The global rush to regulate artificial intelligence is intensifying, but without a unified global framework, these efforts could backfire, stifling innovation and creating a chaotic legal landscape. As governments across the world move towards stricter AI regulations, the question is no longer if AI should be regulated but how—and whether national legislations can withstand the cross-border implications of AI systems developed in one country and affecting external regions.
As artificial intelligence (AI) races ahead, the global landscape is being transformed in ways both exhilarating and alarming. While the G7 nations, including the United States, the UK, and the EU, have begun laying down the regulatory groundwork for AI governance, the G20—comprising influential economies like China, India, and Brazil—remains largely fragmented in its approach. Even within the Commonwealth, countries like Australia and Canada have focused on voluntary ethical frameworks rather than hard legal rules.
This lack of cohesion raises a critical question: Will AI regulation evolve into a harmonised global framework, or will the current regulatory patchwork stifle innovation, sow confusion, and expose businesses to unprecedented legal risks? The urgency for a coordinated global effort has never been greater, as businesses and developers face an increasingly complex regulatory landscape that threatens to slow down AI’s potential and limit its fair distribution across democratic nations.
G7 Steps Forward, G20 Lags Behind
The G7 nations are pushing ahead with robust AI regulatory initiatives. California’s SB 1047 and President Biden’s AI Executive Order are bold steps in the United States, focusing on regulating large AI models, mandating safety protocols, and prioritising transparency and democratic safeguards. These frameworks aim to mitigate the risks posed by AI, such as data privacy breaches and AI developed deepfakes that can have the potential to spread disinformation. Meanwhile, the EU's AI Act, a landmark piece of legislation, goes further by implementing legally binding rules that categorise AI systems by their risk level, addressing also financial risk — ensuring that the most dangerous applications are subject to the strictest regulations.
However, the glaring issue remains the lack of unity within the broader G20. Countries like China, which has introduced centralised regulations on AI, pursue a vastly different approach compared to the more open, ethics-driven frameworks of the West. India, despite being a rising AI powerhouse, has yet to formalise its AI governance strategy. This regulatory fragmentation is a serious concern. Without harmonisation, businesses that operate across borders could find themselves navigating a maze of conflicting laws, hindering collaboration and driving up compliance costs.
Even more critically, regulatory arbitrage—where companies seek out the weakest jurisdictions to develop and test AI technologies—becomes a real risk. Inconsistent laws could incentivise bad actors to exploit loopholes, undermining the very goals of AI governance.
Commonwealth Nations: Ethical Focus but Regulatory Gaps
Australia, like many Commonwealth nations, has adopted an ethics-first approach to AI regulation, centering on voluntary guidelines rather than hard legal mandates. The country’s AI Ethics Principles promote transparency, contestability, and the importance of ensuring that AI delivers net societal benefits. However, these guidelines lack the legal enforceability needed to hold developers accountable. In a global environment where stringent regulations are becoming the norm, Australia’s voluntary framework could expose its AI developers to significant legal risks when their products are introduced to international markets, where stricter compliance is often required. This gap may put Australian developers at a disadvantage as they navigate the complexities of a rapidly evolving global AI landscape.
Canada’s Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) tool is a notable step forward, as it requires government agencies to assess the risks of using AI in public services. But much like Australia, the private sector remains bound by voluntary ethical standards rather than hard laws. This lack of binding regulation may weaken Canada’s competitive edge in the global AI market.
The ethical focus of the Commonwealth nations is commendable, but the absence of firm legal frameworks raises a significant question: Can voluntary guidelines truly keep pace with the rapid advancements in AI, or will they leave businesses and developers exposed to legal risks and stunted growth? As the world races toward a more regulated AI landscape, the Commonwealth's current approach may not be sufficient to navigate the complexities of global AI governance.
What Do CEOs and Developers Want?
The growing frustration among business leaders and AI developers is palpable. A recent KPMG survey found that more than 70% of CEOs across various industries agree that a "robust regulatory framework for AI" is not only necessary but crucial to mitigating risks. Business leaders understand that while AI holds immense potential, its unchecked development could lead to significant ethical and legal problems, from privacy violations to bias and discrimination.
Developers, too, are calling for clearer guidelines. The current state of AI regulation—fragmented and inconsistent—creates a chaotic environment in which businesses struggle to innovate without fear of legal repercussions. The added confusion surrounding export opportunities, technology trade, and cross-border collaboration has already started to impact the AI development landscape.
