Development

UN opens Global Dialogue on AI Governance with call for inclusive and evidence-based cooperation

The United Nations opened its first Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva, calling for inclusive, evidence-based and practical international cooperation to ensure that AI supports development while addressing risks related to safety, inequality, disinformation, children’s rights and human oversight.

The inaugural Global Dialogue on AI Governance is taking place on 6–7 July, alongside the AI for Good Global Summit and the WSIS Forum. Established in 2025, the dialogue is intended to provide a platform for governments and relevant stakeholders to discuss international cooperation, share good practices and support open, transparent and inclusive discussions on AI governance.

Opening the session, Ambassador Egriselda López of El Salvador, one of the dialogue’s co-chairs, described the meeting as the beginning of a broader process rather than a one-off event. She said Geneva should be seen not only as a place of arrival, but as a point of departure for continued work on AI governance.

López stressed that meaningful participation requires more than a seat in the room. Countries also need skills, infrastructure, financing, institutions and partnerships to shape and benefit from AI. Her co-chair, Ambassador Rein Tammsaar of Estonia, said AI is already affecting every country, regardless of its level of technological development, and that governance discussions must therefore include all regions, levels of development and relevant stakeholders.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that AI is advancing at ‘runaway speed’ and is being deployed faster than institutions can manage. He said AI is already reshaping economies, labour markets, elections and security, while society is facing what he described as an experiment being run ‘without a plan’ and ‘without consent’.

Guterres identified three major risks highlighted by scientific evidence: the speed of AI deployment, the concentration of power in a small number of companies and countries, and the erosion of truth through AI-enabled misinformation. He warned that computing power, data and talent remain concentrated, leaving many countries, particularly developing ones, with limited influence over technologies that may shape their futures.

At the same time, Guterres emphasised AI’s potential to support development, including in healthcare, education and agriculture. If shared widely, he said, AI could help make expertise more accessible and become a ‘great equaliser’ of the twenty-first century.

The Secretary-General outlined four priorities for international action: common safety standards, clear red lines grounded in human rights, stronger capacity-building for developing countries and greater transparency about AI’s environmental footprint. He also called for an AI child safety pledge, a global fund and network for AI capacity-building, and an international legal ban on lethal autonomous weapons, which he referred to as ‘killer robots’.

Annalena Baerbock, President of the UN General Assembly, said AI is developing at a pace that does not allow governments the time they had with earlier technological revolutions. She argued that AI cannot be governed by a few actors alone and must be addressed through the UN with participation from all countries and stakeholders.

Baerbock also highlighted harmful uses of AI, including deepfakes and gendered abuse. She said such abuses disproportionately target women and girls and described them as part of a broader challenge to human rights. At the same time, she pointed to AI’s potential to support the Sustainable Development Goals, including through disaster warning, agriculture, health and education.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union, framed the opening as part of a wider ‘Geneva Digital Week’ that brings together the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, the work of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, the AI for Good Global Summit and the WSIS Forum. She contrasted the current pace of AI governance discussions with the early years of the internet, noting that the UN has moved more quickly to convene global dialogue on generative AI.

Khaled El-Enany of UNESCO focused on implementation, saying that a gap remains between principles and practice. He highlighted UNESCO’s 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence as a global standard for aligning AI with human rights, sustainability and inclusion. He said UNESCO is supporting more than 80 countries in strengthening legal frameworks, institutional capacities and accountability mechanisms, and noted that over 50,000 civil servants and judicial actors have benefited from UNESCO-supported AI training.

El-Enany also said UNESCO is launching a collective reflection on a new global normative instrument to safeguard children and young people in the age of AI and digital technologies.

Amandeep Singh Gill, UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Envoy for Digital and Emerging Technologies, underlined the scale of participation in the dialogue, noting representation from more than 170 countries alongside scientists, entrepreneurs, civil society, international organisations and technical communities. He said inclusion in AI governance cannot be treated as a one-off exercise, adding that without capacity, ‘dialogues are monologues and science is just abstract’.

Singh Gill situated the dialogue within a longer UN process that includes the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, the Global Digital Compact and the High-Level Advisory Body on AI. He said the process would continue with a second round in New York next year, expected to be held alongside the STI Forum.

The opening session showed broad agreement that AI governance should be inclusive, evidence-based, rights-oriented and supported by practical capacity-building. Speakers repeatedly stressed that AI’s potential benefits for development, education, health and agriculture must be matched by safeguards on safety, accountability, children’s rights, truth, environmental sustainability and human oversight.

Tammsaar closed the opening by saying the discussion had highlighted both AI’s opportunities and the need for stronger international cooperation to ensure that the technology contributes to sustainable development, inclusion and shared prosperity. The meeting then moved to the presentation of the preliminary report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence.

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! 

