framed explicitly in these terms, Chi- na’s recent proposal for a new global AI cooperation organisation focusing on the Global South’s interests can be interpreted as a counterpart to the G7. MANAGING THE RISKS, ADVANCING GLOBAL AI GOVERNANCE However, such initiatives do not discount the progress made in multilateral efforts at global AI gov- ernance. Indeed, multilateral progress in a highly technical and multifac- eted domain such as AI governance deserves due recognition. Yet, given the current trajectory, two signifi- cant risks confront the international community. The first is the ‘fragmen- tation risk’, where duelling global AI governance regimes – one centred on the G7 and the other on Chinese-led efforts – could divide global standard setting and disrupt AI value chains. The second is the ‘hollowness risk’, whereby newly created mechanisms such as the Scientific Panel and Global Dialogue risk remain under-resourced and fail to generate the changes needed for global AI governance. Addi- tionally, as private sector acctors remain the primary developers and deployers of AI and their practices often set de facto standards, the risks of both fragmentation and hollowness will be amplified should they not be meaningfully engaged. This is where the G20 can play an indispensable role. It includes the advanced economies of the G7, the BRICS economies and other influen- tial middle powers, thereby making it more globally representative. As the only platform where competing blocs convene at the same table, the G20 has the potential to serve as a genuine space for convergence – provided its leaders can muster the political will to prevent the emergence of splintered
global AI governance regimes. The G20 also possesses a distinct advantage in terms of practical leverage as G20 members are both AI developers and large markets. Furthermore, by incor- porating private sector perspectives, the G20 can also ensure its commit- ments are reinforced by the actors shaping AI’s growth trajectory. If the G20 coordinates effectively on global AI governance, it would not only pre- vent fragmentation but also provide a foundation for broader multilateral alignment, including within the UN system. A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK FOR INCLUSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE AI Although challenging, the agenda- setting power of the G20 should not be underestimated. It has proven itself capable of shaping ambitious global agendas, such as advancing finan- cial regulation after the 2008 global financial crisis or reinforcing momen- tum for the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. In addition, the G20 does not operate in isolation. A range of technical bodies, such as the Inter- national Telecommunication Union and ISO, can help translate high-level declarations into the capacity-build- ing initiatives needed for effective global AI governance. G20 leaders must therefore work towards a Johannesburg declaration on AI governance by committing to concrete next steps. Such a declara- tion should not be merely aspirational. It must outline clear priorities for global AI governance such as safety, transparency and accountability. It should also recognise the need to sup- port capacity building in developing contexts and align global AI govern- ance aspirations with the private sector’s objectives. In parallel, leaders should mandate the development of detailed action plans to operationalise the objectives articulated in the UNGA resolution, including how G20 mem- bers will engage with and support the Scientific Panel and Global Dialogue. A forward-looking declaration issued at the 2025 Johannesburg Summit will demonstrate how the G20 can deliver on practical convergence and mean- ingful progress when it comes to global AI governance.
// CHRIS ALDEN Chris Alden is a professor of interna- tional relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the director of LSE IDEAS. He was a co-chair of the G20’s Task Force on Reformed Multilateralism for India’s G20 2023 presidency.
X-TWITTER @lseideas www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS
// KENDDRICK CHAN Kenddrick Chan is head of the Tech- nology and International Affairs project at LSE IDEAS, the foreign policy think tank of the London School of Economics. He is also a doctoral candidate at the Univer- sity of Oxford and was a 2022–2023 Fellow at the Portulans Institute.
Two Risks for Global AI Governance:
Fragmentation risk: Competing G7 - and China-led regimes could split standards and disrupt AI value chains. Hollowness risk: New mechanisms the UN Scientific Panel and Global Dialogue may stay under-resourced and fail to drive change.
X-TWITTER @kenddrick
67 globalgovernanceproject.org
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting