The International Labour Organization (ILO) has supported the launch of a digital occupational safety and health (OSH) assessment tool in Malaysia to help employers strengthen workplace safety, improve regulatory compliance and better protect workers.
Developed by the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) with support from the EU-funded PROTECT project, the tool was introduced during practical training for more than 80 employers in Port Klang.
The MEF–ILO OSH Digital Assessment Tool enables employers to conduct occupational safety and health assessments through a structured digital platform, while the accompanying OSHAWA Handbook provides practical guidance on implementing workplace safety measures.
Together, they aim to improve risk identification, strengthen compliance with Malaysian legislation and promote a stronger workplace safety culture across industries.
The initiative builds on Malaysia’s strengthened occupational safety framework following amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, which expanded workplace coverage and introduced more robust risk assessment requirements.
It also supports responsible business practices by helping employers meet growing international expectations on labour rights, human rights due diligence and workplace safety within global supply chains.
A particular focus of the project is improving protection for migrant workers, who make up a significant share of the workforce in sectors including manufacturing, construction, plantations and services.
By integrating the digital assessment tool into MEF’s long-term advisory and training services, the ILO aims to expand its use across Malaysia and support lasting improvements in workplace safety..
Why does it matter?
The initiative illustrates how digital tools are increasingly being used to strengthen labour governance by making workplace risk assessments more systematic, consistent and accessible. Digital platforms can also help employers monitor compliance more effectively and respond more quickly to occupational safety risks.
The project further reflects growing international expectations that businesses demonstrate responsible labour practices throughout global supply chains. By supporting compliance with both national legislation and international standards, digital workplace safety tools can improve worker protection while helping companies meet evolving regulatory and due diligence requirements.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Microsoft and French AI company Mistral have expanded their strategic partnership to strengthen sovereign AI deployment in Europe, giving enterprises and regulated industries greater control over how frontier AI is deployed and managed.
A central element of the partnership is a multibillion-dollar investment in European AI infrastructure. Microsoft will leverage Mistral’s expanding GPU capacity, powered by thousands of NVIDIA Vera Rubin GPUs, to support AI training, inference and large-scale deployment while increasing capacity for Microsoft’s cloud and AI services.
The companies said the investment supports Europe’s AI ecosystem and aligns with Microsoft’s European Digital Commitments and Sovereign Cloud strategy.
The partnership also brings Mistral’s Medium 3.5 and OCR 4 models to Microsoft Foundry, while Medium 3.5 becomes available through Microsoft Copilot Studio. Organisations will be able to develop AI applications using Mistral’s multilingual models and deploy them consistently across Azure, Azure Local and fully disconnected environments without redesigning workloads.
According to the companies, the partnership is intended to support highly regulated sectors including healthcare, manufacturing, financial services and critical infrastructure, where sovereignty, resilience, privacy and operational continuity are key requirements.
Alongside joint customer engagement, Microsoft and Mistral will also provide proof-of-concept funding, Azure credits and technical workshops to accelerate enterprise AI adoption.
Why does it matter?
The partnership reflects a broader shift in enterprise AI from simply providing access to advanced models towards giving organisations greater control over where AI systems run, how data is handled and how regulatory requirements are met. Flexible deployment options are becoming increasingly important for governments and highly regulated industries.
The announcement also reinforces Europe’s ambition to build sovereign AI capabilities by combining domestic AI models, regional compute infrastructure and trusted cloud services. Rather than viewing sovereignty as an alternative to global technology partnerships, the collaboration illustrates how international companies and European AI developers are increasingly working together to strengthen regional digital resilience.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
UNESCO and Egypt’s Ministry of Education and Technical Education have launched a national Artificial Intelligence Competency Framework for Teachers, marking a major step in integrating AI into teacher training and education reform.
Based on UNESCO’s global framework and adapted to Egypt’s national priorities, the initiative makes Egypt one of the first countries to introduce a nationally tailored AI competency framework for teachers.
Developed through collaboration between the Ministry of Education and Technical Education, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and UNESCO, the framework aims to equip teachers with the knowledge, practical skills and ethical understanding needed to integrate AI into teaching and learning.
Its development was informed by consultations involving government institutions, universities, teacher training organisations, civil society, development partners and the private sector to ensure it reflects Egypt’s educational priorities and supports the Sustainable Development Goals.
