Northumbria University

Holding the 1st Global Dialogue on AI Governance as a multistakeholder activity is already a fantastic outcome in and of itself. If this open group discussion could generate a soft mechanism such as a report of deliberations, consideration for possible cross-cutting measures across broader AI governance mechanisms, and some key considerations for further discussion and action on the priorities mentioned, this would be a positive step. Right now, it is so critical to align mechanisms with each other which are typically siloed. This supports coordination, collaboration and opportunity for information-sharing and capacity-building. We would like to see the Global Dialogue facilitate these needs given its multistakeholder approach.

• AI capacity-building
• Interoperability of governance approaches
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight

Looking at the priorities from a legal academic perspective, we think all the priorities are important and urgent. However, we believe higher education can support AI capacity-building through training the next generation of AI experts particularly in the legal profession. Understanding how academic and other non-State institutions support capacity-building could strengthen State approaches to this priority. Interoperability of governance approaches is another important factor. Knowing that AI is a cross-cutting tool we consider AI across different other areas of law such as with law enforcement, cyber, space, and telecommunications as well as consideration of AI within the legal profession in general. Our research and teaching shows how AI governance is interoperable with these other more established sectors and their governance frameworks. Protection and promotion of human rights. We recently created the Northumbria Centre for Responsible AI with a citizen-centred focus. We also have expertise in the Law School on human rights law which can be analysed and researched regarding AI challenges. Transparency, accountability, and human oversight. As we consider the rule of law at the national and international levels, we research and teach on how AI application should be transparent, accountable, and contain human oversight in line with various applicable laws in different sectors, nationally, and internationally.

Governance and technology are very much cross-cutting issues. Considering the importance of AI governance across relevant sectors could be a potential next step for discussion. Sectors such as space, cyber, telecommunication, aviation, maritime, healthcare, or environment and climate, all have similar governance challenges and include AI challenges as well. By having the AI global governance dialogue at least consider information-sharing from various other sectors on how they perceive AI as an emerging challenge in their areas of expertise could promote understanding across more expert or siloed areas of global governance discussions. For example, we have seen knowledge exchange between ICAO and UNOOSA or UNOOSA and ITU, this too could be done with AI.

Within academia, governance gaps and the thematic areas selected can be considered and analysed through legal academic research. We do so as well through our AI-centred research group that cuts across the different university faculties. We also consider governance and areas around AI governance in our teaching to train the future legal profession. The most significant challenge today is teaching the next generation of legal l professionals how to consider the responsible and ethical use of AI in legal practice. We try to show this through teaching in classrooms but also through our Student Law Office where we offer practical application of their studies.

As a multistakeholder platform, the AI Dialogue is in a unique position to advance international cooperation on AI governance not only between States but also between non-State actors. It is critical that all relevant stakeholders are encouraged to advance cooperation and consideration of AI governance internationally so that they may bring this knowledge back to the regional, national, and local levels. The AI Dialogue as proposed offers such an opportunity. The AI Dialogue could be the central platform for discussion which also collects information from not only relevant stakeholders but also relevant sectors (such as cyber, space, telecom, climate, etc) or other areas of the UN especially in connection with the ITU and UNESCO where AI considerations are already taking place.

As mentioned before, the work done by the ITU and the AI4Good imitative as well as the UNESCO AI ethics recommendations are critical to consider in the AI Dialogue as it gives a chance for a multistakeholder group to consider how to utilise these mechanisms at the international, regional, national, and local levels. UNIDIR also has the AI Policy Platform offering much information regarding national AI governance mechanisms which could support the AI Dialogue. The ITU also created a report of areas within the UN where AI considerations and initiatives were taking place. All these pieces could be catalogued together to add value to the AI Dialogue discussions and to help capacity-building through a more centralised 'hub' approach. Finally, as mentioned above, the AI Dialogue should look to collect some knowledge sharing and lessons learnt from sectors (UN level or otherwise) to show how sector specific challenges and opportunities around AI feed into the thematic areas of the AI Dialogue.

Much like we are doing now, offering opportunities for written submissions that can then be collated and shared would be appreciated. To truly embrace the multistakeholder governance approach, those that cannot attend the AI Dialogue in person would have the opportunity to bring knowledge and lessons learnt to the AI Dialogue for further considerations by the larger group. As this written call came out ahead of the 1st meetings in July 2026 perhaps the same could be completed before the May 2027 meetings as well.

It would be important to hear from students and young professionals as they will face the future challenges and opportunities arising from AI and will need to consider AI governance and how to adapt it for the future. Perhaps they could be included through having higher education offer to include their voice through written feedback like this or through digital poster presentation where they can reflect on one of the thematic areas proposed in the AI Dialogue and share their considerations based on their academic perspective (i.e. law, science, etc). These could be shared on the website, and a few (from developing countries or underrepresented groups for example) could also present at a future meeting in person.

If the format allows, it would be great to see opportunities for networking and interactive discussions like in a workshop or round table style. Technical presentations or side events can also be quite informative for attendees.

The UNESCO AI Ethics and considerations for education have been quite useful for our university to prepare our own university guidance for students and staff. As an educator for post grad AI Law the resources from the ITU, the AI4Good initiative, UNESCO, and the UNIDIR AI Policy platform have been helpful as source material for students. In the UK we have also taken guidance on AI from the Solicitor Regulatory Authority especially for training prospective solicitor students and solicitor apprentices in the Law School and in our Student Law Office. It is always useful to have a blend of holistic and international mechanisms and initiatives paired with more sector specific guidance as well which helps us in academia for teaching and research purposes.