Our thinking

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker

What's inside

Keeping track of AI regulatory developments around the world.

The global dash to regulate AI

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made enormous strides in recent years and has increasingly moved into the public consciousness.

Increases in computational power, coupled with advances in machine learning, have fueled the rapid rise of AI. This has brought enormous opportunities, as new AI applications have given rise to new ways of doing business. It has also brought potential risks, from unintended impacts on individuals (e.g., AI errors harming an individual's credit score or public reputation) to the risk of misuse of AI by malicious third parties (e.g., by manipulating AI systems to produce inaccurate or misleading output, or by using AI to create deepfakes).

Governments and regulatory bodies around the world have had to act quickly to try to ensure that their regulatory frameworks do not become obsolete. In addition, international organizations such as the G7, the UN, the Council of Europe and the OECD have responded to this technological shift by issuing their own AI frameworks. But they are all scrambling to stay abreast of technological developments, and already there are signs that emerging efforts to regulate AI will struggle to keep pace. In an effort to introduce some degree of international consensus, the UK government organized the first global AI Safety Summit in November 2023, with the aim of encouraging the safe and responsible development of AI around the world. 

Most jurisdictions have sought to strike a balance between encouraging AI innovation and investment, while at the same time attempting to create rules to protect against possible harms. However, jurisdictions around the world have taken substantially different approaches to achieving these goals, which has in turn increased the risk that businesses face from a fragmented and inconsistent AI regulatory environment. Nevertheless, certain trends are becoming clearer at this stage:

  1. "AI" means different things in different jurisdictions: One of the foundational challenges that any international business faces when designing an AI regulatory compliance strategy is figuring out what constitutes "AI." Unfortunately, the definition of AI varies from one jurisdiction to the next. For example, the EU AI Act adopts a definition of "AI systems" that is based on (but is not identical to) the OECD's definition, and which leaves room for substantial doubt due to its uncertain wording. Canada has proposed a similar, though more concise, definition. Various US states have proposed their own definitions, which differ from one another. And many jurisdictions (e.g., the UK, Israel, China, and Japan) do not currently provide a comprehensive definition of AI. Because several of the proposed AI regulations have extraterritorial effect (meaning more than one AI regulation may apply simultaneously), international businesses may be forced to adopt a "highest common denominator" approach to identifying AI based on the strictest applicable standard.
  2. Emerging AI regulations come in different forms: The various emerging AI regulations have no consistent legal form – some are statutes, some are executive orders, some are expansions of existing regulatory frameworks, and so on. The EU AI Act is a "Regulation" (which means that most of it will apply directly in all EU Member States, without the need for national implementation in most cases). The UK has taken a different approach, declining to legislate at this early stage in the development of AI, and instead choosing to task existing UK regulators with the responsibility of interpreting and applying five AI principles in their respective spheres. In the US, there is a mix of White House Executive Orders, federal and state initiatives, and actions by existing regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission. As a result, the types of compliance obligations that international businesses face are likely to be materially different from one jurisdiction to the next. Many other jurisdictions have yet to decide whether they will issue sector-specific or generally applicable rules and have yet to decide between creating new regulators or expanding the roles of existing regulators, making it challenging for businesses to anticipate what form their AI regulatory relationships will take in the long term.
  3. Emerging AI regulations have different conceptual approaches: The next difficulty is the lack of a consistent conceptual approach among emerging AI regulations around the world – some are legally binding while others are not, some are sector-specific while others apply across all sectors, some will be enforced by regulators while others are merely guidelines or recommendations, and so on. As noted above, the UK approach is to use existing regulators to implement five AI principles, but with no new explicit legal obligations. This has the advantage of meaning that businesses will deal with AI regulators with whom they are already familiar but has the disadvantage that different UK regulators may interpret these principles differently in their respective spheres. The EU AI Act is cross-sectoral and creates new regulatory and enforcement powers for existing bodies, including the European Commission, and also creates entirely new bodies such as the AI Board and the AI Office, while leaving EU Member States to appoint their own AI regulators tasked with enforcing the EU AI Act. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Department of Justice issued a joint statement clarifying that their existing authority covers AI, while various state regulators are also likely to have competence to regulate AI. International organizations including the OECD, the UN, and the G7 have issued AI principles, but these impose no legal obligations on businesses. In principle, these initiatives encourage consistency across members of each organization, but in practice this does not seem to have worked.
  4. Flexibility is a double-edged sword: In an effort to create AI regulations that can adapt to technological advances that have not yet been anticipated, many jurisdictions have sought to include substantial flexibility in those regulations, either by using deliberately high-level wording and policies, or by allowing for future interpretation and application by courts and regulators. This has the obvious advantage of prolonging the lifespan of such regulations by allowing them to be adapted to future technologies. However, it also creates the disadvantage of uncertainty because it leaves businesses uncertain of how their compliance obligations will be interpreted in the future. This is likely to mean that it is harder for businesses to know whether their planned implementations of AI will be lawful in the medium-to-long term and may make it harder to attract long-term AI investment in those jurisdictions.
  5. The overlap between AI regulation and other areas of law is complex: A substantial number of laws that are not directly focused on AI nevertheless apply to AI by association within their respective spheres, meaning that any use of AI will often trigger compliance issues and legal challenges even where there is not (yet) any enforceable AI-specific law. These areas of overlap include: IP (e.g., IP infringement issues with respect to AI model training data, and questions about copyright and patentability of AI-assisted inventions); antitrust; data protection (which adds restrictions to processing of personal data, and in some cases imposes special compliance obligations for processing carried out by automated means, including by AI); M&A (where AI innovation is driving dealmaking in many markets); financial regulation (where financial regulatory requirements may limit the ways in which AI can lawfully be deployed); litigation; digital infrastructure; securities; global trade; foreign direct investment; mining & metals; and so on. This overlap will mean that many businesses need to understand not just AI regulations in general, but also any rules that affect the use of AI in the context of the relevant sector or business activity.