WSIS Forum 2026 explores how the IGF should evolve after gaining a permanent mandate

The future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took centre stage at the WSIS Forum 2026, where policymakers, former diplomats, technical experts and internet governance practitioners discussed how the forum should evolve following the UN’s decision to grant it a permanent mandate.

Speakers agreed that the challenge is no longer whether the IGF should continue, but how it can become more relevant, effective and responsive to emerging issues such as AI while preserving its multistakeholder character. The discussion focused on four broad priorities, such as strengthening government participation, improving intersessional work, deepening links with national and regional IGF initiatives (NRIs), and ensuring the forum has sufficient institutional capacity and sustainable funding.

Governments need a stronger role without changing the IGF’s character

A recurring theme was how to increase meaningful government participation without transforming the IGF into a traditional intergovernmental negotiation forum.

Anriette Esterhuysen, human rights defender and computer networking pioneer from South Africa, argued that governments must participate more actively, particularly to strengthen digital policymaking in developing countries, but warned against reducing their involvement to formal speeches by senior officials.

Instead, she said governments should engage openly on practical policy challenges that require collaboration with the wider internet governance community.

Former Latvian ambassador Janis Karklins echoed this view, arguing that governments would only dedicate time and resources to the IGF if it addressed issues directly relevant to their national priorities.

Planning for the upcoming IGF in Nairobi, he suggested, should take into account the policy needs of African governments to ensure the forum delivers practical value.

Jennifer Chung, Chair of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), also stressed that the initiative should be understood as a ‘government dialogue with stakeholders’ rather than a separate government track, preserving the IGF’s long-standing multistakeholder model.

Meanwhile, IGF Programme and Technology Manager Chengetai Masango said discussions on the exact format remain ongoing, with organisers considering how the dialogue could build on existing high-level sessions rather than creating an entirely new structure.

Stronger outcomes through year-round collaboration

Participants also debated how the IGF could produce more tangible results while remaining a platform for dialogue rather than negotiations.

Konstantinos Komaitis opened the discussion by asking how the IGF could move beyond its reputation as a ‘talking shop’ without becoming another UN negotiating process.

Esterhuysen argued that achieving greater impact requires changing the way the IGF works rather than changing its mandate. She suggested more structured intersessional work, thematic synthesis and longer-term collaboration on priority issues instead of relying primarily on standalone workshops during the annual meeting.

Andrea Calderaro, Director of Cyber Diplomacy at the EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), similarly argued that the most valuable work happens between annual IGF meetings, with governments and stakeholders conducting national consultations and bringing those experiences into global discussions.

Masango defended dialogue as the forum’s core purpose, but agreed that stronger follow-up and more practical outputs are needed. He said previous initiatives, including voluntary commitments, had not always been sufficiently tracked or incorporated into future work.

National and regional IGFs seen as a growing strength

Speakers also highlighted the growing importance of national, regional and youth Internet Governance Forums, which now number more than 180 worldwide.

Esterhuysen welcomed their explicit recognition in the WSIS+20 outcome document, describing them as one of the IGF’s greatest successes.

Chung said the relationship between the global IGF and NRIs should evolve beyond annual event coordination towards continuous thematic collaboration and shared learning throughout the year.

She noted particularly strong growth among youth initiatives, especially in Africa and Asia, arguing that younger participants increasingly want meaningful involvement in shaping Internet governance discussions rather than symbolic participation.

Esterhuysen proposed a two-way model in which the global IGF identifies concrete policy questions, NRIs and intersessional groups examine them throughout the year, and the Secretariat synthesises the results into practical, non-negotiated policy options for governments and other stakeholders.

Permanent mandate brings new expectations

The discussion also touched on longer-term institutional questions, including funding and Secretariat capacity.

Although speakers acknowledged that financial sustainability remains an important challenge, they agreed that the immediate priority is preparing a successful IGF meeting in Nairobi while gradually implementing reforms in the years ahead.

Calderaro argued that the IGF should increasingly serve as a hub connecting the growing number of international digital governance processes rather than functioning only as an annual conference.

Esterhuysen also urged the forum to become more willing to address politically sensitive issues, including corporate accountability, arguing that its permanent mandate provides an opportunity to take on more substantive policy debates.

Closing the session, participants broadly agreed that the IGF’s future lies not in becoming a negotiating body, but in strengthening dialogue, improving policy-relevant outputs, deepening collaboration across national and regional initiatives, and ensuring governments, civil society, academia, the private sector and technical communities remain equally engaged as internet governance continues to evolve.

Track all key moments from the WSIS Forum 2026 on our dedicated WSIS page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

Stronger health data governance seen as key to trusted AI and digital health at WSIS Forum 2026

Strong legislative frameworks for health data governance are becoming essential to ensure that AI and digital health technologies remain trustworthy, equitable and rights-based, speakers said during a session at the WSIS Forum 2026.

