This paper examines how international AI governance frameworks address gender issues and gender-based harms. The analysis covers binding regulations, such as the EU AI Act; soft law instruments, like the UNESCO Recommendations on AI Ethics; and global initiatives, such as the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI). These instruments reveal emerging trends, including the integration of gender concerns into broader human rights frameworks, a shift toward explicit gender-related provisions, and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and diversity. Yet, some critical gaps persist, including inconsistent treatment of gender across governance documents, limited engagement with intersectionality, and a lack of robust enforcement mechanisms. However, this paper argues that effective AI governance must be intersectional, enforceable, and inclusive. This is key to moving beyond tokenism toward meaningful equity and preventing reinforcement of existing inequalities. The study contributes to ethical AI debates by highlighting the importance of gender-sensitive governance in building a just technological future.

According to the theory of International Political Economy (IPE), states are often incentivized to rely on rather than constrain powerful corporations. For this reason, IPE provides a useful lens to explain why efforts to govern Artificial Intelligence (AI) at the international and national levels have thus far been developed, applied, and enforced unevenly. Building on recent work that explores how AI companies engage in geopolitics, this position paper argues that some AI workers can be considered actors of geopolitics. It makes the timely case that governance alone cannot ensure responsible, ethical, or robust AI development and use, and greater attention should be paid to bottom-up interventions at the site of AI development. AI workers themselves should be situated as individual agents of change, especially when considering their potential to foster Algorithmic Collective Action (ACA). Drawing on methods of Participatory Design (PD), this paper proposes engaging AI workers as sources of knowledge, relative power, and intentionality to encourage more responsible and just AI development and create the conditions that can facilitate ACA.

The upsurge of policies and guidelines that aim to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are safe and trustworthy has led to a fragmented landscape of AI governance. The European Union (EU) is a key actor in the development of such policies and guidelines. Its High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) issued an influential set of guidelines for trustworthy AI, followed in 2024 by the adoption of the EU AI Act. While the EU policies and guidelines are expected to be aligned, they may differ in their scope, areas of emphasis, degrees of normativity, and priorities in relation to AI. To gain a broad understanding of AI governance from the EU perspective, we leverage qualitative thematic analysis approaches to uncover prevalent themes in key EU documents, including the AI Act and the HLEG Ethics Guidelines. We further employ quantitative topic modelling approaches, specifically through the use of the BERTopic model, to enhance the results and increase the document sample to include EU AI policy documents published post-2018. We present a novel perspective on EU policies, tracking the evolution of its approach to addressing AI governance.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems permeate critical sectors, the need for professionals who can address ethical, legal and governance challenges has become urgent. Current AI ethics education remains fragmented, often siloed by discipline and disconnected from practice. This paper synthesizes literature and regulatory developments to propose a modular, interdisciplinary curriculum that integrates technical foundations with ethics, law and policy. We highlight recurring operational failures in AI - bias, misspecified objectives, generalization errors, misuse and governance breakdowns - and link them to pedagogical strategies for teaching AI governance. Drawing on perspectives from the EU, China and international frameworks, we outline a semester plan that emphasizes integrated ethics, stakeholder engagement and experiential learning. The curriculum aims to prepare students to diagnose risks, navigate regulation and engage diverse stakeholders, fostering adaptive and ethically grounded professionals for responsible AI governance.

Purpose: The governance of artificial iintelligence (AI) systems requires a structured approach that connects high-level regulatory principles with practical implementation. Existing frameworks lack clarity on how regulations translate into conformity mechanisms, leading to gaps in compliance and enforcement. This paper addresses this critical gap in AI governance. Methodology/Approach: A five-layer AI governance framework is proposed, spanning from broad regulatory mandates to specific standards, assessment methodologies, and certification processes. By narrowing its scope through progressively focused layers, the framework provides a structured pathway to meet technical, regulatory, and ethical requirements. Its applicability is validated through two case studies on AI fairness and AI incident reporting. Findings: The case studies demonstrate the framework's ability to identify gaps in legal mandates, standardization, and implementation. It adapts to both global and region-specific AI governance needs, mapping regulatory mandates with practical applications to improve compliance and risk management. Practical Implications - By offering a clear and actionable roadmap, this work contributes to global AI governance by equipping policymakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders with a model to enhance compliance and risk management. Social Implications: The framework supports the development of policies that build public trust and promote the ethical use of AI for the benefit of society. Originality/Value: This study proposes a five-layer AI governance framework that bridges high-level regulatory mandates and implementation guidelines. Validated through case studies on AI fairness and incident reporting, it identifies gaps such as missing standardized assessment procedures and reporting mechanisms, providing a structured foundation for targeted governance measures.

