Global AI Governance Frameworks: Current Landscape Analysis

ISAR Global Intelligence Baseline Assessment

Executive Summary

As of August 2025, artificial intelligence governance operates through a complex ecosystem of overlapping international, regional, and national frameworks. This baseline analysis maps the current operational landscape, highlighting coordination mechanisms, implementation patterns, and emerging governance complexity challenges.

Key Finding: The proliferation of AI governance frameworks has outpaced coordination mechanisms, creating a landscape where governance rhetoric frequently exceeds governance reality in terms of effective international cooperation.

International and Multilateral Frameworks

United Nations AI Governance Mechanisms

Status: Recently announced, implementation beginning

Global AI Advisory Body: Established following UN Secretary-General’s recommendations
AI Scientific Panel: Expert body for technical governance guidance
Global AI Dialogue Platform: Multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism
Coordination Challenge: Integration with existing UN specialised agency AI work (ITU, UNESCO, UNDP)

OECD AI Governance Framework

Status: Operational since 2019, evolving

AI Principles: Non-binding international standards for responsible AI
AI Policy Observatory: Tracking national implementation approaches
Working Party on AI Governance: Regular policy coordination mechanism
Implementation Reality: Significant variation in member state adoption and enforcement

G7/G20 AI Governance Initiatives

Status: Declaration-based, limited operational coordination

G7 Hiroshima AI Process: Focus on generative AI governance
G20 AI Principles: Broader economic and social considerations
Coordination Gap: Limited mechanisms for translating declarations into coordinated action

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Status: Technical standards focus, expanding governance role

AI for Good Global Summit: Annual coordination platform
Focus Group on AI for Health: Sector-specific governance development
Standards Development: Technical interoperability rather than governance coordination

Regional Governance Frameworks

European Union AI Act

Status: Operational, implementation phase beginning

Comprehensive Regulation: Risk-based approach with enforcement mechanisms
AI Office: Central coordination body for implementation
Global Influence: Extraterritorial effects creating de facto international standards
Implementation Challenge: Complex coordination across 27 member states

ASEAN AI Governance Framework

Status: Voluntary guidelines, national implementation varies

Model AI Governance Framework: Developed with Singapore leadership
Voluntary Adoption: No binding enforcement mechanisms
Regional Coordination: Limited systematic implementation tracking across member states

African Union AI Continental Strategy

Status: Framework development, early implementation

Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy: Comprehensive policy framework
Implementation Gap: Limited resources for systematic coordination across 55 member states
Focus: Capacity building and avoiding technological dependence

Council of Europe AI Treaty

Status: Under development, focused on human rights

Binding Framework: First legally binding international AI agreement
Scope: Human rights, democracy, and rule of law considerations
Coordination Challenge: Integration with EU AI Act and broader international mechanisms

National Frameworks (Major Powers)

United States

Status: Executive-driven, evolving regulatory approach

Executive Order on Safe, Secure AI: Comprehensive federal coordination mechanism
NIST AI Risk Management Framework: Technical standards and guidelines
Federal Agency Coordination: Multiple departments developing sector-specific approaches
Congressional Activity: Various legislative proposals under consideration

China

Status: Comprehensive national regulation, rapid development

Draft Administrative Measures: Comprehensive AI regulation framework
National AI Strategy: Integration with broader technological sovereignty goals
Implementation: Centralised coordination through multiple regulatory bodies
International Engagement: Selective participation in international mechanisms

United Kingdom

Status: Principles-based approach, regulator coordination

AI White Paper: Sector-specific regulator approach rather than comprehensive legislation
AI Safety Institute: International leadership on AI safety research and standards
Global Coordination: Active international engagement and summit leadership
Implementation Gap: Limited binding regulatory mechanisms compared to EU approach

India

Status: Rapid framework development, implementation beginning

National AI Strategy: Comprehensive approach linking governance to development goals
Regulatory Coordination: Multiple ministries developing sector-specific approaches
International Engagement: Active participation in global governance mechanisms
Implementation Challenge: Coordination across federal and state levels