The discussion brought together representatives from governments, international organisations, civil society and the private sector, who agreed that while AI and digital technologies are transforming healthcare, governance frameworks have not always kept pace. Speakers repeatedly argued that stronger legislation, greater international coordination and broader stakeholder participation will be necessary to build public trust and enable responsible data sharing across borders.

The session formed part of the WSIS Forum 2026, held in Geneva from 6 to 10 July. Co-organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), UNESCO, UNDP and UNCTAD together with more than 50 UN organisations, the forum serves as one of the UN’s principal multistakeholder platforms for digital cooperation and sustainable development.

Trust begins with governance

Opening the discussion, Mathilde Forslund of Transform Health argued that health data has become the foundation of modern healthcare, powering everything from patient care and disease surveillance to AI innovation and health system planning.

However, she stressed that technological progress alone is insufficient.

‘Digital technologies and AI are transforming health systems rapidly, but these benefits will only be realised equitably and responsibly if governance keeps pace and public trust is maintained,’ she said.

Forslund argued that trusted governance requires legislation grounded in human rights, transparency and equity, alongside inclusive decision-making that informs citizens how their health data is collected, shared and protected. She also called for stronger national legal frameworks governing both health data and AI while encouraging greater regional and international alignment to prevent fragmented rules from undermining interoperability and cross-border cooperation.

Rather than starting from scratch, she noted that countries can already build on existing resources, including Transform Health’s Health Data Governance Principles, WHO guidance on AI, OECD recommendations and emerging regional initiatives such as the European Health Data Space (EHDS) and the Africa CDC’s work on continental health data governance.

National legislation provides legal certainty

Drawing on Zambia’s experience, Andrew Kashoka, Director of Information Technology at the Ministry of Health of Zambia, explained that governments increasingly recognise the need for legal certainty as digital health systems expand.

He argued that while policies and strategies provide direction, legislation ultimately establishes enforceable rights and obligations governing consent, privacy, accountability and access to health data.

‘Technology moves faster than policy and policy moves faster than legislation,’ Kashoka observed.

He described Zambia’s National Digital Health Strategy and the country’s participation in the WHO Global Initiative on Digital Health (GUIDE), noting that electronic health records, digital public infrastructure and AI all require strong legal foundations to maintain public confidence.

Kashoka also highlighted the Africa CDC’s continental health data governance framework, saying it provides African countries with shared principles that support legal interoperability, trusted cross-border collaboration, regional disease surveillance and responsible AI innovation.

Coordination, not policy, remains the biggest challenge

Several speakers suggested that governance challenges stem less from the absence of policies than from fragmented implementation.

Linda Bonyo, Founder of the Lawyers Hub and the Africa AI Policy Lab, argued that numerous organisations are already developing health data and AI governance initiatives, but often work independently with limited coordination.

She criticised the exclusion of parliaments and judicial institutions from governance discussions, arguing that legislators and courts play essential roles in creating and interpreting legal frameworks.

Bonyo also called for stronger institutional capacity, particularly among national data protection authorities that increasingly find themselves overseeing AI without sufficient technical expertise or financial resources.

She further highlighted practical barriers limiting African participation in international governance discussions, including visa restrictions and the high cost of attending Geneva-based meetings.

Summarising the challenge, Bonyo remarked that the problem is ‘not a policy problem… it’s implementation,’ urging countries to develop governance frameworks rooted in local realities rather than simply adopting foreign regulatory models.

Private sector and technical standards also matter

Representing the technical and private-sector perspective, Simão Ferraz de Campos Neto, Senior Counsellor at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), argued that clearer rules and common technical standards are essential if health data is to be shared safely without discouraging innovation.

He noted that organisations frequently hesitate to share data not because they oppose collaboration, but because legal uncertainty creates concerns about liability.

Campos Neto called for interoperable technical standards, machine-readable datasets and standardised data-sharing agreements that could make trusted health data exchange significantly easier.

He also cautioned against treating AI as a single technology requiring uniform regulation.

Instead, he advocated proportionate, risk-based regulation that reflects the diversity of AI applications, while avoiding excessive regulatory burdens that could slow innovation.

Momentum builds towards global action

Closing the discussion, Jamal Alshanfari, Ambassador and Head of Oman Health office in Geneva, pointed to growing political momentum following discussions at the World Health Assembly, where member states expressed broad support for developing stronger global health data governance arrangements.

He identified four priorities for the next phase of work. The phases are expanding international consensus, strengthening national legislation and institutional capacity, providing practical implementation guidance, and ensuring that governments, civil society, academia, industry and end users all participate in shaping future frameworks.

Alshanfari also reminded participants that governance discussions should ultimately focus on those most affected by digital health technologies.

‘Everybody forgets about the end user,’ he said, stressing that trust depends on governance frameworks serving citizens as much as institutions.

In her closing remarks, Forslund said the discussion demonstrated encouraging progress across national, regional and global initiatives, while acknowledging that implementation remains the greatest challenge. She pointed to the upcoming World Health Assembly as an important opportunity to advance work on a possible global resolution on health data governance.