The framework promotes a human-centred approach to AI, emphasising ethics, inclusion, critical thinking and human agency. UNESCO stresses that AI should enhance rather than replace teachers, helping to personalise learning, improve classroom experiences and increase efficiency while supporting responsible use.
The initiative aligns with UNESCO’s broader guidance, including the Beijing Consensus on Artificial Intelligence and Education, the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and the Santiago Consensus on Teachers.
During the implementation phase, UNESCO and the Egyptian government will introduce capacity-building programmes, develop Arabic-language AI learning resources, train AI master trainers and establish teacher training hubs.
The framework is also intended to serve as a national policy reference for integrating AI into teacher education, professional development and wider education reform.
Why does it matter?
The initiative illustrates how AI governance is increasingly moving from high-level principles to practical implementation in national education systems. Rather than focusing solely on AI technologies, the framework emphasises preparing teachers to use AI responsibly, ethically and effectively in the classroom.
It also demonstrates how international AI governance frameworks can be adapted to national contexts. By combining teacher training, policy development and locally relevant learning resources, Egypt is creating institutional capacity to support the long-term integration of AI into education while maintaining a human-centred approach.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The UN’s permanent cyber mechanism has begun shifting from identifying cyber threats towards implementing the international commitments already agreed by member states, with delegations broadly calling for practical action under the existing UN framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.
During the fourth meeting of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, member states concluded discussions on the evolving cyber threat landscape before turning their attention to the implementation of the 11 voluntary and non-binding norms first agreed by the UN Group of Governmental Experts in 2015.
While views differed on whether additional norms may eventually be required, a broad range of delegations agreed that the immediate priority should be helping countries apply the existing framework through practical cooperation, capacity development, and exchanges of national experience.
From agreement to implementation
The discussion reflected a broader evolution in international cyber diplomacy.
Rather than negotiating new principles, many delegations argued that the Global Mechanism should now concentrate on translating existing commitments into national legislation, operational practices, and international cooperation.
The Pacific Islands Forum, speaking through Tonga, noted that many countries, particularly small island developing states, are still developing the institutional and technical capacity needed to implement the agreed norms. It called for the mechanism to support this work through practical guidance, peer learning, and contributions from technical experts, regional organisations, academia, civil society, and the private sector.
The European Union similarly presented an overview of how its member states are implementing the norms through legislation, institutional arrangements, and operational cooperation, encouraging other countries to share their own experiences. The EU also described the Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs) as the appropriate forum for developing practical approaches linked to specific cybersecurity challenges.
Existing norms remain the foundation
Many delegations stressed that the 11 voluntary norms continue to provide a sufficient framework for responsible state behaviour.
Several delegations highlighted the voluntary implementation checklist developed through previous UN processes as a practical tool for helping governments assess progress and exchange good practices. Others suggested that publishing national implementation experiences could improve transparency and strengthen mutual confidence.
Capacity development emerged as a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with many speakers emphasising that successful implementation depends on strengthening national institutions, technical expertise, incident response capabilities, and regional cooperation.
Some states support further normative development
Although implementation attracted broad support, several delegations argued that the framework should continue evolving alongside technological change.
China, Morocco, Armenia, Thailand, Brazil, Iran, and Cuba suggested that emerging issues, including AI, data security, supply chain resilience, and new forms of cyber activity, may eventually require additional voluntary norms or, in some cases, legally binding international instruments.
Rather than presenting these approaches as mutually exclusive, several countries argued that implementation and discussions on possible future norms could proceed in parallel, provided decisions continue to be reached through consensus.
Before moving to the norms agenda, delegations completed their discussion on the evolving cyber threat landscape.
Countries highlighted ransomware, attacks on critical infrastructure, AI, disinformation, supply chain vulnerabilities, and cybercrime as continuing challenges requiring closer international cooperation.
Ghana described efforts to strengthen the protection of critical information infrastructure following the disruption caused by damage to a submarine cable, while Pakistan warned that cyber threats are increasingly intertwined with geopolitical competition and emerging technologies. Institutional participants, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol, and the African Union, contributed perspectives on cyber operations during armed conflict, organised cybercrime, and the importance of strengthening cyber resilience across developing countries.
Summarising the discussion, the Chair highlighted recurring calls for greater information sharing, cooperation, capacity development, incident response, and resilience, noting that these priorities would help shape the future work of the mechanism.
Dedicated Thematic Groups move to the centre of the process
Throughout the session, delegations repeatedly pointed to the Dedicated Thematic Groups as the mechanism’s primary vehicle for turning broad political agreement into practical cooperation.
