Wang: China's Approach to International AI Governance: Selective Shaping?

Heng Wang (Singapore Management Univ. - Law) has posted China's Approach to International AI Governance: Selective Shaping?. Here's the abstract:

China is rapidly solidifying its position as a key actor in the development and governance of artificial intelligence (AI). Domestically, China is exploring a comprehensive and evolving regulatory framework. Internationally, China has transitioned from a passive recipient of external norms to a proactive norm-shaper, advancing its vision of AI governance through initiatives such as the Global AI Governance Initiative. This contrasts with its earlier accession to the World Trade Organization, when it adapted to pre-existing rules. As a leading AI power, China now influences governance practice at the international level. This paper explores two important but underexplored questions: What is China’s approach to international AI governance? How to understand China’s approach? This paper argues that China pursues a strategy of selective shaping in international AI governance, resulting in a targeted reshaping of global order. By “uploading” China-proposed institutions and norms particularly in areas of strength, China leverages new initiatives and standards to shape the developing landscape of AI governance. Meanwhile, China’s approach also faces challenges such as normative ambiguity.

Charlotin & Ridi: GenAI as an International Lawyer: A Case Study with the Jessup International Law Moot Court

Damien Charlotin (HEC) & Niccolò Ridi (King’s College London) have posted GenAI as an International Lawyer: A Case Study with the Jessup International Law Moot Court. Here's the abstract:

This paper investigates the capacity of Generative Artificial Intelligence, specifically Large Language Models, to craft compelling international legal arguments. We tested the performance of two popular models, Gemini 2.0 and GPT4o, in the Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, generating ten complete written memorials with minimal human intervention. With the organisers' blessing, these AI-generated memorials were anonymously added to the pool of submissions and evaluated by judges, who remained unaware of their origins, providing a unique benchmark against humanproduced work. Our results demonstrate that LLM-generated memorials consistently achieve average to superior scores, with some submissions receiving exceptional praise and near-perfect ratings. However, a detailed analysis of judges' qualitative feedback reveals persistent shortcomings of LLMs, notably factual inaccuracies, hallucinated citations, and superficial legal analysis. This study systematically identifies the current strengths and limitations of GenAI in legal argumentation, and critically informs best practices in prompt engineering, human-AI collaboration strategies, and emerging regulatory policies for legal education and practice.

Chesterman: Silicon Sovereigns: Artificial Intelligence, International Law, and the Tech-Industrial Complex

Simon Chesterman (National Univ. of Singapore - Law) has posted Silicon Sovereigns: Artificial Intelligence, International Law, and the Tech-Industrial Complex (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Artificial intelligence is reshaping science, society, and power. Yet many debates over its likely impact remain fixated on extremes: utopian visions of universal benefit and dystopian fears of existential doom, or an arms race between the U.S. and China, or the Global North and Global South. What’s missing is a serious conversation about distribution — who gains, who loses, and who decides. The global AI landscape is increasingly defined not just by geopolitical divides, but by the deepening imbalance between public governance and private control. As governments struggle to keep up, power is consolidating in the hands of a few tech firms whose influence now rivals that of states. If the twentieth century saw the rise of international institutions, the twenty-first may be witnessing their eclipse — replaced not by a new world order, but by a digital oligarchy. This essay explores what that shift means for international law, global equity, and the future of democratic oversight in an age of silicon sovereignty.

Conference: The COE Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law: Comparative, EU, and International Law Perspectives

On May 29, 2025, a conference on "The COE Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law: Comparative, EU, and International Law Perspectives" will be held at the University of Trieste, Gorizia Campus, and virtually. Details are here.