The session concluded with broad agreement that trusted AI in healthcare will depend not only on technological innovation but also on stronger legislation, greater international coordination, practical implementation, and governance frameworks that place citizens’ rights and public trust at their centre.

Track all key moments from the WSIS Forum 2026 on our dedicated WSIS page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

UN chief urges global rules for AI governance

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has urged governments, companies and civil society to move faster on global AI governance, warning that the technology is already reshaping economies, security and human rights. Speaking at the inaugural UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva, he said any future agreement must be ‘worthy of global trust’ and place safety at its centre.

Guterres said AI ‘sits at the heart of our common future’, but stressed that humans must remain responsible for critical decisions. In high-risk areas such as justice, healthcare and policing, he warned that ‘machines can inform, but humans must decide, and answer’.

He also said that AI rules must be aligned internationally, adding: ‘When countries align on how to test systems, measure risk and assign responsibility, safety travels with the technology.’ Without such alignment, he warned, ‘a patchwork of incompatible rules raises costs, divides the world – and protects no one.’

Children’s safety was presented as a central concern. Guterres called for an AI Child Safety Pledge, saying: ‘No child should be a guinea pig for unregulated AI…We do not let medicine reach a child until it is proven safe. We test every toy; yet AI has reached our children – their learning, their friendships, their most private questions, before anyone asked what it would do to them.’

Track all key moments from the WSIS Forum 2026 on our dedicated WSIS page.

He also said that when a child shows signs of distress, ‘the system must stop and connect them to real human support’, and added: ‘When a child is harmed, the answer must never be “the algorithm did it,”’.

The UN chief also warned that unequal access to AI could deepen global divides. Used well and shared widely, he said, AI ‘could compress decades of development into years’ and become ‘the great equalizer of the 21st century’. However, he cautioned: ‘We cannot allow the digital divide to harden into an AI divide and the AI divide to become a development gap, a security gap, and a sovereignty gap.’

Environmental impact was another major focus. Guterres called on major AI companies to disclose the carbon, water and land footprint of their systems and to power all data centres with renewable energy by 2030. ‘AI may feel intangible – but its footprint is not,’ he said, warning that data centres already consume more electricity than most countries and could soon place even greater pressure on power and water systems.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

WSIS session calls for a broader understanding of digital citizenship in the AI era

A WSIS Forum 2026 session on digital citizenship examined how governments, regulators, international organisations, and technical communities can help people participate safely and meaningfully in digital society as AI becomes more widely used.

The discussion took place during the WSIS Forum 2026, held in Geneva from 6 to 10 July. The annual multistakeholder forum, co-organised by ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, and UNCTAD, brings together governments, international organisations, civil society, the private sector, academia, and technical communities to advance implementation of the WSIS Action Lines and support digital cooperation.

Opening the session, Alik Mikaelian, project specialist at UNDP Egypt, said digital citizenship can no longer be understood only as internet access. Although billions of people are now online, she argued that meaningful participation requires the ability to think critically, understand rights and responsibilities, navigate AI-enabled environments, and engage safely in digital society. She also linked digital citizenship to trusted institutions, resilient infrastructure, and cooperation among governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical communities.

Dr Hoda Baraka, advisor to Egypt’s Minister of ICT for Technology Talent Development and a Professor of Computer Engineering at Cairo University, presented Egypt’s approach to digital citizenship, describing a digitally empowered citizen as someone able to ‘access, understand, use, create, and benefit from digital technologies’ in a safe, ethical, productive, and inclusive way. She said Egypt’s Digital Egypt agenda combines infrastructure expansion, digital government services, digital literacy, skills programmes, online safety, and support for persons with disabilities.

Baraka said Egypt is working across different age groups and professional communities, including school pupils, university students, graduates, public servants, parents, educators, and persons with disabilities. She highlighted initiatives such as Digital Egypt Marvel Schools and the Digital Egypt Cubs Initiative, as well as programmes for advanced skills and public-sector readiness. She added that online safety is becoming increasingly important due to misinformation, deepfakes, privacy risks, and threats to personal data.

Dr Abeer Shakweer, speaking from UNDP Egypt’s perspective, said the focus should shift from simply combating misinformation to strengthening information integrity. She argued that citizens need critical thinking skills and the capacity to make informed decisions in AI-shaped information environments.

Shakweer described a three-pillar UNDP programme in Egypt. The first pillar addresses misinformation and disinformation through an assessment of the information ecosystem and a bilingual Arabic-English toolkit for youth and journalists. She said the toolkit had been used to train more than 120 young people and 25 journalism trainers. The second pillar explores how AI can be used both to spread and to counter false information, while the third embeds capacity development across public-facing digital programmes, including digital transformation, digital public infrastructure, and future intelligence.

