1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 19, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 19, 2023

AI and Global Governance: Modalities, Rationales, Tensions

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a salient but polarizing issue of recent times. Actors around the world are engaged in building a governance regime around it. What exactly the “it” is that is being governed, how, by who, and why—these are all less clear. In this review, we attempt to shine some light on those questions, considering literature on AI, the governance of computing, and regulation and governance more broadly. We take critical stock of the different modalities of the global governance of AI that have been emerging, such as ethical councils, industry governance, contracts and licensing, standards, international agreements, and domestic legislation with extraterritorial impact. Considering these, we examine selected rationales and tensions that underpin them, drawing attention to the interests and ideas driving these different modalities. As these regimes become clearer and more stable, we urge those engaging with or studying the global governance of AI to constantly ask the important question of all global governance regimes: Who benefits?

Keyword(s): AI, AI regulation, algorithmic regulation, artificial intelligence, global governance, machine learning
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749
2023-10-05
2024-04-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/19/1/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aaronson S. 2022. My AI safety lecture for UT Effective Altruism. Shtetl-Optimized Novemb. 28. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6823
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbott KW, Snidal D. 2009. The governance triangle: regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the state. The Politics of Global Regulation W Mattli, N Woods 44–88. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Abelson H, Anderson R, Bellovin SM, Benaloh J, Blaze M et al. 2021. Bugs in our pockets: the risks of client-side scanning Work. Pap., Columbia Univ. New York: https://www.cs.columbia.edu/∼smb/papers/bugs21.pdf
  4. Access Now 2020. Access Now resigns from the Partnership on AI Press Rel., Oct. 13. https://www.accessnow.org/access-now-resignation-partnership-on-ai/
  5. Amoore L. 2020. Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  6. Arun C. 2022. Facebook's faces. Harvard Law Rev. Forum 135:236–65
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Auld G, Gulbrandsen LH, McDermott CL. 2008. Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33:187–211
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Avant DD, Finnemore M, Sell SK. 2010. Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  9. Balayn A, Gürses S. 2021. Beyond debiasing: regulating AI and its inequalities Rep., Eur. Digit. Rights, Brussels https://perma.cc/4UAV-3UFB
  10. Ballhausen M. 2022. Copyright enforcement. Open Source Law, Policy and Practice A Brock 126–40. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bareis J, Katzenbach C. 2022. Talking AI into being: the narratives and imaginaries of national AI strategies and their performative politics. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 47:5855–81
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bartley T. 2010. Transnational private regulation in practice: the limits of forest and labor standards certification in Indonesia. Bus. Politics 12:31–34
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Belkhir L, Elmeligi A. 2018. Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: trends to 2040 & recommendations. J. Clean. Prod. 177:448–63
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bertuzzi L. 2023. US obtains exclusion of NGOs from drafting AI treaty. Euractiv Jan. 17. https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/us-obtains-exclusion-of-ngos-from-drafting-ai-treaty/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bietti E. 2021. From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a moral philosophy view on tech ethics. J. Soc. Comput. 2:3266–83
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Binns R, Veale M. 2021. Is that your final decision? Multi-stage profiling, selective effects, and Article 22 of the GDPR. Int. Data Priv. Law 11:4319–32
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Birhane A. 2021. Cheap AI. Fake AI F Kaltheuner, chapter 3 Manchester, UK: Meatspace
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bowker GC, Star SL. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  19. Bradford A. 2020. The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  20. Braman S. 2011. The framing years: policy fundamentals in the internet design process, 1969–1979. Inf. Soc. 27:5295–310
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bryson JJ 2020. The artificial intelligence of the ethics of artificial intelligence: an introductory overview for law and regulation. The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI MD Dubber, F Pasquale, S Das 2–25. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  22. BSR 2019. Google celebrity recognition API human rights assessment Rep., BSR New York: https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR-Google-CR-API-HRIA-Executive-Summary.pdf
  23. Caplan R. 2023. Networked platform governance: the construction of the Democratic platform. Int. J. Commun. 17:3451–72
