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.
arXiv:2601.04094v4 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Effective regulation of AI is a defining policy challenge, driven by their integration into all aspects of society. To remain responsive to their rap...
arXiv:2608. 15417v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used.
The paper introduces MARLA, a conceptual scaffold for regulatory learning under the EU AI Act, outlining a five‑stage cycle—Map, Assess, Report, Learn, Adapt—focused on implementing legal requirements into socio‑technical practices across local, national, and European levels. It emphasizes that regulatory learning must translate evidence from implementation into governance and legal knowledge to support consistent interpretation, effective oversight, and adaptation as technologies evolve. The scaffold is deliberately non‑prescriptive, offering a shared vocabulary for technical and legal stakeholders, and is illustrated through two pilot case studies and a prospective national‑to‑European illustration.
arXiv:2608. 02699v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When algorithms make or influence consequential decisions---about loan eligibility, hiring, or healthcare---EU law grants affected individuals a Right to Explanation.
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.
Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it. Article 3(1) of the AI Act uses the capability to infer constitutively: it is the central feature separating the regulated category from conventional software.
The paper argues that AI governance should rely on ISO-like interoperability protocols rather than solely on jurisdiction-specific laws. It proposes standardized AI nutrition labels that include metrics for bias, energy usage, and data provenance to enable machine‑readable risk communication across borders. These protocols aim to reduce regulatory fragmentation, lower barriers for SMEs, and build public trust while allowing modular evolution with technology.
Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used. Comparing these national approaches is difficult. A binding rule and a detailed volu...
The paper systematically classifies the EU AI Act’s high‑risk requirements, finding that only a minority directly address AI‑specific risk sources while most impose organizational and documentation obligations. From these risk‑related requirements, the authors derive a consolidated list of distinct AI‑specific risk sources, creating an EU AI Act Risk Source List. This list aims to bridge the gap between legal obligations and AI risk‑management practice by providing a structured reference for comparing the Act’s implicit risk coverage with existing AI risk taxonomies.
The paper "Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act" outlines a detailed framework for implementing AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) under the EU AI Act. It maps the sandbox lifecycle into 29 activities, distinguishes between a Core AIRS and an Extended AIRS that includes an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS), and derives 15 infrastructural and governance requirements linked to these activities and provider obligations. The authors also introduce the Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source tool to instantiate AITS environments, aiming to provide structured workflows for regulators, robust evaluation methods for experts, and a transparent compliance pathway for AI providers.
arXiv:2608. 10601v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it.
arXiv:2608. 14562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI governance is shifting from voluntary ethics to enforceable, risk-based regulation, yet cross-jurisdictional divergence creates compliance uncertainty for operators of high-stakes AI.