Krisstina Rao focused on digital public infrastructure (DPI), describing it as shared, reusable infrastructure that supports services across government rather than separate systems developed by individual ministries or departments. She cited digital identity, payment systems, and consent-based data exchange as examples.

Rao said governments cannot build complex DPI systems alone and need early collaboration with stakeholders who can contribute expertise on inclusion, safety, accountability, and adoption. She warned that if countries continue maintaining both digital and analogue systems, because many people remain excluded, costs remain high, and the full value of DPI is reduced. She referred to examples, including Brazil’s PIX forum and Ethiopia’s early collaboration with UNHCR to connect digital identity systems with refugee registration.

Dr Chafic Chaya stressed that digital citizenship should not be separated from internet infrastructure. He said discussions often focus on individual behaviour, such as staying safe online or protecting data, but that meaningful participation also depends on resilient connectivity, reliable platforms, and secure environments. He added that this is particularly important in the Global South, where access may expand faster than resilience and capacity development.

Her Excellency Lara Khateeb brought a regulatory perspective, saying rules must remain flexible and adaptive because technology changes quickly. She said Jordan benchmarks international practices and uses public consultation to make regulations more workable. She described this as a form of ‘reverse engineering’, starting from available technologies and practical solutions before shaping rules around them.

Khateeb cited Jordan’s work on child online protection as an example, explaining that regulators consulted telecom operators about available technical solutions and international platforms about how those systems interact. She also emphasised data protection, coordination with cybersecurity agencies, and awareness campaigns tailored to different groups, including children, women, businesses, and SMEs.

Nicholas Field highlighted the role of young people in digital citizenship. Drawing on work with Omidyar Network and UNICEF, he said young people often want to engage and are ready to contribute, but are frequently treated as an afterthought in policymaking. He noted that they often help older family members use digital services and argued that governments should reach them through the channels they actually use, including influencers, YouTube, and podcasts.

Field also raised the issue of AI skills among teachers, saying educators cannot be expected to guide responsible AI use if they do not understand the technology themselves. He said institutions should not assume students will avoid AI tools, but should instead define clear parameters for responsible and acceptable use.

The session also discussed sandboxes as practical tools for testing digital systems before full deployment. Field described sandboxes as time-bound technical environments created for a specific learning purpose. He said they can help regulators, companies, and citizens build trust through safe experimentation. He cited the French identity sandbox, which contributed to work around interoperable digital identity, and the GovStack interoperability sandbox, which tests components such as ID, consent, registers, messaging, and workflow.

Shakweer later shifted the discussion from citizens to institutions, arguing that digital transformation requires public bodies to assess their own readiness and invest in capacity development. She said UNDP uses digital and AI readiness assessment tools to help organisations understand their current position and develop practical roadmaps. In Egypt, she said, such assessments had been applied with the Ministry of Justice and started with the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority.

Returning to AI governance, Al-Khateeb said regulators should encourage responsible AI use rather than ban it. She criticised approaches that prohibit AI use outright, arguing that people should instead be taught to use the technology responsibly, including by checking sources and understanding risks. She also described how Jordan’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission uses an internal AI system, not connected to the internet, to search regulations and decisions and support regulatory work.

Baraka closed the discussion by outlining Egypt’s responsible AI work. She said Egypt has an ethical charter, a governance framework, guidelines for developers and deployers, and procurement guidance for public institutions buying AI systems. However, she stressed that frameworks alone are not enough and that institutions need practical tools to apply them before and after deployment.

She also highlighted Egypt’s emerging AI Audit Lab, developed with support from UNDP, GSMA, GIZ, and WebSphere, as a way to help move from principles to implementation. The lab is intended to support Egyptian programmers, developers, and SMEs in testing and building responsible AI systems, including around fairness, accountability, transparency, openness, interoperability, and explainability.

Across the session, speakers agreed that digital citizenship in the AI era requires more than connectivity. It depends on critical thinking, trusted public institutions, secure infrastructure, inclusive DPI, flexible regulation, AI literacy, online safety, and practical tools that allow citizens and institutions to use digital technologies responsibly.

Track all key moments from the WSIS Forum 2026 on our dedicated WSIS page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

What Geneva’s history can teach us about governing AI

Based on a Diplo interview with Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director of Diplo, conducted by Maricela Muñoz.

Few places embody the history of international diplomacy as vividly as Geneva’s Alabama Room. It was here, in 1864, that representatives of European states signed the first Geneva Convention, laying the foundations of modern international humanitarian law. The same room also hosted negotiations that resolved the Alabama Claims, an arbitration between the United States and the United Kingdom that became a landmark in the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

Maricela Muñoz and Jovan Kurbalija

More than 160 years later, the room continues to host conversations about another challenge with global implications – AI. While the technologies have changed dramatically, the underlying questions remain remarkably familiar. How can societies govern transformative innovations responsibly? How can competing interests find common ground? And how can international cooperation keep pace with technologies evolving faster than regulation?