Businesses in almost all sectors need to keep a close eye on these developments to ensure that they are aware of the AI regulations and forthcoming trends, in order to identify new opportunities and new potential business risks. But even at this early stage, the inconsistent approaches each jurisdiction has taken to the core questions of how to regulate AI is clear. As a result, it appears that international businesses may face substantially different AI regulatory compliance challenges in different parts of the world. To that end, this AI Tracker is designed to provide businesses with an understanding of the state of play of AI regulations in the core markets in which they operate. It provides analysis of the approach that each jurisdiction has taken to AI regulation and provides helpful commentary on the likely direction of travel.

Because global AI regulations remain in a constant state of flux, this AI Tracker will develop over time, adding updates and new jurisdictions when appropriate. Stay tuned, as we continue to provide insights to help businesses navigate these ever-evolving issues.

Articles

Australia

Voluntary AI Ethics Principles guide responsible AI development in Australia, with potential reforms under consideration.

Australia

Brazil

The enactment of Brazil's proposed AI Regulation remains uncertain with compliance requirements pending review.

Sao Paulo

Canada

AIDA expected to regulate AI at the federal level in Canada but provincial legislatures have yet to be introduced.

Canada

China

The Interim AI Measures is China's first specific, administrative regulation on the management of generative AI services.

China

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is developing a new Convention on AI to safeguard human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the digital space covering governance, accountability and risk assessment.

European Union

Czech Republic

The successful implementation of the EU AI Act into national law is the primary focus for the Czech Republic, with its National AI Strategy being the main policy document.

Czech Republic

European Union

The EU introduces the pioneering EU AI Act, aiming to become a global hub for human-centric, trustworthy AI.

 

European Union

France

France actively participates in international efforts and proposes sector-specific laws.

Paris

G7

The G7's AI regulations mandate Member States' compliance with international human rights law and relevant international frameworks.

G7 flags

Germany

Germany evaluates AI-specific legislation needs and actively engages in international initiatives.

Germany

India

National frameworks inform India’s approach to AI regulation, with sector-specific initiatives in finance and health sectors.

India

Israel

Israel promotes responsible AI innovation through policy and sector-specific guidelines to address core issues and ethical principles.

Israel

Italy

Italy engages in political discussions for future laws.

Milan

Japan

Japan adopts a soft law approach to AI governance but lawmakers advance proposal for a hard law approach for certain harms.

Tokyo

Kenya

Kenya's National AI Strategy and Code of Practice expected to set foundation of AI regulation once finalized.

Kenya
Kenya

Nigeria

Nigeria's draft National AI Policy underway and will pave the way for a comprehensive national AI strategy.

Nigeria
Nigeria

Norway

Position paper informs Norwegian approach to AI, with sector-specific legislative amendments to regulate developments in AI.

Norway

OECD

The OECD's AI recommendations encourage Member States to uphold principles of trustworthy AI.

country flags

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is yet to enact AI Regulations, relying on guidelines to establish practice standards and general principles.

