Digital and AI governance
Governments and operators increasingly rely on artificial intelligence and digital public systems to deliver services, allocate resources and detect risks. The governance question is how institutions keep human oversight, accountability and rights intact as they do. The Global Risks Forum (GRF) convenes public authorities, technologists and rights specialists on that question, drawing on international guidance and on its Innovation Nexus and Governance Nexus communities. Its specialist counterpart, AI and Digital Governance, is in development. GRF does not assess or approve any system.
- 01In briefThe short answer
- 02The governance questionsThree questions institutions need to answer
- 03The instrumentsA layered and still moving rulebook
- 04Public sector useThe governance question for a ministry deploying a model
- 05International guidanceInstruments that frame the dialogue
- 06How GRF works on itDialogue, platforms and testing
- 07CounterpartsThe same field across the three institutions
GRF · Institution · service level R0
The short answer.
Digital and AI governance is how institutions keep human oversight, accountability and rights intact as governments and operators rely on artificial intelligence and digital public systems to deliver services, allocate resources and detect risks. GRF convenes public authorities, technologists and rights specialists on that question, drawing on international guidance.
Digital demand and connectivity in World.
Urban demand centres and the hubs that anchor digital and data infrastructure, in World.
Three questions institutions need to answer.
Human oversight
Who can understand, question and override an automated decision, and do they have the authority and time to do so?
Answerability
Who answers for an automated decision that harms someone, and how can the affected person seek review?
Rights and inclusion
How are privacy, non-discrimination and access protected, including for people who cannot use digital channels?
A layered and still moving rulebook.
| Instrument | Body | What it does | Status note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI Act | European Union | Risk-tiered obligations: prohibited practices, duties for general-purpose models, then high-risk system requirements | Applies in stages; a 2026 Digital Omnibus agreement moved the high-risk timelines, so dates should be read from the Official Journal |
| Framework Convention on AI and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law | Council of Europe, open to non-members | Binding duties across the lifecycle of AI systems used by public authorities and, by choice, private actors | Opened for signature in September 2024; check the Treaty Office for ratifications |
| OECD AI Principles | OECD, adhered to by many non-members | Values-based principles and recommendations to governments, updated in 2024 | In force as a Recommendation |
| Global Digital Compact | UN General Assembly, annexed to the Pact for the Future | Commitments on digital inclusion, data governance and AI, including an independent scientific panel and a global dialogue | The panel reported and the dialogue first met in Geneva in July 2026 |
| Recommendation on the Ethics of AI | UNESCO | Readiness assessments and ethical impact assessment for member states | Implementation through national readiness assessments |
The governance question for a ministry deploying a model.
When an agency uses an algorithm to prioritise inspections, allocate benefits or triage emergency calls, the questions are institutional before they are technical: who signed off the use, who can stop it, how a person affected can contest the outcome, and which regulator audits it. GRF dialogues put the deploying agency, its oversight body, a data protection authority and affected users around one case, and record the oversight chain they agree on.
Technical assurance methods sit with GCRI's AI and autonomous systems platform; model risk in finance with GRA's AI and financial model risk platform; the specialist community is AI and Digital Governance.
Instruments that frame the dialogue.
- The UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
- The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, known as the OECD AI Principles.
- The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, for the states that are party to it.
- International human rights law, including the rights to privacy and to an effective remedy.
- National and regional laws that apply to each participating institution.
Named instruments are references for dialogue, not claims of alignment. GRF does not assess any institution's conformity with them, and it does not regulate, finance, procure or certify.
Dialogue, platforms and testing.
- 01
Oversight dialogues
Structured dialogues that produce a record of oversight questions, responsibilities and open issues for a given public system.
- 02
Specialist communities
Innovation Nexus works on governed public-interest innovation, and Governance Nexus on comparative governance under technology change.
- 03
Platform in development
AI and Digital Governance is a proposed community, in development, with the Digital Rights and Data Governance chapter.
- 04
Controlled testing
Selected oversight arrangements can be exercised in Nexus Universe, for example how operators respond when an automated warning is wrong.
The same field across the three institutions.
The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) studies artificial intelligence and responsible technology. The Global Risks Alliance (GRA) examines AI and model risk in finance. Related GRF areas are information and public trust and decision rights and responsibilities. The framework is on risk governance.
Terms used on this page.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Human oversight | Review of automated decisions by people with the authority and information to change them. |
| Algorithmic impact assessment | A structured assessment of an automated system's effects on people before and during its use. |
| High-risk AI system | Under the EU AI Act, a category that includes AI used to evaluate the creditworthiness of individuals. |
| Digital public infrastructure | Shared, interoperable digital systems such as identity, payments and data exchange, governed to serve the public at scale. |
Where this page's references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Questions and answers.
Does GRF audit AI systems?
Is AI and Digital Governance an active platform?
How can a public authority bring a system to a dialogue?
Around GRF.
Start with an enquiry.
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.