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Caplan R, Gillespie T. 2020. Tiered governance and demonetization: the shifting terms of labor and compensation in the platform economy. Soc. Media Soc 6:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120936636
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Carman A. 2019. What would happen if Apple fully banned Facebook from the App Store?. Verge Febr. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/1/18205291/apple-facebook-developer-ban-certificate-app-store
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cashore B, Matus KJ, Norris R. 2012. Pathways to impact: synergies with other approaches. Toward Sustainability: The Roles and Limitations of Certification Steer. Comm. State-of-Knowledge Assess. Stand. Certif Washington, DC: Resolve Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Caspers M, Guibault L, McNeice K, Piperidis S, Pouli K, Eskevich M. 2017. D3.3+ baseline report of policies and barriers of TDM in Europe (extended version) Rep., FutureTDM https://perma.cc/W6MF-4WLM
  28. Cath C. 2021. The technology we choose to create: human rights advocacy in the Internet Engineering Task Force. Telecommun. Policy 45:6102144
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cobbe J, Lee MSA, Singh J. 2021. Reviewable automated decision-making: a framework for accountable algorithmic systems. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency,598–609. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cobbe J, Singh J. 2019. Regulating recommending: motivations, considerations, and principles. Eur. J. Law Technol. 10:3 https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/686/982
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cobbe J, Singh J. 2021. Artificial intelligence as a service: legal responsibilities, liabilities, and policy challenges. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 42:105573
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Cobbe J, Veale M, Singh J. 2023. Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Cohen JE. 2019. Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  34. Contractor D, McDuff D, Haines JK, Lee J, Hines C et al. 2022. Behavioral use licensing for responsible AI. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency778–88. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Counc. Eur. Union 2022a. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (Preparation for COREPER) Interinst. File 2021/0106(COD), Counc. Eur. Union, Brussels. https://perma.cc/564K-RCKR
  36. Counc. Eur. Union 2022b. Council Decision (EU) 2022/2349 of 21 November 2022 authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for a Council of Europe convention on artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law Counc. Decis., Counc. Eur. Union, Brussels
  37. Cowls J, Darius P, Santistevan D, Schramm M. 2022. Constitutional metaphors: Facebook's “supreme court” and the legitimation of platform governance. New Media Soc press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cowls J, Floridi L. 2019. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Sci. Rev. 1:1 https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Cowls J, Morley J. 2022. App Store governance: the implications and limitations of duopolistic dominance. The 2021 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab, ed. J Mökander, M Ziosi 75–92. Cham, Switz: Springer Int. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Custers B, Heijne A-S. 2022. The right of access in automated decision-making: the scope of article 15(1)(h) GDPR in theory and practice. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 46:105727
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Demetzou K, Zanfir-Fortuna G, Vale SB. 2023. The thin red line: refocusing data protection law on ADM, a global perspective with lessons from case-law. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 49:105806
     [Google Scholar]
  42. DeNardis L. 2014. The Global War for Internet Governance New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  43. Dobbe R, Whittaker M. 2019. AI and climate change: how they're connected, and what we can do about it. AI Now Institute Oct. 17. https://medium.com/@AINowInstitute/ai-and-climate-change-how-theyre-connected-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-6aa8d0f5b32c
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Douek E. 2019. Facebook's oversight board: move fast with stable infrastructure and humility. N.C. J. Law Technol. 21:11–78
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Dvoskin B. 2022. Expertise and participation in the Facebook oversight board: from reason to will. Telecommun. Policy 47:5102463
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ensmenger N. 2018. The environmental history of computing. Technol. Cult. 59:5S7–33
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Erman E, Furendal M. 2022. Artificial intelligence and the political legitimacy of global governance. Political Stud press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Esty DC. 1994. Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment, and the Future Washington, DC: Inst. Int. Econ.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Finck M. 2018. Blockchain Regulation and Governance in Europe Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 1st ed..