States proposed using the groups to exchange implementation experiences, discuss specific cyber challenges, develop scenario-based exercises, refine the voluntary implementation checklist, and strengthen cooperation across the five pillars of the UN cyber framework.
Alongside these substantive discussions, several rights of reply reflected wider geopolitical tensions among some member states. However, the majority of interventions remained focused on practical implementation and strengthening the shared framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.
The session, therefore, marked an important transition for the Global Mechanism. Having identified many of the principal cyber threats facing states, delegations increasingly turned their attention to the practical question of how existing international commitments can be translated into national action and international cooperation.
Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The UN’s permanent cyber mechanism continued its substantive discussions by identifying shared priorities for international cooperation, with member states highlighting ransomware, AI, critical infrastructure protection, and capacity development as areas requiring practical action.
During the third plenary of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, delegations repeatedly stressed that discussions should move beyond mere description of cyber threats to developing practical tools to help states prevent, detect, and respond to them.
The discussion reinforced a trend already visible during earlier meetings, that despite differing national perspectives on specific cyber incidents, broad agreement is emerging on the issues likely to shape the mechanism’s future work.
From identifying threats to supporting implementation
Several delegations argued that the mechanism’s success should be measured by its ability to translate years of international negotiations into practical cooperation.
Kiribati captured this approach by observing that discussions on cyber threats should not end with mere descriptions but lead to concrete measures that enable countries of all sizes to strengthen their cyber resilience. Cameroon and Morocco similarly encouraged the mechanism to prioritise practical implementation through the Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs), which are expected to become the forum’s primary venue for detailed technical cooperation.
The emphasis on implementation reflected a broader shift from developing international norms towards helping governments apply them in practice through information sharing, capacity development, and operational cooperation.
Critical infrastructure protection gains momentum
Protection of critical infrastructure emerged as one of the strongest areas of convergence during the session.
Small island developing states offered particularly compelling examples of how digital infrastructure has become essential for national resilience. Kiribati described how its first submarine cable has transformed public services while simultaneously increasing its exposure to cyber risks. Tonga recalled the 2022 volcanic eruption that severed its only submarine cable, leaving the country isolated during a national emergency, and warned that a malicious cyber operation could deliberately produce similar consequences.
Delegations from Australia, Tuvalu, Chile, Ghana, Zimbabwe, and other countries similarly highlighted the growing importance of protecting undersea cables, telecommunications infrastructure, government networks, and other critical systems that underpin economic activity and essential public services.
Rather than treating these as purely national concerns, speakers increasingly framed critical infrastructure resilience as a shared international challenge requiring cooperation across borders.
Ransomware remains a global priority
Ransomware was once again identified as one of the most significant cyber threats facing governments and critical services worldwide.
Delegations described attacks affecting healthcare systems, humanitarian organisations, government institutions, municipalities, telecommunications providers, and energy infrastructure.
National experiences illustrated the scale of the challenge. Tonga described how a ransomware attack encrypted its national health information system, forcing hospitals to return temporarily to paper records. Germany cited estimates placing annual cyber-related economic damage at approximately US$230 billion, while several countries highlighted the growing sophistication and transnational nature of ransomware operations.
Many speakers emphasised that responding effectively will require stronger international information sharing, coordinated incident response, public-private cooperation, and support for countries with more limited cybersecurity capacities.
AI increasingly shapes cybersecurity discussions
AI continued to feature prominently throughout the session as delegations examined its growing influence on the cyber threat landscape.
Countries from different regions observed that AI is lowering barriers to entry for malicious actors while increasing the speed and sophistication of cyber operations. Among the risks identified were AI-generated phishing campaigns, automated vulnerability discovery, deepfakes, large-scale disinformation, and attacks targeting AI systems themselves.
Several delegations also pointed to emerging challenges related to frontier AI models, quantum computing, commercial cyber intrusion capabilities, and digital supply chain security, suggesting these issues should continue to receive attention within the Global Mechanism.
While views differed on how these developments should be governed internationally, there was broad agreement that the mechanism provides an important forum for exchanging experience and improving collective understanding of rapidly evolving technologies.
Capacity development remains central to cyber resilience
Developing countries consistently stressed that discussions on cyber threats should be matched by practical support.
Delegations highlighted the importance of strengthening national institutions, expanding technical expertise, improving incident response capabilities, and ensuring that developing countries can participate fully in the mechanism’s work.
