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
United Nations

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker - 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.

Insight
|
7 min read

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

The United Nations (UN) adopted a draft resolution on AI, entitled "Seizing the opportunities of safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development" (the "Resolution") on 
March 21, 2024. The Resolution was backed by more than 120 Member States and aims to encourage countries to safeguard human rights, protect personal data and monitor AI for risks on a non-legally binding basis.1 It was designed to complement other work done by the UN, including the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Human Rights Council.

On September 19, 2024, the UN's High-level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence released "Governing AI for Humanity," a final report2 on global AI governance. Developed through extensive feedback and consultations, the report emphasizes inclusive, coordinated, and effective AI regulation. It recommends: (i) establishing an international scientific panel on AI, (ii) initiating policy dialogues, (iii) creating an AI standards exchange, (iv) forming a capacity development network, (v) launching a global AI fund, (vi) developing a global data framework, and (vii) setting up an AI office within the UN Secretariat. Grounded in principles aligned with human rights and international law, the report calls for international cooperation to ensure equitable AI benefits while mitigating risks. Although it does not advocate for a new international AI agency, it acknowledges the potential future need for enhanced governance mechanisms. The report also highlights AI's economic impact and stresses the importance of governance for fair outcomes and skills development, envisioning a globally inclusive framework that balances AI's potential with human rights protection.

Status of the AI Regulations 

The UN does not have the ability to pass laws or regulations regarding AI or its implementation. However, the UN Charter gives the General Assembly the power to initiate studies and make recommendations to promote the development and codification of international law. In the future, the General Assembly may vote on other AI resolutions, which are expressions of the Member States' views and are not legally binding. 

Other laws affecting AI

The Resolution aims to reach a global consensus on safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems, and encourages its Member States to implement and develop their distinct national regulatory and governance approaches and frameworks for the full realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.3

In addition, there are various existing frameworks that do not directly seek to regulate AI but may affect the development or use of AI in the UN. For example:

  • International human rights law continues to apply (e.g., the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc.) 
  • Private sector activities of all AI actors should comply with domestic laws and international frameworks, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the UN "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Definition of “AI”

The Resolution does not establish an independent definition of "AI." Instead, it sets out "the safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems" that refer to "artificial intelligence systems in the non-military domain, whose life cycle includes the stages: pre-design, design, development, evaluation, testing, deployment, use, sale, procurement, operation and decommissioning, and are such that they are human-centric, reliable, explainable, ethical, inclusive, in full respect, promotion and protection of human rights and international law, privacy preserving, sustainable development oriented, and responsible —and have the potential to accelerate and enable progress towards the achievement of all 17 Sustainable Development Goals and sustainable development in its three dimensions —economic, social and environmental— in a balanced and integrated manner; promote digital transformation; promote peace; overcome digital divides between and within countries; and promote and protect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, while keeping the human person at the centre".4 

Territorial scope

The Resolution does not have a specific territorial scope. Its primary goal is to ensure "safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems" on a global level. It encourages all 193 Member States and multi-stakeholders from all regions and countries (including from the private sector, international and regional organizations, civil society, the media, academia and research institutions and technical communities and individuals) to develop and support regulatory and governance frameworks.5

Sectoral scope 

The Resolution is not sector-specific. It is aimed at all sectors and actors on a global level. 

Compliance roles 

The Resolution encourages all Member States and stakeholders to develop and support the realization of "safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems", but does not designate explicit compliance roles.

Core issues that the AI Regulations seek to address

The Resolution seeks to: 

  • Bridge the AI and other digital divides between and within countries 
  • Promote safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems
  • Encourage Member States and all stakeholders within their roles and responsibilities, support and develop regulatory and governance frameworks for safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems that create an enabling ecosystem at all levels
  • Call on Member States and other stakeholders to take action and assist developing countries toward inclusive and access to the benefits of digital transformation
  • Emphasize that the human rights and fundamental freedoms must be respected, protected and promoted throughout the life cycle of artificial intelligence systems; call on all Member States and, where applicable, other stakeholders to refrain from or cease the use of artificial intelligence systems that are impossible to operate in compliance with international human rights law 
  • Emphasize the fair, inclusive, responsible and effective data governance
  • Encourage the private sector to adhere to applicable international and domestic laws and act in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Right
  • Call on specialized agencies, funds, programs or other entities to assess and enhance their response to leverage the opportunities and address challenges posed by AI systems6

Risk categorization

AI is not explicitly categorized according to risk in the Resolution.

Key compliance requirements 

The Resolution does not impose compliance requirements but calls on Member States and other stakeholders to take action and assist developing countries toward inclusivity and access to the benefits of digital transformation, including by: 

  • Expanding participation of all countries in harnessing the benefits of digital transformation (increasing digital literacy, closing the digital divide) 
  • Enhancing digital infrastructure connectivity and access to technological innovations through stronger partnerships to help developing countries effectively participate throughout the life cycle of artificial intelligence systems, and accelerate the inclusive and positive contribution of artificial intelligence systems to society
  • Enhancing the ability of developing countries to address major structural impediments to accessing the benefits of new and emerging technologies and AI innovation
  • Aiming to increase funding for Sustainable Development Goals –related research and innovation (for digital technologies) 
  • Enabling international innovation-based environments for developing countries to develop technical expertise and capabilities
  • Urgently mobilizing means of implementation such as technology transfer on mutually agreed terms
  • Promoting access and design, development and use of safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems7

The Resolution also encourages Member States and other stakeholders to (for the benefit of all) address the world's greatest challenges and achieve sustainable development in economic, social and environmental dimensions (with specific consideration of developing countries) by: 

  • Promoting the development and implementation of domestic regulatory and governance approaches and frameworks 
  • Encouraging effective measures that promote innovation (to identify, classify, evaluate and mitigate risks)
  • Encouraging incorporation of feedback mechanisms (for discovery and reporting of misuse of AI systems)
  • Raising public awareness and understanding of the core functions of AI systems
  • Fostering the development, implementation and disclosure of risk monitoring and management mechanisms
  • Strengthening investments in developing and implementing effective safeguards (like risk and impact assessments, security systems) 
  • Encouraging the development and deployment of effective and internationally interoperable technical tools and standards or practices to identify information manipulation
  • Facilitating the development and implementation of effective, international interoperable frameworks and standards for training and testing AI systems
  • Encouraging the implementation of appropriate safeguards for intellectual property rights
  • Safeguarding privacy and protection of personal data
  • Promoting transparency, predictability and reliability throughout the life cycle of AI systems that make or support decisions impacting end-users 
  • Promoting AI systems that preserve and protect linguistic and cultural diversity 
  • Intensifying information sharing on mutually agreed terms among entities within roles across an AI system life cycle8

Regulators

As the Resolution has no enforcement powers on its Member States, there are no regulators under the Resolution, nor does the Resolution stipulate how the Member States should regulate AI systems in their own jurisdictions. 

Enforcement powers and penalties 

As the Resolution is not legally binding, it does not confer enforcement powers or give rise to any penalties for non-compliance. 

1 See text of UN report here.
2 See the
UN News Article and the Resolution.
3 See
the Resolution, pages 3 and 4. 
4 See
the Resolution, page 2.
5 See
the Resolution, pages 3 and 4.
6 See
the Resolution, pages 3 to 7. 
7 See
the Resolution, pages 4 and 5.
8 See
the Resolution, pages 6 and 7. 

Jeffrey Shin (Trainee Solicitor, White & Case, London) contributed to this publication.

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

 

Top