Riyadh_Hero_1600x600 Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Singapore's AI frameworks guide AI ethical and governance principles, with existing sector-specific regulations addressing AI risks.

Singapore

South Africa

South Africa is yet to announce any AI regulation proposals but is in the process of obtaining inputs for a draft National AI plan.

Johannesburg

South Korea

South Korea's AI Act to act as a consolidated body of law governing AI once approved by the National Assembly.

Korea

Spain

Spain creates Europe's first AI supervisory agency and actively participates in EU AI Act negotiations.

Madrid

Switzerland

Switzerland's National AI Strategy sets out guidelines for the use of AI, and aims to finalize an AI regulatory proposal in 2025.

Switzerland

Taiwan

Draft laws and guidelines are under consideration in Taiwan, with sector-specific initiatives already in place.

Taiwan city

Turkey

Turkey has published multiple guidelines on the use of AI in various sectors, with a bill for AI regulation now in the legislative process.

Türkiye

United Arab Emirates

Mainland UAE has published an array of decrees and guidelines regarding regulation of AI, while the ADGM and DIFC free zones each rely on amendments to existing data protection laws to regulate AI.

UAE

United Kingdom

The UK prioritizes a flexible framework over comprehensive regulation and emphasizes sector-specific laws.

London hero image

United Nations

The UN's new draft resolution on AI encourages Member States to implement national regulatory and governance approaches for a global consensus on safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems.

United Nations

United States

The US relies on existing federal laws and guidelines to regulate AI but aims to introduce AI legislation and a federal regulation authority.

New York city photo

Contacts

Tim Hickman
Partner
London
Erin Hanson
Partner
New York
Dr. Sylvia Lorenz
Partner
Berlin
European Union

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker - Council of Europe

The Council of Europe has adopted a new Convention on AI to safeguard human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the digital space covering governance, accountability and risk assessment.

Insight
|
7 min read

Laws/Regulations directly regulating AI (the “AI Regulations”)

The Council of Europe (CoE) adopted the first ever international treaty aimed at ensuring the respect of human rights, rule of law, and democracy legal standards in the use of AI systems ("the AI Convention") on May 17, 2024.1 The AI Convention is intended to function as a "global legally binding instrument".2

Status of the AI Regulations

The AI Convention was formally adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the CoE (Ministers of Foreign Affairs) on May 17, 2024.3  On September 5, 20244, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention5 on AI was signed by Andorra, Georgia, Iceland, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, the United Kingdom, Israel, the United States, and the European Union. The treaty will enter into force on the first day of the month following three months after five signatories, including at least three Council of Europe Member States, have ratified it. Countries from all over the world will be eligible to join and commit to its provisions.

Other laws affecting AI

The CoE has various legally binding instruments and non-binding guidelines that may affect the development or use of AI systems. A non-exhaustive list of key examples includes:

  • The European Convention on Human Rights6
  • The Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection7
  • The European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems and their environment8
  • The Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data9

Definition of “AI”

AI system is defined in the AI Convention as "a machine-based system that for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that may influence physical or virtual environments."10 The AI Convention notes that different artificial intelligence systems vary in their levels of autonomy and adaptiveness after deployment.

Territorial scope

The AI Convention would apply to all of the CoE Member States that choose to sign it. This could include, for example, individual EU Member States and the UK.

However, whether or not certain CoE Members choose to sign the AI Convention (and submit to the AI Convention's territorial scope) is likely to be influenced by the outcome of the final reading. For example, it has been suggested that the UK will not sign the AI Convention if its provisions also apply to the private sector.

Sectoral scope

The AI Convention will:11

(i) Apply to the activities within the lifecycle of AI systems undertaken by public authorities or entities acting on their behalf where such systems have the potential to interfere with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law

(ii) Not apply to activities within the lifecycle of AI systems relates to protection of a CoE Member's security interests, in so far as the activities are conducted in a manner consistent with applicable international law (e.g., human rights law)

(iii) Not apply to research and development activities regarding AI systems, unless those activities12 have the potential to interfere with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law

(iv) Require each signatory to take appropriate steps for the realization of the AI Convention in respect of the activities within the lifecycle of AI systems by private entities, where such systems have the potential to interfere with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

Compliance roles

The AI Convention effectively creates compliance roles on two tiers: the obligations in the AI Convention apply directly to signatories (being CoE Members), but compliance with those obligations will ultimately impact AI actors throughout the lifecycle of AI systems. For example, Article 8 (Transparency and oversight) requires each signatory to "adopt or maintain measures to ensure that adequate transparency and oversight requirements […] are in place in respect of activities within the lifecycle of [AI] systems."13 As another example, Article 9 (Accountability and responsibility) requires each signatory to "adopt or maintain measures to ensure accountability and responsibility for adverse impacts on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law resulting from activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems."14 The signatories' implementation of such provisions will inevitably impact developers, deployers, and managers of AI systems.