Small island developing states noted that limited resources often magnify the consequences of cyber incidents, while African, Asian, Caribbean, and Pacific countries called for sustainable, demand-driven capacity-building programmes tailored to national priorities. Several speakers also encouraged greater regional cooperation and more structured exchanges of operational experience.
These interventions reinforced the view that improving global cybersecurity depends not only on reducing threats but also on ensuring that all countries have the capabilities needed to address them.
Dedicated Thematic Groups move into focus
Attention also turned to the role of the Dedicated Thematic Groups as the mechanism’s principal vehicle for translating discussions into practical outcomes.
Delegations proposed using the groups for scenario-based discussions, expert briefings, exchanges of operational experience, and the development of practical recommendations on issues such as critical infrastructure protection, supply chain security, ransomware, and implementation of agreed voluntary norms. Several countries argued that the groups should focus on a limited number of concrete priorities that could produce measurable results.
Alongside these substantive discussions, some delegations continued to express differing views regarding state attribution of cyber incidents and recent geopolitical developments. While these exchanges reflected broader international tensions, the majority of interventions remained focused on strengthening cooperation within the Global Mechanism and identifying practical areas where progress can be achieved.
As the session concluded, the Chair confirmed that discussions would continue with the remaining speakers before the mechanism moved to its next agenda item on voluntary norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.
Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
For much of the past decade, discussions on AI governance have focused on algorithms. Policymakers, regulators, and researchers have debated ethics, transparency, bias, accountability, and human oversight, seeking to ensure that AI systems remain trustworthy and aligned with fundamental rights.
These questions remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient to explain the direction of AI policy.
A new reality is emerging. Increasingly, governments are recognising that the ability to govern AI depends not only on regulating algorithms but also on securing the infrastructure that makes them possible. Data centres, advanced semiconductors, cloud computing, electricity grids, submarine cables, digital public infrastructure, and skilled workforces have become as strategically important as the AI models themselves.
The shift has been gradual rather than abrupt, yet it is now evident across national strategies, international organisations, and multilateral discussions. AI governance is expanding beyond software governance to become infrastructure governance.
AI runs on infrastructure, not algorithms alone
The rapid adoption of generative AI has often obscured a simple reality that every AI system rests on a vast physical and institutional foundation.
Large language models require enormous computing power, specialised chips, cloud infrastructure, reliable electricity, high-speed connectivity, trusted datasets, secure digital environments, and engineers capable of developing and maintaining increasingly complex systems. None of these components can be built overnight, and few can be developed without substantial public and private investment.
Image via Magnific
As a result, AI capability is increasingly determined by access to infrastructure, not just software.
Countries may have ambitious AI strategies, talented researchers, or innovative start-ups, but without advanced computing capacity, modern data centres, resilient cloud infrastructure, and skilled human capital, those ambitions become difficult to realise. Governments are therefore beginning to treat AI infrastructure as a strategic national asset rather than simply a commercial resource.
Industrial policy is becoming a pillar of AI policy
This shift is increasingly reflected in public policy.
The European Union has complemented its landmark AI Act with broader industrial initiatives, including the European Chips Act, the AI Factories initiative under EuroHPC, and, most recently, plans to develop AI Gigafactories capable of supporting the next generation of AI models. The recently adopted Digital Omnibus on AI also strengthens the role of the European Commission’s AI Office while simplifying implementation aspects, illustrating that regulation, institutional capacity, and infrastructure investment are evolving together.
The United States has pursued a different approach, combining export controls on advanced semiconductors with large-scale investment in domestic chip manufacturing and AI infrastructure. China continues to expand its national computing centres, cloud capacity, and state-backed AI ecosystems as part of its long-term industrial strategy.
Although these approaches differ politically and economically, they increasingly share the view that governing AI requires building the infrastructure that enables it.
AI policy, in other words, is beginning to resemble industrial policy.
Infrastructure has become a development issue
The infrastructure shift is equally visible in developing countries, where the conversation is moving beyond access to AI applications towards the ability to build AI capacity locally.
Throughout the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026, discussions repeatedly highlighted that meaningful digital transformation depends on foundational infrastructure. African policymakers, researchers, and technical experts argued that the continent suffers not primarily from a shortage of digital ambition, but from limited access to computing capacity.
