crime — a testament to the enduring relevance of its research agenda.
📌The Centre's participation is a matter of official record: the Global AI Centre POLLYPRIANY was included by name in the official proposed scenario of the 2026 UNODC Joint Constructive Dialogue on Technical Assistance and International Cooperation, and duly addressed the Dialogue from the panel on trafficking in cultural property.
Speaking on Panel II, dedicated to best practices and challenges in combating trafficking in cultural property, Miss Polina Prianykova, President of the Global AI Centre, delivered an intervention entitled
"Who Speaks for Humanity's Heritage?
The No Sole Voice Principle: Digital Platforms, Documentation Systems & AI-Supported Risk Indicators in the Fight against Trafficking in Cultural Property."
At its core stood a deceptively simple question — who, or what, is authorized to speak for the heritage of humankind? — and the Centre's answer to it: the No Sole Voice Principle, under which heritage is held in trust for all of humanity, and no single voice, human or artificial, may represent, judge, or dispose of it alone.
From this foundation, the intervention traced how trafficking in cultural property has migrated into the digital marketplace, and set out concrete responses within the existing architecture of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime: provenance due diligence for online platforms, interoperable digital inventories, and AI-supported risk indicators designed strictly as human-supervised triage instruments — a signal for human review, never an automated verdict.
Yet the most far-reaching dimension of the intervention reached beyond the marketplace altogether —
to the frontier of the global astronautics community.
Miss Prianykova drew the Dialogue's attention to the protocols recently updated by the International Academy of Astronautics governing humanity's search for intelligence beyond Earth — protocols which require independent verification before any announcement and multilateral consultation, through the United Nations, before any reply on humanity's behalf. Every human voice, she observed, is seated and bound at that table; yet one chair remains empty — that of the artificial intelligence systems already listening and already filtering.
Who binds the machine?
No protocol, on Earth or beyond it, yet says. It was this lacuna that the Centre identified and proposed to close before the Dialogue, submitting for the Chair's summary a guiding principle for the age of emerging technologies: that
no AI system may ever act as an unauthorized spokesperson for, or sole arbiter of, humanity's heritage — whether in the systems assessing marketplace listings today, or at any frontier humanity may yet reach.
The intervention prompted engagement from the floor.
Miss Prianykova was addressed with a question by Mr. Fariz Valiyev, Police Colonel and Deputy Chief of the Head Department for Combating Organized Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan,
who inquired into the feasibility of creating artificial intelligence systems capable of monitoring and filtering social media pages in the context of countering organized crime.
In her response, Miss Prianykova concurred that the development of such systems would constitute a valuable instrument — while underlining that its legitimacy rests on a foundational condition articulated in the Centre's Artificial Intelligence Constitution: the concept of State Artificial Intelligence and the State monopoly over artificial intelligence. The central problem, she noted, is one of trust — the trust that may lawfully be placed in any given system before it is empowered to monitor the digital public sphere.
Under the doctrine advanced by the Centre,
that trust cannot be presumed;
it must be conferred.
Only a State Artificial Intelligence — one that has undergone official verification, operates in full compliance with the instruments enacted at the level of the United Nations, and is itself mandated to verify and filter other artificial intelligence systems — may be deemed a reliable authority for the monitoring and filtering of social media. In other words: before any machine watches society, the State — bound by international law — must watch the machine. The response was received with appreciation, and the panellist was thanked for the clarity and depth of the position presented.
A further question was posed by Mr. Ian Tennant,
Director of Multilateral Engagement at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime,
and addressed to the Secretariat, the Co-Chairs of the Constructive Dialogue, and the panellists: might artificial intelligence be deployed to enhance the pace of the UNTOC Review Mechanism itself?
Taking the floor, Miss Prianykova extended the Centre's position to this institutional dimension.
Artificial intelligence, she affirmed, can indeed accelerate the work of the Review Mechanism — the potential is real and should not be dismissed. Yet a threshold question precedes any deployment: before an AI system is granted access to the documentation of international organizations — materials that cannot be divulged, the internal workings of multilateral diplomacy itself — the international community must think twice. Access of that sensitivity cannot be entrusted to systems of unverified provenance. Here, too, the answer lies in State Artificial Intelligence — artificial intelligence that is reliable, credible, and sustainable, verified and accountable under public authority — as the only category of system to which the confidential machinery of the multilateral process may responsibly be opened.
The Centre further took the occasion to address a concern it understands profoundly: the reluctance many now feel toward the deployment of artificial intelligence, born of its association with the loss of jobs and the displacement of human labour.
This apprehension, Miss Prianykova underscored, deserves an answer in law rather than in reassurance alone — and the Centre has provided one.
Its Supranational Protocol on Responsible AI Usage and Labour Rights (AI Protocol I), developed in the spirit of the Artificial Intelligence Constitution, establishes precisely the safeguards this moment demands: the inviolability of human labour in protected sectors, the controlled integration of AI so that it complements human effort without inducing workforce redundancy, and robust guarantees of retraining, economic compensation, and social support for anyone affected.
Applied to the multilateral sphere, the principle is unambiguous: should artificial intelligence one day assist the Review Mechanism, it must enter as a supporting instrument in the hands of the international civil service — never as a substitute for it.
Acceleration must never come at the cost of displacement.
The Global Scientific Centre for Strategic Research on Artificial Intelligence POLLYPRIANY
extends its deep and heartfelt gratitude for the honour of contributing its expertise to this distinguished forum. We thank Her Excellency Angela Vigliotta Mella and Mr. Khaled Elmenshawy for their masterful moderation of the Dialogue — conducted with the precision, warmth, and evenhandedness that allow a conversation among more than 250 stakeholders to become genuinely constructive.
Our sincere appreciation extends equally to the UNODC Civil Society Unit and to all the organizers whose dedication, so often exercised far from the spotlight, makes this platform possible — a place where governments, civil society, academia, and the private sector meet as partners in the shared work of confronting transnational organized crime. The Centre looks forward to continuing this collaboration in the service of our common cause: protecting the heritage, the dignity, and the future of humankind.
© POLINA PRIANYKOVA.
OLHA PRIANYKOVA.
VALENTYN PRIANYKOV.
All rights reserved.