Global AI governance: barriers and pathways forward

Huw Roberts · Emmie Hine · Mariarosaria Taddeo · Luciano Floridi

146 citations0/0 files storedInternational Affairs

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Ethics and Social Impacts of AI International Relations and Foreign Policy Digitalization, Law, and Regulation

Abstract

Abstract Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), combined with a proliferation in use, have led to a newfound emphasis on strengthening the global governance of AI. In this article, we assess the prospects for stronger global AI governance and consider potential pathways forward. We map the nascent landscape of international regimes focused on AI governance and conclude that a governance deficit remains due to the inadequacy of existing initiatives, gaps in the landscape and difficulties reaching agreement over more appropriate mechanisms. First-order cooperation problems stemming from interstate competition and second-order cooperation problems from dysfunctional international institutions problematize overcoming current deficiencies in global AI governance. In light of these cooperation problems, we evaluate two pathways for strengthening global AI governance: (a) developing new centralized international AI institution(s); and (b) strengthening coordination between, and capacities of, existing institutions. We argue that strengthening the existing weak ‘regime complex’ of international institutions is the more politically legitimate and viable path forward. Improving coordination between, and capacities of, existing international institutions governing AI would support inclusive and mutually reinforcing policy change that can mitigate a range of risks associated with these technologies. As first steps for strengthening the weak AI regime complex, we recommend that the OECD is foregrounded as a centre of expert AI knowledge so that it can facilitate peer pressure among states and harmonization of policies. We also encourage scrutiny of different nodes in the regime complex to ensure that they are fulfilling appropriate functions based on their democratic mandates.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 146 citations exist upstream.

References

2019The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines 1985Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions 2006The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions 2021Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act — Analysing the good, the bad, and the unclear elements of the proposed approach 2000Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges 2020The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation 2006The Principal's Moral Hazard: Constraints on the Use of Incentives in Hierarchy

Cited by

2024The governance of artificial intelligence in Canada: Findings and opportunities from a review of 84 AI governance initiatives 2024Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: a focused review on ChatGPT and responsible research and innovation 2024Governance fix? Power and politics in controversies about governing generative AI 2025A Systematic Review of Responsible Artificial Intelligence Principles and Practice 2025A five-layer framework for AI governance: integrating regulation, standards, and certification

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.