Speakers pointed out that Africa has only a tiny share of global AI compute and data centre capacity, forcing many researchers and innovators to rely on infrastructure located elsewhere. The challenge, they argued, is no longer simply connectivity but compute sovereignty, the ability to build, train, and deploy AI systems locally.
The same message emerged during discussions on digital sovereignty. Rather than focusing solely on access to foreign AI models, participants argued that exporting raw data while importing AI services mirrors older economic patterns in which countries exported raw materials while importing higher-value finished products. Building local AI capability, therefore, requires investment in data centres, energy systems, cloud infrastructure, skills development, and trusted data ecosystems.
These discussions suggest that AI infrastructure is becoming an increasingly important component of development policy.
Infrastructure is also becoming geopolitics
The growing strategic importance of AI infrastructure extends far beyond economic development.
Competition over semiconductor manufacturing, cloud services, critical minerals, advanced computing facilities, and energy has become a defining feature of international relations. Governments increasingly view these assets through the lens of economic security, technological resilience, and geopolitical influence.
Submarine cables illustrate this evolution particularly well. Once regarded primarily as telecommunications infrastructure, they are now recognised as essential to AI systems that depend on massive volumes of cross-border data traffic. Recent international efforts to strengthen submarine cable resilience reflect how infrastructure once considered largely invisible has become central to digital governance.
Image via Magnific
Electricity is undergoing a similar transformation. As AI models become increasingly computationally intensive, access to affordable and reliable energy is becoming a key factor determining where data centres can be built and where AI innovation can flourish. This has encouraged governments to align AI strategies with broader industrial, energy, and climate policies.
In this environment, AI governance increasingly overlaps with trade policy, investment screening, industrial strategy, critical infrastructure protection, and national security.
A broader understanding of AI governance
This evolution does not diminish the importance of ethical AI principles or risk-based regulation. Questions surrounding transparency, accountability, bias, safety, and human rights remain fundamental.
Rather, it broadens the understanding of what AI governance entails.
Traditional AI governance focuses on how AI systems should be designed, deployed, and used responsibly. Infrastructure governance raises a different set of questions, such as who has access to the computing power needed to develop advanced AI? Who controls the cloud infrastructure that underpins AI services? Where are critical datasets stored? Which countries have the physical, financial, and institutional capacity to participate meaningfully in the AI economy?
image via Magnific
These questions ultimately shape who can innovate, compete, and benefit from AI.
As a result, debates that once focused primarily on algorithms increasingly encompass semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, digital public infrastructure, data centres, energy systems, connectivity, and workforce development.
From governing AI to enabling AI
The next phase of AI governance is likely to be defined less by entirely new regulatory principles than by long-term investment decisions.
Building trustworthy AI ecosystems will require governments to develop resilient digital infrastructure, strengthen education and digital skills, encourage research, modernise energy systems, expand computing capacity, and foster international cooperation on shared digital resources.
The countries that succeed may not simply be those that write the most comprehensive AI regulations. They may instead be those that create the conditions that allow responsible AI to flourish in the first place.
Image via Magnific
The global conversation about AI has not moved beyond governance. It has moved deeper into its foundations.
In this sense, the future of AI governance may increasingly depend not only on how societies regulate AI, but also on how they build the infrastructure that makes AI possible.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The International Labour Organization (ILO) has supported a training programme in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to strengthen national capacity to prevent workplace discrimination, violence and harassment in the garment and manufacturing sectors.
Held in Vientiane from 14 to 16 July 2026, the programme brought together government officials, employers’ representatives, trade unions and industry stakeholders to promote safer, fairer and more inclusive workplaces.
The programme forms part of the ILO’s project Eliminating Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Child Labour in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Support Trade and Compliance, funded by the Government of Canada through Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).
The training covered discrimination in employment, equal access to recruitment and promotion, decent working conditions, and measures to prevent workplace violence and harassment, including gender-based violence and sexual harassment. Through case studies and group exercises, participants identified workplace risks, developed prevention strategies and strengthened reporting and response mechanisms.
By creating a network of trainers across government, employers’ organisations and trade unions, the ILO aims to expand the adoption of good practices throughout Laos‘ garment and manufacturing industries. The programme also seeks to strengthen cooperation among the three groups to improve labour standards and foster more respectful and inclusive workplaces.
Why does it matter?
The programme reflects a capacity-building approach to labour governance, focusing on developing local expertise that can continue promoting international labour standards after external assistance ends. Training national trainers can help extend good practices across workplaces and institutions over the longer term.