  50. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:7739–55
     [Google Scholar]
  51. G20 2019. G20 ministerial statement on trade and digital economy Statement, G20. https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000486596.pdf
  52. Gandy OH. 1993. The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information Boulder, CO: Westview
  53. Gansky B, McDonald S. 2022. CounterFAccTual: how FAccT undermines its organizing principles. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency1982–92. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Goldsmith JL, Wu T. 2006. Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  55. Gorwa R. 2019. The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Rev 8:2 https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1407
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Gorwa R, Binns R, Katzenbach C. 2020. Algorithmic content moderation: technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data Soc 7:1 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Gray ML, Suri S. 2019. Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
  58. Green B. 2019. The Smart Enough City Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  59. Green B. 2021. The contestation of tech ethics: a sociotechnical approach to technology ethics in practice. J. Soc. Comput. 2:3209–25
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Guadamuz A. 2004. Viral contracts or unenforceable documents? Contractual validity of copyleft licenses. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev 26:8331–39
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Guadamuz A. 2017. Do androids dream of electric copyright? Comparative analysis of originality in artificial intelligence generated works. Intellect. Prop. Q.2169–86
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Guadamuz A. 2022. DALL·E goes commercial, but what about copyright?. TechnoLlama July 25. https://www.technollama.co.uk/dall%c2%b7e-goes-commercial-but-what-about-copyright
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Harcourt A, Christou G, Simpson S. 2020. Global standard-setting in internet governance. Global Standard Setting in Internet Governance1–14. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1:9389–99
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Kalyanpur N, Newman AL. 2019. Mobilizing market power: jurisdictional expansion as economic statecraft. Int. Organ. 73:11–34
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kamara I. 2017. Co-regulation in EU personal data protection: the case of technical standards and the privacy by design standardisation “mandate. .” Eur. J. Law Technol. 8:1 https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/545/725
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Keller D. 2021. The future of platform power: making middleware work. J. Democr. 32:3168–72
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Kemper J, Kolkman D. 2018. Transparent to whom? No algorithmic accountability without a critical audience. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22:142081–96
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Klonick K. 2019. The Facebook oversight board: creating an independent institution to adjudicate online free expression. Yale Law J 129:82418–99
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Konisky DM. 2007. Regulatory competition and environmental enforcement: Is there a race to the bottom?. Am. J. Political Sci. 51:4853–72
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lambin EF, Thorlakson T. 2018. Sustainability standards: interactions between private actors, civil society, and governments. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43:369–93
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Lum K, Isaac W. 2016. To predict and serve?. Significance 13:514–19
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Malhotra N, Monin B, Tomz M. 2019. Does private regulation preempt public regulation?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 113:119–37
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Marsden CT. 2011. Internet Co-Regulation: European Law, Regulatory Governance and Legitimacy in Cyberspace Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  75. Marsden CT, Brown I. 2023. App stores, antitrust and their links to net neutrality: a review of the European policy and academic debate leading to the EU Digital Markets Act. Internet Policy Rev 12:1 https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.1.1676
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Matus KJM, Veale M. 2022. Certification systems for machine learning: lessons from sustainability. Regul. Gov. 16:1177–96
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Munn L. 2022. The uselessness of AI ethics. AI Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00209-w
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Murphy CN. 2015. The last two centuries of global governance. Glob. Gov 21:2189–96
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Nemitz P. 2018. Constitutional democracy and technology in the age of artificial intelligence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 376:213320180089
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Newman A. 2011. Watching the watchers: transgovernmental implementation of data privacy policy in Europe. J. Comp. Policy Anal. 13:2181–94
     [Google Scholar]
  81. NIST (Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.) 2023. AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) Rep., NIST Washington, DC: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
    [Crossref]
  82. OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2019. Recommendation on AI Recomm. OECD/LEGAL/0449, OECD Paris: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
  83. Olney WW. 2013. A race to the bottom? Employment protection and foreign direct investment. J. Int. Econ. 91:2191–203
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Pallero J. 2020. What the Facebook Oversight Board means for human rights, and where we go from here Rep., Access Now https://apo.org.au/node/307040