These themes formed the basis of a recent Diplo interview with Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director of Diplo, who reflected on Geneva’s historical legacy and its continuing relevance for AI governance. His central argument is that understanding the future of AI requires more than technical expertise. It also requires revisiting the intellectual traditions, diplomatic culture, and human values that have shaped Geneva for centuries.

History offers principles, not ready-made answers

Kurbalija cautions against treating history as a collection of simple solutions.

‘History does not provide us ready-made lessons. Our moment is unique in many respects.’

Instead, history provides something more enduring, the principles that continue to guide societies confronting new challenges.

Standing inside the Alabama Room, Kurbalija described history as something that ‘echoes across time.’ Rather than searching for direct historical parallels, he suggested imagining the negotiators who once walked through Geneva’s streets before gathering around the same table to discuss humanitarian protection or peaceful dispute settlement.

The technologies confronting today’s diplomats are different, yet many of the qualities that enabled successful negotiations remain unchanged. Patience, dialogue, respect for opposing views, and the willingness to seek common ground continue to underpin effective diplomacy.

As governments, international organisations, companies, researchers, and civil society grapple with AI governance, these diplomatic traditions may be more relevant than ever.

Geneva’s enduring values: Inclusion and compromise

For Kurbalija, Geneva’s importance extends well beyond the concentration of international organisations located around the city.

Its defining contribution lies in a diplomatic culture built around inclusion and compromise.

Inclusion has long characterised Geneva’s approach to international negotiations. Whether discussing humanitarian law in the nineteenth century or AI governance today, meaningful outcomes depend on ensuring that all those affected have a voice.

That principle has become particularly important for AI governance.

‘We should have AI companies, but we must have governments, communities, citizens, marginal groups all over the world.’

The observation reflects one of the central challenges of AI governance. Decisions about AI increasingly affect education, healthcare, employment, security, trade, and human rights. Consequently, discussions cannot remain confined to governments and technology companies alone.

Kurbalija identifies compromise as the second defining Geneva principle.

‘Compromise is not a very popular word today.’

Yet he argues that compromise represents an ethical strength rather than a weakness. It requires recognising that different actors hold legitimate interests and finding solutions that, while imperfect, remain acceptable to everyone involved.

In an era increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition over AI, these principles may prove as valuable as any technological breakthrough.

EspriTech de Genève: When history speaks to AI

One of the interview’s most distinctive ideas is Kurbalija’s concept of EspriTech de Genève.

Drawing inspiration from the traditional Esprit de Genève, which reflects the city’s humanitarian and diplomatic heritage, EspriTech de Genève explores how thinkers associated with Geneva anticipated many of today’s debates about technology, knowledge, and humanity.

Rather than beginning with computers, Kurbalija traces AI governance back through centuries of philosophy, literature, linguistics, and science.

Art, Collage, City, Metropolis, Urban, Water, Waterfront, Adult, Male, Man, Person, Nature, Outdoors, Scenery, Female, Woman, Face, Head, Accessories, Glasses, Transportation, Vehicle, Yacht, Architecture, Building, Monument, Arch, Jean Piaget, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Jorge Luis Borges, Ferdinand de Saussure, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Valentin Haüy, Voltaire, Jehan Cauvin

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, written near Geneva more than two centuries ago, provides perhaps the most familiar example. The novel tells the story of a scientist whose creation ultimately escapes his control.

‘It is the eternal reminder of the human drive to push the frontier, to invent, to discover new things—and at the same time the human predicament that the very invention we developed could hurt humanity.’

For Kurbalija, the novel remains strikingly relevant as societies debate increasingly capable AI systems. The question is no longer simply whether humans can build powerful technologies, but how they can ensure those technologies remain aligned with human interests.

Another recurring influence is Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, whose works explored uncertainty, knowledge, and the limits of human understanding. Reflecting on Borges’ observation that humanity must continue building ‘as if the sand were stone,’ Kurbalija argues that uncertainty is not a flaw to eliminate but a defining feature of human existence.

Attempts to achieve complete certainty through technology, he suggests, risk repeating an ancient mistake, believing that humans can fully master complexity.

Rousseau, Bonnet and Saussure: forgotten foundations of the AI age

The interview also revisits several Genevan thinkers whose ideas continue to resonate in discussions about AI.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of the social contract raises questions about human agency in an increasingly digital society. If knowledge becomes concentrated within a handful of large AI systems, Kurbalija argues, societies may need to reconsider how citizens exercise autonomy, participate in democratic life, and realise their potential.

Charles Bonnet, an eighteenth-century Genevan natural philosopher, appears as an unexpectedly modern figure. Fascinated by recurring patterns in nature, Bonnet studied the mathematical organisation of leaves and explored how seemingly complex biological systems emerge from underlying structures.

