In 2025 AI-related regulations will be in place, passed or entering into force in several jurisdictions across the globe. How these norms, laws and regulations interact and interfere with each other, and their effects on jurisdictions where no AI-specific norms are developed, is a complex matter where political will, market forces, the need to preserve digital sovereignty, human rights and social welfare interact pulling regulators in many (sometimes incompatible) directions.
Can there be a winner? Does anyone desire a Brussels effect, Washington effect , or Beijing effect in AI regulation? Given the nature of the regulated object, does it even make sense to talk about it in terms of extraterritorial effects? Are there any implications in the terminology (alignment vs interoperability)?
The global preferences and ambitions of each actor play a significant role, but understanding how this complex set of considerations can play out for the regulation of AI is a multidimensional challenge. For mid-rank jurisdictions such as Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia, without sufficient autonomous regulatory clout but with a clear intention to offer some degree of binding regulation for the deployment of AI systems, the implications of the interoperability and alignment of the main regulatory frameworks are especially relevant.
This open roundtable can be an opportunity to explore this issue from a multidimensional perspective, where participants can offer their views on existing and upcoming law, the geopolitical implications and whether and how existing regulatory theory can accommodate these questions. We also expect methodology issues to also figure pre-eminently in the conversations, as there is a need to consider existing research approaches and techniques that can be used to address these issues.
This event is open to anyone working on digital/tech governance and/ regulatory theory.