As generative AI continues to reshape artistic production and alternate modes of human expression, artists whose livelihoods are most directly affected have raised urgent concerns about consent, transparency, and the future of creative labor. However, the voices of artists are often marginalized in dominant public and scholarly discourse. This study presents a twelve-year analysis, from 2013 to 2025, of English-language discourse surrounding AI-generated art. It draws from 439 curated 500-word excerpts sampled from opinion articles, news reports, blogs, legal filings, and spoken-word transcripts. Through a reproducible methodology, we identify five stable thematic clusters and uncover a misalignment between artists' perceptions and prevailing media narratives. Our findings highlight how the use of technical jargon can function as a subtle form of gatekeeping, often sidelining the very issues artists deem most urgent. Our work provides a BERTopic-based methodology and a multimodal baseline for future research, alongside a clear call for deeper, transparency-driven engagement with artist perspectives in the evolving AI-creative landscape.

This paper examines how competing sociotechnical imaginaries of artificial intelligence (AI) risk shape governance decisions and regulatory constraints. Drawing on concepts from science and technology studies, we analyse three dominant narrative groups: existential risk proponents, who emphasise catastrophic AGI scenarios; accelerationists, who portray AI as a transformative force to be unleashed; and critical AI scholars, who foreground present-day harms rooted in systemic inequality. Through an analysis of representative manifesto-style texts, we explore how these imaginaries differ across four dimensions: normative visions of the future, diagnoses of the present social order, views on science and technology, and perceived human agency in managing AI risks. Our findings reveal how these narratives embed distinct assumptions about risk and have the potential to progress into policy-making processes by narrowing the space for alternative governance approaches. We argue against speculative dogmatism and for moving beyond deterministic imaginaries toward regulatory strategies that are grounded in pragmatism.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), becomes increasingly embedded in education systems worldwide, ensuring their ethical, legal, and contextually appropriate deployment has become a critical policy concern. This paper offers a comparative analysis of AI-related regulatory and ethical frameworks across key global regions, including the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, China, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. It maps how core trustworthiness principles, such as transparency, fairness, accountability, data privacy, and human oversight are embedded in regional legislation and AI governance structures. Special emphasis is placed on the evolving landscape in the GCC, where countries are rapidly advancing national AI strategies and education-sector innovation. To support this development, the paper introduces a Compliance-Centered AI Governance Framework tailored to the GCC context. This includes a tiered typology and institutional checklist designed to help regulators, educators, and developers align AI adoption with both international norms and local values. By synthesizing global best practices with region-specific challenges, the paper contributes practical guidance for building legally sound, ethically grounded, and culturally sensitive AI systems in education. These insights are intended to inform future regulatory harmonization and promote responsible AI integration across diverse educational environments.

The integration of agential artificial intelligence into socioeconomic systems requires us to reexamine the evolutionary processes that describe changes in our economic institutions. This article synthesizes three frameworks: multi-level selection theory, Aoki's view of firms as computational processes, and Ostrom's design principles for robust institutions. We develop a framework where selection operates concurrently across organizational levels, firms implement distributed inference via game-theoretic architectures, and Ostrom-style rules evolve as alignment mechanisms that address AI-related risks. This synthesis yields a multi-level Price equation expressed over nested games, providing quantitative metrics for how selection and governance co-determine economic outcomes. We examine connections to Acemoglu's work on inclusive institutions, analyze how institutional structures shape AI deployment, and demonstrate the framework's explanatory power via case studies. We conclude by proposing a set of design principles that operationalize alignment between humans and AI across institutional layers, enabling scalable, adaptive, and inclusive governance of agential AI systems. We conclude with practical policy recommendations and further research to extend these principles into real-world implementation.

Advances in low-communication training algorithms are enabling a shift from centralised model training to compute setups that are either distributed across multiple clusters or decentralised via community-driven contributions. This paper distinguishes these two scenarios - distributed and decentralised training - which are little understood and often conflated in policy discourse. We discuss how they could impact technical AI governance through an increased risk of compute structuring, capability proliferation, and the erosion of detectability and shutdownability. While these trends foreshadow a possible new paradigm that could challenge key assumptions of compute governance, we emphasise that certain policy levers, like export controls, remain relevant. We also acknowledge potential benefits of decentralised AI, including privacy-preserving training runs that could unlock access to more data, and mitigating harmful power concentration. Our goal is to support more precise policymaking around compute, capability proliferation, and decentralised AI development.