  85. Passi S, Barocas S. 2019. Problem formulation and fairness. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency39–48. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Perrigo B. 2022. Inside Facebook's African sweatshop. TIME Febr. 17. https://time.com/6147458/facebook-africa-content-moderation-employee-treatment/
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Perrigo B. 2023. OpenAI used Kenyan workers on less than $2 per hour to make ChatGPT less toxic. TIME Jan. 18 https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Pfotenhauer S, Laurent B, Papageorgiou K, Stilgoe J. 2022. The politics of scaling. Soc. Stud. Sci. 52:13–34
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Png M-T. 2022. At the tensions of South and North: critical roles of Global South stakeholders in AI governance. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency1434–45. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Porter G. 1999. Trade competition and pollution standards: “Race to the bottom” or “stuck at the bottom”?. J. Environ. Dev. 8:2133–51
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Posada J. 2022. Embedded reproduction in platform data work. Inf. Commun. Soc. 25:6816–34
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Radauer A, Bader M, Aplin T, Konopka U, Searle N et al. 2022. Study on the legal protection of trade secrets in the context of the data economy: final report Rep., Eur. Comm., Brussels
  93. Roberts ST. 2019. Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  94. Rombach R, Esser P. 2022. CreativeML Open RAIL-M. . Hugging Face. https://huggingface.co/spaces/CompVis/stable-diffusion-license
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Sánchez-Monedero J, Dencik L, Edwards L. 2020. What does it mean to “solve” the problem of discrimination in hiring? Social, technical and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systems. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency458–68. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Schepel H. 2005. The Constitution of Private Governance: Product Standards in the Regulation of Integrating Markets Oxford, UK: Hart
  97. Seaver N. 2017. Algorithms as culture: some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data Soc 4:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Sell SK. 2016. Ahead of her time? Susan Strange and global governance. Susan Strange and the Future of Global Political Economy: Power, Control and Transformation RD Germain 21–32. London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Shackelford SJ, Proia AA, Martell B, Craig AN. 2015. Toward a global cybersecurity standard of care: exploring the implications of the 2014 NIST Cybersecurity Framework on shaping reasonable national and international cybersecurity practices. Tex. Int. Law J 50:2–3305–56
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Steer. Comm. State-of-Knowledge Assess. Stand. Certif 2012. Toward Sustainability: The Roles and Limitations of Certification Washington, DC: Resolve Inc.
  101. Stone D. 2019. Transnational policy entrepreneurs and the cultivation of influence: individuals, organizations and their networks. Globalizations 16:71128–44
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Strange S. 1998. Why do international organizations never die?. Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations B Reinalda, B Verbeek 213–20. New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  103. ten Oever N 2021.. “ This is not how we imagined it”: technological affordances, economic drivers, and the Internet architecture imaginary. New Media Soc 23:2344–62
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Tusikov N. 2016. Chokepoints: Global Private Regulation on the Internet Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  105. UNESCO 2021. Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence Recomm. SHS/BIO/PI/2021/1, UNESCO, Lond https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
  106. van Doorn N, Badger A. 2020. Platform capitalism's hidden abode: producing data assets in the gig economy. Antipode 52:51475–95
     [Google Scholar]
  107. van Hoboken J, Fathaigh RÓ. 2021. Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 41:105557
     [Google Scholar]
  108. van Lente H, Rip A. 2012. Expectations in technological developments: an example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. Getting New Technologies Together C Disco, B van der Meulen 203–30. Berlin: de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Vaughan JW, Wallach H 2021. A human-centered agenda for intelligible machine learning. Machines We Trust: Perspectives on Dependable AI M Pelillo, T Scantamburlo 123–38. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Veale M. 2020. A critical take on the policy recommendations of the EU High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 11:1e1
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Veale M, Binns R, Edwards L. 2018. Algorithms that remember: model inversion attacks and data protection law. Philos. Trans. A 376:20180083
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Veale M, Zuiderveen Borgesius F 2021. Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act.. Comput. Law Rev. Int 22:497–112
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Voß J-P. 2014. Performative policy studies: realizing “transition management. .” Innovation 27:4317–43
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Wagner B 2018. Ethics as an escape from regulation: From “ethics-washing” to ethics-shopping?. Being Profiled: Cogitas Ergo Sum E Bayamlıoğlu, I Baraliuc, L Janssens, M Hildebrandt 84–88. Amsterdam: Amst. Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Werner T. 2015. Gaining access by doing good: the effect of sociopolitical reputation on firm participation in public policy making. Manag. Sci. 61:81989–2011
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Whittaker M. 2021. The steep cost of capture. Interactions 28:650–55
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Young M, Katell M, Krafft PM. 2022. Confronting power and corporate capture at the FAccT Conference. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency1375–86. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Zuboff S. 2015. Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. J. Inf. Technol. 30:175–89
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error