For instance, AI developers working in one jurisdiction may find that their technology is subject to entirely different regulations when they attempt to enter a new market. This inconsistency not only hinders innovation but reduces collaboration across borders, making it harder for AI advancements to be distributed democratically. Smaller companies, in particular, are at a disadvantage. Without the legal teams and resources of larger corporations, these businesses may be forced to scale back their ambitions, limiting their participation in the global AI race.
Moving forward I would appreciate that Evan gets provided a report of all outstanding third party and internal costs I can review once a month I have scheduled this call with Evan the beginning of each month because history tells me that clearly can't keep up with the emails and it's not a reliable way to maintain the bookkeeping of all the entities.
Regulatory Confusion Could Erode Trust and Innovation
The lack of a unified global framework for AI regulation is not just an inconvenience—it’s a threat to the future of innovation itself.
Last week marked a significant step in the regulatory journey, as the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, and several other countries signed the Council of Europe's Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law. The treaty, the first of its kind, is a legally binding international agreement that aims to ensure AI aligns with human rights, democratic values, and the rule of law. For the first time, there is a globally coordinated effort to hold AI accountable for harmful and discriminatory outcomes.
However, as groundbreaking as the treaty seems, its impact may be limited—especially in the European Union. According to Fanucci, the treaty has been written so that it does not conflict with the AI Act, the EU’s landmark regulation on the technology. This means that, while the treaty’s signature and ratification are important on a global scale, its significance for EU member states is somewhat muted, as the AI Act already governs AI regulation within the bloc.
Despite the treaty’s promise, critics argue that it lacks teeth. Although it is legally enforceable, there are no sanctions, fines, or penalties to ensure compliance. Instead, enforcement relies on monitoring—a relatively weak form of accountability. Businesses and governments alike must decide whether this oversight is enough to ensure AI systems respect privacy, equality, and the fundamental rights of individuals.
National Legislation Versus Global Challenges
The stakes are high. Without a globally harmonised approach, national laws may clash, leading to cross-border disputes over harmful and untraceable AI systems. AI systems developed in one jurisdiction but causing damage in another could ignite legal battles that expose the gaps in current regulatory models. These gaps present a real threat to global innovation, as businesses operating in multiple regions struggle to comply with conflicting regulations.
Companies that fail to navigate these legal minefields could face severe consequences, including heavy fines, reputational damage, and costly lawsuits. In sectors like finance, insurance, and healthcare—where AI is already playing a critical role in decision-making—the risks are particularly severe. The potential for a single AI failure to cause catastrophic financial or social harm is too great to ignore, and governments are realising that fragmented regulatory approaches won’t suffice.
The Looming Crisis: Fragmented AI Regulations Risk Stifling Innovation and Global Fairness
The current regulatory disarray surrounding AI is not just a bureaucratic hurdle—it’s a looming disaster that threatens to entrench AI innovation within a handful of powerful nations, leaving the rest of the world to fall behind. With lenient laws favouring rapid development in these regions, we risk creating an AI landscape dominated by a few, where the values and priorities of select nations dictate the future of this transformative technology. This concentration of AI power is already eroding the democratisation of AI, and the consequences could be profound: a system that is not only skewed toward the interests of a minority but one that undermines fairness and equity on a global scale.
Despite the much-lauded Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, there remains a glaring problem. While hailed as the first treaty with "real teeth," it lacks enforceable mechanisms and fails to reconcile the divergent approaches of key players like the EU and the US. Add to this the non-binding nature of recent initiatives like the Bletchley Declaration and the G7’s AI deal, and it becomes clear that the global AI regulatory framework is more symbolic than substantive.
Governments are piling on new commitments and regulations, but without legal force behind them, they are little more than paper promises. The EU’s AI Act may set a standard for the region, but global coordination is far from achieved. Without a cohesive international framework, we are heading towards a fragmented regulatory environment that leaves businesses scrambling to navigate conflicting rules and nations grappling with cross-border disputes over AI misuse.
A Critical Juncture for Global AI Governance
The clock is ticking. Bodies like the G7, G20, and Commonwealth must face the reality that fragmented, piecemeal approaches will not suffice. If they continue down this path, businesses will be left navigating an increasingly hostile legal landscape, where compliance with conflicting regulations becomes a liability. Worse still, this regulatory confusion threatens to stifle the very innovation we seek to protect.
The global community must act now. The need for a harmonised model is no longer just desirable—it is essential. The future of AI, its fairness, and its role in global economies depend on our ability to create a unified framework that transcends national borders. Without it, we risk not only stifling innovation but losing control of the technology altogether. The cost of inaction is far too high, and the time for coordinated global governance is now.