It also highlights the importance of tripartite cooperation between governments, employers and workers’ organisations in addressing workplace discrimination and violence. Strengthening workplace equality and safety can improve labour rights while supporting more resilient and internationally competitive industries.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
UNESCO has signed agreements with two Chinese research institutions to strengthen climate monitoring, marine research and scientific capacity in Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
The agreements, signed on 17 July, bring together the International Research Center of Big Data for Sustainable Development Goals (CBAS) and the Second Institute of Oceanography (SIO) to expand access to satellite data, marine science expertise and technical support for vulnerable island states.
UNESCO said many island states face severe climate and environmental pressures but lack the research infrastructure, environmental data and technical capacity needed to respond effectively. The partnerships aim to address those gaps by providing training, scientific tools, knowledge exchange and support for collecting and using environmental data.
The cooperation will support UNESCO initiatives including IslandWatch, which promotes community-based ecosystem observation, and the Centres of Excellence in Marine Sciences and Biodiversity for Portuguese-speaking island states, which strengthen regional research and training.
São Tomé and Príncipe is expected to benefit significantly from the partnerships. After becoming the first country to have its entire territory designated as a UNESCO biosphere reserve in 2025, it requires stronger long-term ecosystem monitoring and scientific expertise.
CBAS has already assessed coastline change, sea-level rise and environmental conditions on Príncipe Island using satellite data, while SIO will contribute marine research and practical training to help local institutions address climate change and biodiversity loss.
The partnerships also contribute to UNESCO’s broader strategy for Small Island Developing States and the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development (2024–2033), reinforcing international cooperation on climate resilience and sustainable development.
Why does it matter?
Many Small Island Developing States face disproportionate risks from sea-level rise, coastal erosion and biodiversity loss, yet often lack the scientific infrastructure needed to monitor environmental change. Expanding access to satellite data, marine research and technical expertise can improve evidence-based climate adaptation and natural resource management.
The agreements also illustrate how international scientific cooperation is becoming an increasingly important component of climate governance. By combining Earth observation, local capacity-building and regional research networks, UNESCO aims to strengthen the ability of vulnerable island states to generate and use their own environmental data rather than relying solely on external expertise.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Australia will retain its existing AI copyright rules, rejecting calls for a text and data mining exemption as the government seeks to attract AI investment without weakening protections for creators.
Industry and Innovation Minister Tim Ayres said existing copyright protections would remain in place while the government works towards a framework that provides greater certainty for both technology companies and rights holders. He said attracting AI investment should not come at the expense of creators’ rights.
The comments follow calls from AI companies for clearer access to copyrighted material for model training. Ayres acknowledged that technology firms and rights holders favour different approaches, while Attorney-General Michelle Rowland continues consultations aimed at reaching a compromise. Although no timetable has been announced, Ayres said the government wants to resolve the issue quickly without overriding creators’ control over their work.
Australia’s wider AI agenda also includes legislation establishing standards for large data centres, including requirements relating to electricity supply, grid stability and water security. Ayres said implementation would be coordinated by the Office of Artificial Intelligence, while the AI Safety Institute continues collaborating with international partners, security agencies and frontier AI developers.
Ayres described the reforms as a national economic and security priority, arguing that Australia should help shape AI rather than depend solely on technologies developed elsewhere. The government is also working with businesses and trade unions on workforce adaptation as AI transforms employment.
By maintaining its AI copyright rules while developing infrastructure and safety standards, Australia is seeking to balance investment, technological sovereignty, creators’ rights and public trust.
Why does it matter?
Australia’s approach illustrates the growing challenge governments face in balancing AI innovation with intellectual property protections. By rejecting a broad copyright exemption while continuing consultations, Canberra is signalling that attracting AI investment should not automatically come at the expense of creators’ rights.
The announcement also shows that AI governance is extending beyond model regulation to encompass copyright, infrastructure, energy security and workforce policy. Rather than treating these as separate issues, Australia is developing a broader national strategy that links AI competitiveness with economic resilience, public trust and technological sovereignty.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The UN’s new permanent mechanism on international cybersecurity shifted from organisational discussions to substantive exchanges on the evolving cyber threat landscape, with member states identifying ransomware, attacks on critical infrastructure, and the malicious use of AI among the most pressing challenges requiring international cooperation.
Meeting during the first substantive plenary session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, delegates also continued discussions on the organisation of the mechanism’s Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs), which are expected to play a central role in translating years of normative work into practical cooperation.