According to Kurbalija, Bonnet’s search for patterns anticipated, in remarkably abstract form, today’s machine learning systems, which likewise identify statistical relationships within vast quantities of information.

Language itself forms another bridge between Geneva’s intellectual history and contemporary AI.

Geneva

Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure transformed linguistics by distinguishing between the structure of language and its meaning. Although writing decades before computers existed, his work laid conceptual foundations that later influenced computational linguistics and, indirectly, today’s large language models.

‘If AI companies ever had to pay royalties for ideas,’ Kurbalija jokes, ‘Saussure’s successors would probably earn quite a bit.’

Behind the humour lies a serious point, that AI did not emerge in an intellectual vacuum. It builds upon centuries of inquiry into language, knowledge, communication, and human cognition.

Human-centred AI begins with human values

Throughout the conversation, Kurbalija repeatedly returns to one theme, that AI governance is ultimately about people rather than machines.

The phrase ‘human-centred AI’ appears frequently in international discussions, yet he argues that its meaning deserves closer examination.

What does it actually mean to place humans at the centre of AI? For Kurbalija, the answer lies in humility.

Drawing once again on Frankenstein, he argues that technological ambition should always be accompanied by recognition of human limitations.

‘We should have humility,’ he says.

Jovan Kurbalija

Rather than pursuing AI for its own sake, societies should ask how technology can support human dignity, creativity, education, and well-being.

He also highlights the principle of subsidiarity, the idea that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people affected by them. Applied to AI, this means involving citizens, educators, local communities, researchers, and smaller organisations alongside governments and major technology companies.

Broad participation, he argues, helps ensure that AI is perceived not as an external force imposed upon society, but as a tool developed with society.

Geneva’s next chapter

Geneva’s role in AI governance continues to evolve.The city already hosts initiatives such as the AI for Good Global Summit, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and numerous discussions on AI governance involving governments, international organisations, academia, civil society, and the private sector.

It is also expected to host the AI Summit in 2027, further reinforcing its position as one of the world’s principal centres for international dialogue on emerging technologies.

Geneva
Image via Freepik

Yet Kurbalija believes Geneva’s greatest contribution lies not in the number of meetings it convenes but in the diplomatic culture it represents.Its traditions of inclusion, dialogue, compromise, and respect for human dignity offer an important counterbalance at a time when AI discussions are increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition, technological rivalry, and commercial pressures.

He concludes the interview with three messages for policymakers:

  • The first is to avoid what he calls ‘chrono-narcissism’, the belief that every challenge is entirely new and disconnected from history.
  • The second is to approach AI with humility, recognising both its extraordinary potential and its inherent risks.
  • The third is to ensure that AI governance remains genuinely inclusive by bringing decision-making closer to the people whose lives the technology will affect.

These principles echo far beyond Geneva.

As AI becomes embedded in nearly every aspect of society, debates about governance are becoming less about technology itself and more about the values that should guide its development. In that respect, Geneva’s greatest contribution may not be a particular regulatory model or institutional framework, but a reminder that diplomacy, dialogue, and humanity remain as essential in the AI era as they were when the first Geneva Convention was signed more than a century and a half ago.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

UN Global Dialogue opens debate on AI risks and governance

The first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance has opened in Geneva, bringing governments, technology companies, researchers and civil society together to discuss international cooperation on AI.

The Dialogue was established through the Global Digital Compact to provide an inclusive UN forum for sharing experiences, identifying governance gaps and discussing how AI can be developed and used safely.

The meeting follows the release of the first preliminary report by the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. The report provides an evidence-based assessment of AI’s opportunities, risks and societal impacts for UN member states.

The Panel warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than scientific understanding and that many governments’ ability to respond is lagging. It said AI could support economic growth, public services and scientific discovery, but that the risk of serious or catastrophic harm cannot yet be ruled out.

Participants also highlighted the widening AI divide. Advanced economies and major technology companies hold most of the infrastructure, data, investment and expertise needed to build and govern advanced AI systems, while many developing countries risk remaining dependent on external models and platforms.

The Dialogue is intended to support more open and inclusive discussion on AI governance, including safety, accountability, access, capacity-building and international coordination.

It takes place in Geneva on 6 and 7 July alongside the AI for Good Global Summit and WSIS Forum.

Why does it matter?

The Geneva Dialogue is important because it gives all UN member states a place to discuss AI governance, not only countries and companies with the most advanced AI systems. The scientific panel’s report also raises the stakes by linking rapid AI progress to governance gaps, misuse risks and the possibility of serious harm. The AI divide is equally significant: countries without infrastructure, expertise and local control over AI systems may struggle to shape rules, protect their interests and benefit from AI-driven development.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

Germany releases open-source AI platform to accelerate digital public administration

Germany’s Federal Ministry for Digital Affairs and Public Sector Modernization (BMDS) has released the source code of its SPARK API as an open-source project, aiming to accelerate AI adoption across public administration.

