We Need Global AI Governance. US, EU Want To Impose Their Models, But Global South Differs

This undoubtedly creates the need to adopt a nuanced and balanced approach for responsible global AI governance. The US, EU, India, Brazil, China, and G33 have put forth their contrasting models of global AI governance. The competing interests of countries in their vision of a global AI regulatory architecture shows how they diverge.

Interestingly, in November 2021, 193 members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) introduced the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. This landmark development states that any global AI framework should demonstrate "systematic normative reflection" rooted in human values and rights.

All members gave a favourable response to this approach for formulating rules on global AI governance, but its voluntary status diminished its practical implementation as it depended on normative power rather than legal enforcement. Everyone wants a commonly agreed-upon practical application, even though their approaches diverge.

US And EU At Loggerheads

The biggest divergence is between the US and the EU, as they compete to shape global rule-making for AI governance. Both recognise the importance of AI and its potential in different sectors. However, their respective approaches and policies demonstrate significantly disparate normative positions.

A deep dive reveals that these differences are shaped by their respective development models. The US’s approach is influenced by a technocratic philosophy, with a focus on market-oriented systems, minimising State intervention. It believes market-driven models allow tech firms to innovate with minimal government interference, confined solely to the realm of national security.

While the US has already been legislating a raft of domestic AI-related policies, it has yet to examine the social implications of a comprehensive federal regulatory framework to regulate AI-related tech. The unregulated environment for AI development raises serious concerns about the unbridled power of big tech, how it affects society negatively, while also undermining a level playing field for innovation.

The EU approach is based on its social democratic ethos and distinctive global influence. It has been championing a normative “European Model” of global AI development that gives significant importance to inclusive, participatory, and human-centric philosophies.

The European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade places people at the centre of digital transformation. However, the evolving regulatory framework is witnessing a remarkable shift and emphasis toward overly regulated environments that could impede tech advancements, thereby emphasising a more nuanced and balanced approach.

Where Developing Countries Stand On AI Governance

Developing countries like India and Brazil recognise the challenges stemming from AI-led tech developments, and underscore the importance of collective bargaining to establish governance standards. They contend that the critical need for technology transfer, capacity building, and financial support to the Global South to handle the intricacies of AI has led to many of the developments in this field.

The G77 countries and China underscore the importance of developing a multi-tiered governance structure with well-defined roles and responsibilities. They stress the need for financial support, capacity building, technology transfer, and open-source systems for developing countries to build localised solutions. 

These countries have also exhibited considerable strategic autonomy by proposing their own AI strategies and governance structures. For example, India's "National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence", which foregrounds ethical research ecosystems for socio-economic development, or the African Union's emphasis on a "people-centric" and "local-first" approach, and Brazil’s rights-based AI Bill that emphasises human oversight.

One common element of these AI-related initiatives from developing countries is that they underscore the importance of using AI in national contexts, human rights, and development goals, thus providing substantial alternative frameworks to those of the US and EU.

It is important to note that UN-led initiatives like the Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the Independent International Scientific Panel can prove to be inclusive platforms where concerns of developing countries are heard and their concerns addressed.

The efficacy of these platforms depends on ensuring proper participation, tangible and action-oriented results, and securing sufficient financial support for the capacity-building imperatives. The pursuit of globally regulated AI necessitates transcending the competitive dynamics of a few dominant powers into a more collaborative and inclusive approach.

What The World Now Needs

Ultimately, effectively managing the AI landscape requires a concerted global endeavour that surpasses geopolitical rivalry and recognises various realities across the world.

Developing nations have the issue of not only advancing technologically, but also establishing an AI framework that corresponds with their developmental goals and collective human values.

The experiences and proactive strategies originating from the Global South should be regarded not merely as examples but as vital contributions to constructing a future in which AI genuinely benefits all of humanity, promoting equity and collective prosperity instead of exacerbating global inequalities. 

(The writer is an Associate Professor, Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities, O P Jindal Global University, Sonipat. Views are personal)