One of the must obvious equivalences of Axiom of Choice is the converse of Krull Theorem. Bernhard Banaschewski in the Article titled by A New Proof that “Krull implies Zorn” showed a very simple proof of the following statement.

Theorem: the existence of maximal ideals in a ring with unity is equivalent to Axiom of choice.

This means that every attempt to prove the existence of maximal ideals is related to apply the Axiom of Choice.

Another important theorem in commutative algebra is Cohen's theorem, which tells us that if $R$ is a commutative ring with unity and $I$ is an ideal of $R$ disjoint from a multiplicative closed subset $S\subset R$, then there exists a prime ideal $P$ so that $I \subset P$ and $P\cap S=\varnothing$.

Cohen's theorem implies that In a commutative ring with unity there exists a prime ideal. Notice that this prime ideal need not be a maximal ideal but we need to apply Zorn's Lemma to show the existence of it. Now Here are my Questions:

Is it true that For Showing the existence of prime ideal in a commutative ring with unity we need the Axiom of choice or we can show the existence of it without applying this Axiom?

If the Answer of above Question is negative, what kind of Axiom weaker than Axiom of choice is needed to show the existence of prime ideals in a commutative ring?

What kind of relation is between the Axiom of countable choice and The existence of prime ideals in a commutative ring with unity?

Consequences of the Axiom of Choiceby Howard and Rubin. There is also a website where one can query relationships between different consequences of AC -- consequences.emich.edu/conseq.htm -- the form you're interested in is 14AO. $\endgroup$