The modular platform allows government organisations to integrate AI into existing administrative systems without redesigning their underlying infrastructure, enabling faster and more flexible digital public services.

Built on a modular architecture, the SPARK API enables public authorities in Germany to add AI components to existing administrative processes across different legal and operational contexts. Unlike the broader SPARK Workflow platform, which orchestrates end-to-end administrative procedures, the API focuses on extending existing systems with reusable AI capabilities. The ministry said this approach should simplify integration and encourage wider adoption across government.

To support further development, BMDS organised an open hackathon involving more than 40 participants selected from over 210 applicants from government, industry and academia.

Teams developed AI applications for analysing unstructured documents, linking administrative records with geospatial data and strengthening cybersecurity. Participants also tested large language models against prompt injection attacks and evaluated guardrails designed to protect confidentiality, integrity and system availability.

The ministry described the hackathon as the beginning of a broader collaborative development process. Additional workshops and community initiatives are planned after the summer to improve the platform, expand its AI modules and encourage reuse across Germany’s public sector.

By releasing the SPARK API as open source, BMDS aims to improve transparency, encourage collaboration and accelerate digital transformation across public administration.

Why does it matter?

Germany’s decision reflects a broader shift towards treating AI as shared digital infrastructure for government rather than a collection of isolated projects. Open-source, modular platforms can help public institutions integrate AI more quickly, reduce duplication, improve interoperability and give agencies greater control over how AI systems are deployed and audited.

The initiative also highlights a growing preference among governments for transparent and reusable AI tools instead of relying solely on proprietary platforms. By making the code publicly available, Germany is encouraging collaboration across public institutions, academia and industry while supporting a more open approach to public-sector AI innovation.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

SDAIA, DCO and ICAIRE to discuss responsible AI implementation in Geneva

A side event at the first session of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance will focus on responsible AI implementation, exploring how ethical AI commitments can be translated into practical governance and delivery models.

The session, titled Responsible, Trusted, and Safe AI for Prosperity: From Principles to Practice will take place on 7 July at Palexpo in Geneva. It is being organised by the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA), the Digital Cooperation Organization (DCO), and the International Center for Artificial Intelligence Research and Ethics (ICAIRE).

According to the concept note, the discussion will explore how governments and their partners can move from shared AI principles to institutional models that support the safe, trusted, and inclusive deployment of AI. Topics will include national AI readiness, public-sector adoption, governance frameworks, capacity-building and cross-border cooperation.

The organisers frame responsible AI implementation as a public value issue, linking it to stronger public services, national development priorities and sustainable digital prosperity. The session will also highlight SDAIA’s role in building national AI capabilities, ICAIRE’s work connecting AI ethics with research, and the DCO’s efforts to strengthen international digital cooperation.

The agenda includes keynote remarks from DCO Secretary-General Deemah AlYahya and a senior representative of SDAIA. A high-level panel featuring representatives from the DCO, ICAIRE and participating governments will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the audience.

Why does it matter?

The discussion reflects a broader shift in international AI governance from developing high-level principles to building the institutions, skills and regulatory frameworks needed to implement them effectively. As more countries publish AI strategies and governance commitments, the challenge is increasingly how to translate those ambitions into practical public-sector capabilities.

The session also highlights the growing importance of international cooperation in AI governance. By bringing together governments and international organisations to exchange implementation experiences, the event aims to support more consistent, trusted and inclusive approaches to AI adoption across different countries.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN-backed panel warns AI is outpacing global governance

A United Nations-backed scientific panel has warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than governments’ ability to evaluate and govern them, raising concerns that oversight is failing to keep pace with increasingly powerful systems.

The Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, comprising 40 experts, found that AI systems are making rapid progress across key benchmarks. However, it warned that existing evaluation methods are becoming less reliable as models approach near-perfect performance or adapt to testing conditions.

Despite these advances, the report stresses that benefits in areas such as education and scientific research are not guaranteed. Outcomes depend heavily on institutional safeguards, teacher preparedness and whether AI systems are designed to support learning rather than replace critical thinking.

The panel also warns of structural risks, including the concentration of AI development among a small number of companies and countries, uneven language coverage and limited independent evaluation capacity across much of the world. According to the report, these imbalances could shape both access to AI and the ability to manage its risks.

Why does it matter? 

The report highlights a growing mismatch between the pace of AI development and governments’ ability to evaluate, regulate and oversee increasingly capable systems. As AI evolves more quickly than existing governance mechanisms, policymakers risk responding to problems only after technologies have been widely deployed.

It also underscores that AI governance is becoming a question of global capacity as much as regulation. Countries with limited technical expertise, evaluation infrastructure or access to advanced AI systems may struggle to assess risks, enforce safeguards or influence international standards, potentially widening existing technological and economic divides.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

Diplo chatbot can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.