The Philosophy of Global Artificial Intelligence Governance: A Deceptive Illusion?

Abstract

Although the rights-based emphasis, which is included in countries’ sustainable development goals (Rio, 1992) and is a defining feature of the 21st century, has been taken into account at global summits, it must be redefined and reviewed due to the transformations brought about by technological developments. The administrative approach of the 1990s advocated for community-centered governance rather than administration-centered governance, envisioning a shift from a “command-and-control” mindset to an “incentive-based” one; however, to what extent does this slogan retain its validity in the face of today’s technological advancements? ‘Public safety,’ one of the state’s core functions and a fundamental reflex of its structure, is one of the key areas that must be renewed in conjunction with artificial intelligence applications. The themes of ‘Security for Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘Artificial Intelligence for Security’ require shared principles and practices, much like the still-maturing field of cybersecurity. When it comes to security, the extent to which solidarity based on a partnership between the public sector, the private sector, and civil society can be realized in practice becomes increasingly important. In this article examines the feasibility of the risk-based “Brussels Effect” within the EU framework, which has the potential to spread to other countries under its influence. A methodological analysis evaluates the extent to which algorithmic global governance can be achieved in this conflict-ridden world order. This includes contrasting China’s rules designed to safeguard its own information flow with the flexible, sector-specific, and self-interested framework explicitly adopted by the U.S. in its strategic documents, alongside the potential for AI exploitation. Furthermore, within the context of the AI system’s “black box” nature, namely its lack of transparency, the practical validity of compromise solutions that could be developed based on ethical guidelines and the predictability of sanctions will be academically examined. Finally, Türkiye’s situation will be addressed: setting aside its expectations for full EU membership, Türkiye’s systemic position, as a long-standing member of the Council of Europe (founded in 1949) since 1950 and as one of the 20 founding members of the 38-member OECD, will be evaluated in terms of legal regulations and at the theoretical level.