Core issues that the AI Regulations seek to address

The AI Convention aims to address ethical, legal, and societal issues arising from the use of AI systems by ensuring "that activities within the lifecycle of AI systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law."15

Risk categorization

The AI Convention does not categorize AI systems according to risk. However, it will require signatories to adopt a risk-based approach. For example:

  • Article 1 (Object and purpose) requires signatories to adopt specific or horizontal measures that are "graduated and differentiated" as necessary to give effect to its provisions, with reference to the severity and probability of the occurrence of adverse impacts on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law throughout the lifecycle of AI systems16
  • Article 16 (Risk and impact management framework) requires signatories to adopt or maintain measures for the identification, assessment, prevention, and mitigation of risks posed by AI systems by considering actual and potential impacts of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law17

Key compliance requirements

Chapter II (General obligations) of the AI Convention establishes the general obligations that each signatory must comply with, which include the implementation of measures:

  • To ensure that the activities within the lifecycle of AI systems are compatible with obligations to protect human rights, as enshrined in applicable international law, and in the signatories' domestic law
  • That seek to ensure that AI systems are not used to undermine the integrity, independence and effectiveness of democratic institutions and processes, including the principle of separation of powers, respect for judicial independence and access to justice18

Chapter III (Principles related to activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems) establishes the general principles that each signatory must reflect in the measures they implement to ensure compliance with the AI Convention. A non-exhaustive list of the applicable principles includes:

  • Respecting human dignity and individual autonomy related to activities within the lifecycle of AI systems19
  • Ensuring that adequate transparency and oversight requirements tailored to specific contexts and risks are in place20
  • Ensuring accountability and responsibility for adverse impacts21 resulting from activities within the lifecycle of AI systems
  • Ensuring that activities related to the lifecycle of AI systems respect equality, including gender equality, and prohibition of discrimination22 
  • Protect privacy rights of individuals and personal data in the context of activities within the lifecycle of AI systems23 
  • Promoting reliability, safety, validity, and trust in artificial intelligence systems24

Regulators

Each signatory will be required to establish or designate effective regulatory oversight mechanisms to oversee compliance with the obligations in the AI Convention.25 The exercise of regulatory duties must be independent and impartial, and any such regulator must have the necessary powers, expertise, and resources to effectively fulfil their task of overseeing compliance with the AI Convention.

Enforcement powers and penalties

The AI Convention requires that each CoE signatory must: (i) take measures to ensure the availability of accessible and effective remedies for violations of human rights resulting from the activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems; and (ii) ensure that effective procedural guarantees, safeguards, and rights, in accordance with applicable domestic and international law, are available to persons affected thereby.

1 The official CoE publication; the AI Convention (17 May 2024).
2 See the
Overview of the Council of Europe activities on Artificial Intelligence, page 10.
3 See the
CoE Committee's announcement of the AI Convention's approval
4 See Council of Europe press release here.
5 See
Convention text here
6
Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection.
7
European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems and their environment.
8
The Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108).
9 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 2 (Definition of artificial intelligence systems).
10 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 3 (Scope).
11 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 3 (Scope).
12 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 8 (Transparency and oversight).
13 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 9 (Accountability and responsibility).
14 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 1 (Object and purpose).
15 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 1 (Object and purpose).
16 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 16 (Risk and impact management framework).
17 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Articles 4 (Protection of human rights) and 5 (Integrity of democratic processes and respect for the rule of law).
18 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024),Article 7 (Human dignity and individual autonomy).
19 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024),Article 8 (Transparency and oversight).
20 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 9 (Accountability and responsibility).
21 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 10 (Equality and non-discrimination).
22 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 11 (Privacy and personal data protection).
23 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 12 (Reliability).
24 The
AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 26 (Effective oversight mechanisms).
25 See
the AI Convention (17 May 2024), Article 14 (Remedies) and Article 15 (Procedural safeguards).

White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.

This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.

© 2024 White & Case LLP

Daniel Mair (Trainee Solicitor, White & Case, Paris) contributed to this publication.

Top