While delegations expressed different views on some procedural aspects of the DTGs, there was broad agreement that the groups should focus on practical, action-oriented work and avoid duplicating discussions already taking place during the annual plenary sessions.
Dedicated Thematic Groups take shape
Several delegations described the DTGs as one of the Global Mechanism’s most important innovations, providing an opportunity for more detailed discussions than are possible during formal plenary meetings.
Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Kiribati and New Zealand encouraged the groups to concentrate on a limited number of priority topics capable of producing practical recommendations. Germany similarly proposed focusing on thematically coherent issues, including ransomware and the protection of critical infrastructure, while ensuring that discussions ultimately feed back into the plenary through concrete recommendations.
A recurring message throughout the discussion was that the mechanism should now move from establishing common principles towards supporting their implementation. Several delegations cautioned that attempting to address too many issues simultaneously could reduce the effectiveness of the DTGs, advocating a focused approach instead during their first biennium.
Delegations also highlighted the importance of maintaining predictable working methods, ensuring meaningful participation by all regions, and enabling smaller countries to contribute effectively throughout the process.
Broad support for stakeholder expertise
Another recurring theme was the value of involving technical expertise in DTG work.
Countries from different regions highlighted the contributions that academia, the private sector, civil society, and technical organisations can make to understanding rapidly evolving cyber threats and supporting the implementation of agreed commitments.
Oman stressed that governments alone cannot access all relevant technical knowledge, while Argentina called for transparent and predictable arrangements for stakeholder participation. France argued that cybersecurity requires cooperation across different communities, describing cyber diplomacy as a ‘team sport’. The African Group likewise recognised that expertise from non-state actors complements the intergovernmental character of the mechanism.
Many delegations also underlined that meaningful stakeholder engagement would be particularly valuable during the more interactive discussions planned within the thematic groups.
Ransomware and critical infrastructure emerge as shared priorities
As discussions moved to the evolving cyber threat landscape, a strong degree of convergence emerged across regions.
Ransomware was consistently identified as one of the most significant threats facing governments, businesses, and societies. Delegations pointed to attacks affecting healthcare, public administration, financial services, energy systems, telecommunications, and other essential services.
Several countries drew on national experience to illustrate the impact of such incidents. Costa Rica referred to the disruption caused by major ransomware attacks in 2022, while Ireland highlighted the effects of the 2021 cyberattack on its health service. Singapore noted that nearly 8,000 ransomware incidents were publicly reported worldwide during 2025, underlining the increasingly transnational nature of the threat.
The protection of critical infrastructure also emerged as a common concern. Delegations discussed the resilience of healthcare systems, government services, energy networks, transport infrastructure, telecommunications, and undersea cables, with several suggesting these issues should become early priorities for the DTGs.
AI reshapes the cyber threat landscape
The malicious use of AI featured prominently throughout the session, with delegations from all regions describing its growing impact on cybersecurity.
Countries warned that AI is accelerating the speed and sophistication of cyber operations while lowering barriers to entry for malicious actors. Among the concerns raised were AI-enabled phishing campaigns, automated vulnerability discovery, deepfakes, synthetic media, disinformation, and attacks targeting AI systems themselves.
Several delegations also pointed to emerging challenges, including quantum computing, post-quantum cryptography, commercial spyware, and increasingly sophisticated cybercrime ecosystems. While views differed on whether these developments require new international norms, there was broad recognition that the mechanism should continue examining their implications within its existing mandate.
Capacity building remains central for developing countries
Capacity building remained a cross-cutting priority throughout the session, particularly for developing countries and small island developing states.
The African Group called for practical implementation of existing capacity-building initiatives, including the ICT security cooperation portal, fellowship programmes, and the global network of national points of contact. Other delegations highlighted regional initiatives aimed to strengthening resilience, improving cyber hygiene, and supporting national institutions.
Small island developing states added an important practical perspective to the discussion. Vanuatu described how cyber resilience has become closely linked to disaster preparedness, while Nauru observed that countries connecting to the internet today immediately face the full spectrum of contemporary cyber threats rather than encountering them gradually over time.
The session concluded with the Chair confirming that consultations on the DTGs would continue ahead of their first meetings in December. While some organisational questions remain under discussion, the exchanges demonstrated growing convergence on the substantive issues likely to shape the mechanism’s future work, particularly ransomware, critical infrastructure protection, AI-enabled threats, and strengthening cyber capacity across all regions.
Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
