Mapping General-Purpose AI Governance in Twenty AI Middle-Power Jurisdictions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19278v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 23:28:57 GMT
• Title: Mapping General-Purpose AI Governance in Twenty AI Middle-Power Jurisdictions
• Abstract summary: General-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in the U.S. and China.<n>But advanced economies hosting no frontier developer are writing their own rules to govern GPAI.<n>This paper investigates which GPAI-relevant provisions these AI middle-powers have enacted.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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. Regionally advanced economies hosting no frontier developer, which we call AI middle-powers, are writing their own rules to govern GPAI. This paper investigates which GPAI-relevant provisions these AI middle-powers have enacted, mapping twenty jurisdictions including the European Union at the level of the individual provision, across four governance areas that trace the accountability chain for the model layer: systemic risk assessment, evaluation and verification, prohibitions with monitoring and detection, and serious incident reporting. Confirmed absence is recorded as data alongside positive provision. We find that jurisdictions converge on form, but diverge on force. Sixteen engage in at least three of the four governance areas, yet only about one in five provisions sit in binding law, and three-quarters of the instruments that do bind do so without defining GPAI. The institutional infrastructure shows the same shape: four in five of the mapped governance actors hold mandates that predate GPAI, and obligations attach wherever the inherited regime already reached, which is the application layer rather than the model. Where these states engage the model layer, they build capacity to observe it rather than impose duties on those who build it, and almost every evaluation body was constituted without the power to act on what it finds. Nominal coverage of the full accountability chain reaches eleven jurisdictions, but only five hold more than one provision in every area and, outside the EU, no jurisdiction imposes a binding evaluation duty on a model developer. The dataset gives researchers and policymakers a provision-level basis for identifying where regimes could align, and where coordination would have to start from scratch.

Related papers

• Open Veins of Algorithmic Auditing: Why AI Assessment Lags Behind Its Deployment in the Global South [45.88028371034407]
  Artificial intelligence is being deployed across the Global South at a pace matching or exceeding the Global North.<n>Yet AI governance has not kept pace, and the gap is far wider in the South.<n>This paper documents patterns in the sparse field of Global South AI evaluation and explains why it so rarely occurs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T13:39:38Z)
• SCITUS: A Multi-Jurisdictional Framework for Adapting NIST AI RMF to the Canadian Regulatory Context [0.1269104766024433]
  We present a comprehensive framework adapting NIST AI RMF 1.0 to Canadian federal and provincial AI regulations simultaneously.<n>SCITUS integrates seven trustworthy-AI characteristics enhanced for Canadian requirements.<n>We argue that systematic adaptation of NIST AI RMF to multi-jurisdictional requirements offers significant advantages over jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction compliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-16T14:29:52Z)
• Global Index on Responsible AI: 2026 Report [0.0]
  The Global Index on Responsible AI examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms.<n>GIRAI 2026 assesses these across five dimensions: Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and AI Use in Public Service.<n>A score of 100 is derived from the indicators to rank all countries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-16T10:00:56Z)
• Governing What the EU AI Act Excludes: Accountability for Autonomous AI Agents in Smart City Critical Infrastructure [1.1002771741647328]
  The paper contributes a regulatory gap analysis and governance architecture for an important class of urban AI.<n>It presents a three-layer architecture (Agent, Orchestration, City) specifying 25 governance measures.<n>Five conflict resolution rules and an autonomy-calibrated activation model complete the design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T20:50:34Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• From Reactive to Proactive: A Multi-Regulatory Empirical Analysis of 480 AI Incidents and a Data-Driven Governance Compliance Framework [0.0]
  The study presents a cross empirical analysis of 480 realworld AI incidents from the AI Incident Database.<n>The results reveal substantial governance gaps, indicating persistent weaknesses in post-deployment accountability.<n>The study proposes the Proactive AI Governance Compliance Framework (PAGCF) to shift governance from reactive incident response toward pre-deployment compliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T21:22:55Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Verifying International Agreements on AI: Six Layers of Verification for Rules on Large-Scale AI Development and Deployment [0.7364983833280243]
  This report provides an in-depth overview of AI verification, intended for both policy professionals and technical researchers.<n>We present novel conceptual frameworks, detailed implementation options, and key R&D challenges.<n>We find that states could eventually verify compliance by using six largely independent verification approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T17:45:15Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI [93.33036653316591]
  We call for three interventions to advance system safety.<n>First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers.<n>Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs.<n>Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T05:09:46Z)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Roadmap to Society's Trust through Trustworthy AI, Auditability, Accountability, and Governance [37.10526074040908]
  This paper explores the concept of a responsible AI system from a holistic perspective.<n>The final goal of the paper is to propose a roadmap in the design of responsible AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T14:47:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.