arXiv:2608. 11006v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Governments worldwide have responded to the rapid expansion of AI by publishing national and regional AI strategies.
By Benjamin Faveri, Brie Bhasin
Governments worldwide have responded to the rapid expansion of AI by publishing national and regional AI strategies. Comparing national and regional AI strategies to identify their convergences and divergences can uncover their common practices, understand regional variations, and provide policy designers a comprehensive set of policy design elements for their ongoing AI strategy developments.
arXiv:2608. 13272v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A small number of firms based in two states produce the most capable frontier AI models.
By Alan Woodward, Andrew Rogoyski
arXiv:2606. 07245v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI sovereignty is the extent to which a nation independently controls its artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.
By Timothy Clancy, Asmeret Naugle
The essay reviews Matthijs Maas’s framework for global AI governance, highlighting the rapid, border‑less development of AI and the fragmented, non‑binding international responses. It argues that governance cannot rely on a single institutional blueprint but must account for the varied powers of states, international bodies, and private firms. The central challenge is shaping an evolving architecture amid actors with differing incentives and no shared plans.
By Simon Chesterman
arXiv:2608. 19278v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The most capable general-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in two jurisdictions, the United States and China, but the risks they carry land globally.
By Josephine Schwab, Nathan Naidoo, Ferruccio Barazzutti, Sheryn Lee, Caio Vieira Machado
arXiv:2607. 02955v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We argue that AI systems used in conducting foreign policy tasks - broadly enacting 'statecraft' - should be a priority test case for technical AI governance research.
By Charles Pozniak, Jeba Sania
arXiv:2607. 26068v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing AI governance frameworks, including the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF, address safety, transparency, and accountability but do not operationalize quantitative constraints on macro-socioeconomic stability.
By Sivasathivel Kandasamy
arXiv:2606. 01417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Turkey's e-Government Gateway (e-Devlet) serves over 68 million registered users with more than 9,200 government services, and is increasingly integrating artificial intelligence into citizen-facing applications such as chatbot assistants and eligibility assessments.
By Ahmet Kaplan
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
By Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti
arXiv:2606. 12415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid global expansion of artificial intelligence regulation has generated, across multiple jurisdictions, a demand for legal expertise dedicated to AI that the market has addressed in a fragmented manner.
By Nicola Fabiano
arXiv:2607. 13040v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper examines where final authority should sit once capable AI systems are embedded in organizational workflows.
By Zexun Wang