The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
GRF · AI and Digital Governance
Situational awarenessEvents, outlooks and readiness for those who decide
AI is developed and deployed across borders, so its governance involves treaties, shared principles, safety institutes, standards bodies and trade rules. Countries cooperate on some questions and compete on others. This page sets out how international AI cooperation works and where it fragments, the records that show it, and the institutions that hold the decisions.
Comparative policy and interoperability. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Many countries endorse similar high-level principles but write different binding rules. Firms face divergent obligations, and gaps between regimes allow risky practices to move.
Safety institutes and testing bodies cooperate on evaluation methods. Without shared test suites and access to models, results are not comparable across countries.
The UN, OECD, G7, G20, Council of Europe, standards bodies and bilateral arrangements all address AI. Overlap spreads expertise thin and lets states choose favourable forums.
Countries with less AI capacity have less say in standards and forums. Capacity building and inclusive participation shape whether global rules fit their needs.
Night lights, population density and flood water over East Asia, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Connected activity, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
Connected activity, framed on East Asia. Layers as NASA publishes them, each with its own date.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adherents to the OECD AI Principles | count of countries | on change | OECD records | Published statistics |
| Signatories and parties to the Council of Europe AI Convention | count | on change | Council of Europe treaty office | Published statistics |
| Countries with a national AI strategy | count | annual | OECD.AI | Published statistics |
| UNESCO Readiness Assessment Methodology completed | count of countries | annual | UNESCO records | Published statistics |
| Participation in international AI standards committees | count of national bodies | annual | ISO/IEC records | Published statistics |
| Joint evaluation or testing agreements between safety institutes | count | on change | Government publications | REPORTED |
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
International AI cooperation · Algorithm register · Quarter 4
| Benefit fraud flagging | Social agency | High | Missing | Partial |
| Permit triage | Planning | Limited | Done | Yes |
| School placement | Education | High | Done | Yes |
| Chat assistant | Tax office | Minimal | Done | n/a |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile AI and autonomous systems risk standards: the hazards it names, the systems and communities that carry the loss, the controls and institutions that dampen it and the data that observe it. Pick an initiating event and step through the cascade to see where mandates meet and which decisions fall to whom. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every weight is a stated assumption. An exercise for dialogue, not a forecast, an assessment or a position.
Hazards
Systems and couplings
Controls
NS-0 Constitution and principlesNS-10 Policies and clauses (machine-readable obligations: definition, binding, evaluation and enforcement)NS-11 Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NS-12 Software, model and AI/ML artifacts (supply chain, model cards, dataset sheets)NRS-H100 Hazard family: Robotics, autonomy and autonomous weapons (NHS-1 tech.autonomy-weapons)NRS-H53 Hazard family: Cyber-physical disruption (NHS-1 cyber.cyber-physical)NRS-H61 Hazard family: Cascading failure (NHS-1 sys.cascade)NRS-H113 Hazard family: Financial-system fragility (NHS-1 soc.financial-system)NRS-A8 AI-ready risk data and model packagingNRS-H54 Hazard family: Signal and platform disruption (NHS-1 cyber.platform)Observation
Example geography
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| OECD.AI Policy Observatory | National strategies and international initiatives | Free, OECD terms |
| Council of Europe Treaty Office | Signature and ratification status of the AI Convention | Public, Council of Europe terms |
| UNESCO Global AI Ethics and Governance Observatory | Readiness assessments and policy records | Free, UNESCO terms |
| UN Global Digital Compact records | Commitments and follow-up on AI governance | Public, UN terms |
| International AI Safety Report | Independent scientific assessment of general-purpose AI risks | Free to read, terms to check |
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
The kinds of instrument available on International AI cooperation, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
AI and Digital Governance prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Foreign and digital ministries | Which treaties, forums and agreements to join | Forum mandates, obligations and comparative participation |
| Safety and testing institutes | Which evaluation methods to share and with whom | Method comparisons and cooperation records |
| National standards bodies | Which international committees to take part in | Committee work programmes and participation records |
| Intergovernmental organization governing bodies | What mandates and work programmes to adopt | Records of related initiatives |
Countries share concerns about safety, rights and economic opportunity, which has produced common principles adopted in several international forums. But they differ in legal traditions, economic interests, views on the role of the state and security priorities. These differences produce divergent rules on data, AI risk classification, liability and market access.
Divergence raises costs for developers and deployers, complicates research and can leave gaps where harmful practices move to less regulated places. Interoperability, meaning arrangements that let different national regimes recognize each other's assessments or work together, is often more achievable than full harmonization.
Why now: in 2025 the UN General Assembly established an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and a Global Dialogue on AI Governance, adding to the Council of Europe Framework Convention (2024) and regional rules. The platform is designed to help institutions compare these arrangements and record where they overlap or leave gaps.
Systematic comparison of national approaches, using policy, institutional and decision science. Limits: rapid change dates comparisons quickly.
Non-binding commitments adopted by groups of states. Limits: implementation varies.
Arrangements to accept each other's assessments. Limits: require trust in each other's institutions.
Sharing expertise and tools with countries building governance capacity. Limits: risk of exporting models that do not fit local contexts.
Nexus Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.