The inaugural United Nations Global Dialogue on AI Governance concluded in Geneva with a clear message from governments, industry, civil society, and international organisations: the success of global AI governance will depend not on the principles adopted, but on the concrete actions taken before participants reconvene in New York in 2027. Speakers repeatedly argued that narrowing the widening AI divide, strengthening international cooperation, and embedding human rights into AI governance will require practical implementation rather than new declarations alone.
From principles to practice
Iceland’s President Halla Tómasdóttir opened the closing plenary by arguing that AI’s future will be shaped not by technological capability but by human choices about power, accountability, and inclusion. Drawing on Iceland’s experience of harnessing natural resources for the public good, she said AI should likewise serve society rather than narrow interests.
‘Access without agency is not inclusion,’ she said, warning that communities furthest from today’s centres of technological power must become co-authors of the AI future rather than passive recipients of it. She also cautioned that ‘principles without practice can inspire false comfort’, arguing that AI governance should ultimately be judged by whether it increases people’s dignity, opportunity, and hope.
Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith echoed those concerns, presenting new data showing that AI adoption has reached 27% of the working-age population in the Global North, compared with just 15% in the Global South. Without intervention, he warned, that gap is likely to widen further over the coming year. Smith identified four priorities for more equitable AI adoption: expanding access to electricity, completing global internet connectivity, supporting multilingual AI models, and making digital skills widely available. He also acknowledged that AI capabilities have advanced much faster than governance frameworks over the past year, calling interoperability between national governance approaches essential to avoid a fragmented regulatory landscape.
Building an inclusive global governance system
Several speakers underlined that no country or institution can govern AI alone and that the UN remains uniquely positioned to convene an inclusive international process.
Guy Ryder, UN Under-Secretary-General for Policy, described the organisation’s greatest strength as its ability to bring together all 193 UN member states alongside businesses, researchers, and civil society. He acknowledged the need for stronger coordination across UN agencies while arguing that the Global Dialogue should become a recurring platform connecting AI governance efforts across international organisations and forums.
Civil society representative Raman Jit Singh Chima of the Association for Progressive Communications urged policymakers to build on existing digital governance mechanisms such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), rather than replacing them with entirely new structures. He also warned that AI governance must be firmly grounded in human rights and informed by the experiences of women, girls, and marginalised communities, who are often disproportionately affected by AI systems while remaining underrepresented in governance discussions.
Namibia’s Minister of Information and Communications Technology Emma Theofelus shifted the discussion towards implementation, calling on the international community to help countries translate global AI principles into national legislation, invest in digital infrastructure, and strengthen scientific and technical capacity in developing economies. She argued that meaningful participation requires recognising countries’ different starting points rather than assuming all governments have equal resources and capabilities.
Dialogue identifies common priorities
The closing session also reflected on the discussions held across the Dialogue’s four thematic tracks, which collectively identified recurring governance gaps around infrastructure, funding, skills, trust, and participation.
Gaia Marcus, Director of the Ada Lovelace Institute, argued that public participation should become a source of evidence rather than a symbolic consultation exercise. Those most affected by AI systems, including workers facing automation and vulnerable communities, should have clear channels to influence policy decisions, she said, adding that trust depends on accountability rather than public relations.
Jaan Tallinn, co-founder of the Future of Life Institute, offered one of the session’s starkest warnings, arguing that AI capabilities are now advancing on a quarterly basis while governance processes typically evolve over years. He cautioned that frontier AI companies are pursuing increasingly capable systems despite acknowledging significant safety challenges, making international cooperation more urgent than ever.
Rapporteurs from the four thematic clusters highlighted broad convergence across the dialogue. Participants repeatedly called for stronger AI capacity building, practical interoperability between governance frameworks, greater support for local adaptation and multilingual AI, stronger human rights safeguards, and wider participation from developing countries and civil society. Rather than competing to build the most powerful AI systems, several speakers argued that countries should focus on developing the institutions, skills, and governance mechanisms needed to deploy AI responsibly.
Geneva lays the foundation for New York
Closing the event, co-chair Rein Tammsaar said the inaugural dialogue had brought together more than 4,200 registered participants from nearly 170 member states, alongside representatives of industry, academia, civil society, and international organisations. He argued that the discussions demonstrated the world’s challenge is no longer a lack of AI principles, but the absence of practical mechanisms to implement them.
Tammsaar said participants had moved beyond abstract debates towards discussions on national AI strategies, legal safeguards, teacher training, and public-sector capacity building. He also reiterated that the AI divide is about far more than access to technology, it is also about the ability to shape, govern, and benefit from AI.
Co-chair Egriselda López concluded that the Global Dialogue is intended not to replace existing AI governance initiatives but to connect them, strengthen cooperation, and help countries learn from one another. Recalling a remark from a representative of a small country who said, ‘We are here not to be a footnote,’ López said the statement captured the spirit of the inaugural dialogue.
Both co-chairs agreed that Geneva should be viewed not as the end of a process but as its beginning. They urged participants to return home with concrete commitments and practical actions so that, when the second UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance convenes in New York in May 2027, progress can be measured not by new principles but by tangible improvements in inclusion, capacity, and international cooperation.
Track all key moments from the Global Dialogue on AI Governance inaugural meeting on our dedicated page.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
