techlawmaker.com

In my view, a successful first Global Dialogue on AI Governance would deliver three concrete outcomes. First, a shared set of principles, not merely aspirational but anchored in transparency, accountability, and meaningful human oversight. These principles must respect different national contexts while establishing a baseline that no responsible actor should cross. Second, clear institutional pathways for cooperation. Drawing from my research on international law and AI governance, I believe we need to map how existing bodies, the UN, WTO, and regional organizations like ASEAN and the African Union, can coordinate on cross-border risks and where new mechanisms are required. Third, a credible follow‑up mechanism. Dialogue without action becomes a footnote. Success means leaving with working groups, pilot projects, or a concrete roadmap. For the Global South, capacity‑building commitments, university partnerships, knowledge sharing, and technical assistance are essential to ensure governance is truly inclusive. As someone who has worked across China, South Asia, and international fora, I know that fragmented policies leave gaps where risks grow. This dialogue must close the gap between rule‑makers and implementers, transforming principles into shared ownership of next steps.

• Interoperability of governance approaches
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight

My selection reflects the priorities I see as most urgent in my work on AI governance and international law. Interoperability of governance approaches is essential because fragmented regulatory frameworks create gaps that catastrophic risks can slip through. Having worked across China, South Asia, and international fora, I have seen how divergent rules leave states and institutions without clear pathways for cooperation. A shared baseline that respects diverse contexts is the only way to govern AI across borders. Protection and promotion of human rights must remain central. AI systems increasingly shape decisions affecting privacy, non-discrimination, and due process. My legal background, from litigation to advising on cyber and data protection, has taught me that rights are not abstract; they are the line between technology serving people or harming them. Embedding human rights into AI governance is non-negotiable. Transparency, accountability, and human oversight are the operational backbone of any effective governance regime. Without them, principles become empty. My research on institutional enforcement mechanisms has shown that accountability structures, whether judicial, regulatory, or institutional, are what turn voluntary commitments into binding safeguards. Human oversight ensures that we do not delegate decisions with life-changing consequences to black-box systems. Together, these three areas form a coherent foundation for governance that is interoperable, rights-respecting, and accountable, urgent priorities for any meaningful global dialogue.

Two cross-cutting issues deserve sharper focus: 1. Legal liability and attribution. 2. Institutional capacity for implementation.

In South Asia, governance gaps in interoperability, human rights, and transparency hit close to home. Countries are shaping AI policies in silos—India, Pakistan, and others, with little coordination. Cross‑border risks like algorithmic harm or cyber threats fall through the cracks. Regional platforms and university partnerships offer a real opening to build shared norms. Human rights protection is uneven. AI is moving into surveillance, courts, and public services, but data protection laws are weak. Privacy and fairness can get overlooked. The opportunity is to learn from stronger frameworks elsewhere and embed rights from the start. Transparency and accountability suffer because our institutions, courts, and regulators aren't equipped to oversee AI. But that means we can build capacity intentionally: training judges, developing clear rules, designing oversight that works. Having worked across China and South Asia, I see a chance to help shape frameworks that are interoperable, rights‑respecting, and grounded in real institutional capacity.

• The AI Dialogue can serve as a bridge, bringing diverse voices together to move from fragmented policies toward shared understanding. It can help identify where existing institutions (UN and regional bodies) can coordinate
• clarify principles like transparency and human rights that everyone can agree on
• and build trust through open conversation. Most importantly, it can turn talk into action by setting concrete follow-ups, working groups, pilot projects, or capacity-building commitments so that cooperation becomes real, not just aspirational

The AI Dialogue can build on existing efforts like UNESCO's AI ethics guidelines, OECD principles, the EU AI Act, and regional work in ASEAN and the African Union. It can also connect with university networks, such as ASEF, where my own research on AI governance and international cooperation fits naturally. What the dialogue adds is a space where Global North and South can come together as equals. It can help align fragmented rules, anchor shared commitments on human rights and accountability, and turn principles into real follow-ups, training for regulators, joint projects, and building capacity where it's needed most. That's exactly the kind of cooperation my work aims to support.

Governments, international organizations, civil society, academia, and the private sector should contribute through a hybrid, multi‑track format that combines high‑level plenaries for political commitment with expert working groups, regional consultations, and inclusive online platforms to ensure continuous, transparent, and action‑oriented engagement across all levels.

The Global South, grassroots civil society, indigenous communities, and small island states are underrepresented; they could be included through dedicated regional consultations, funding for participation, and embedding their representatives in formal decision‑making bodies.

Interactive scenario‑based workshops and co‑design labs that bring policymakers, technologists, and affected communities together to solve concrete governance challenges.

The EU AI Act as a risk-based regulatory framework, UNESCO's AI Ethics Impact Assessment tool, and the OECD AI Policy Observatory as platforms for sharing best practices.