Emerging and Developing Frameworks

Middle East and North Africa

UAE AI Strategy 2031: National framework with international ambitions
Saudi NEOM AI Governance: City-state experimental approach
Regional Coordination: Limited systematic cooperation mechanisms

Latin America

Brazil AI Strategy: National framework under development
Regional Observatory: ECLAC coordination mechanism
Implementation Gap: Limited resources for systematic governance development

Other National Initiatives

Canada: Federal AI and Data Commissioner approach
Japan: Society 5.0 integration with AI governance
Australia: Voluntary AI Ethics Framework with regulatory review
South Korea: Comprehensive national AI strategy with international coordination

Sector-Specific and Standards Frameworks

Technical Standards Bodies

ISO/IEC AI Standards: Technical interoperability and risk management
IEEE AI Standards: Professional and technical coordination mechanisms
Partnership on AI: Industry-led coordination platform

Financial Services

Basel Committee AI Guidance: Banking sector coordination
IOSCO AI Principles: Securities market regulation
Coordination Challenge: Integration with broader governance frameworks

Healthcare and Life Sciences

WHO AI Ethics Guidelines: Global health sector coordination
FDA AI Regulation: US leadership with international influence
EMA AI Guidelines: European pharmaceutical regulation

Coordination Mechanisms and Challenges

Formal Coordination Bodies

Global Partnership on AI (GPAI): Multi-stakeholder coordination platform
AI Governance Alliance (World Economic Forum): Private-public coordination
OECD Network of Experts on AI: Technical coordination mechanism

Coordination Effectiveness Assessment

High Coordination: EU internal mechanisms, technical standards development Medium Coordination: OECD member states, G7 process Low Coordination: UN mechanisms with national frameworks, regional integration Minimal Coordination: Major power frameworks with each other

Emerging Coordination Challenges

Framework Proliferation: New mechanisms announced faster than coordination developed
Implementation Gaps: Significant variation between governance rhetoric and enforcement reality
Jurisdictional Conflicts: Overlapping and sometimes contradictory requirements
Resource Constraints: Limited capacity for effective coordination across all mechanisms
Geopolitical Tensions: Strategic competition undermining coordination effectiveness

Strategic Intelligence Assessment

Current Governance Reality

The global AI governance landscape demonstrates framework proliferation without proportional coordination enhancement. While international declarations and national strategies multiply, systematic mechanisms for effective coordination remain limited.

Coordination Effectiveness Patterns

Technical Standards: Highest coordination success
Trade and Competition: Moderate coordination through existing mechanisms
Human Rights and Ethics: High rhetoric, limited operational coordination
National Security: Minimal coordination, active competition

Emerging Trends

Regional Bloc Formation: EU, ASEAN, AU developing internal coordination
Bilateral Cooperation: Major powers pursuing selective partnership rather than multilateral coordination
Sector-Specific Development: Industry-led coordination advancing faster than governmental mechanisms
Standards Competition: Multiple bodies developing potentially conflicting technical requirements

Implications for Governance Process Intelligence

This baseline assessment reveals the critical need for systematic governance process intelligence that tracks implementation reality rather than policy rhetoric. The complexity and proliferation of frameworks creates demand for analysis that:

Monitors coordination effectiveness across multiple simultaneous mechanisms
Tracks implementation patterns showing gaps between policy and practice
Provides early warning of emerging coordination failures or conflicts
Maps stakeholder influence across interconnected governance processes
Assesses framework interaction effects rather than individual mechanism analysis

The current landscape validates ISAR Global’s focus on understanding governance reality rather than governance rhetoric through systematic process intelligence.

ISAR Global Intelligence Assessment
Next Update: Quarterly Framework Development Tracking
Focus: International coordination mechanism effectiveness

About ISAR Global: Independent research authority specialising in AI governance intelligence, tracking international coordination effectiveness and implementation patterns across global frameworks.