REVIEW 2 cited by
AI, Global Governance, and Digital Sovereignty
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This essay examines how Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are becoming more integral to international affairs by affecting how global governors exert power and pursue digital sovereignty. We first introduce a taxonomy of multifaceted AI payoffs for governments and corporations related to instrumental, structural, and discursive power in the domains of violence, markets, and rights. We next leverage different institutional and practice perspectives on sovereignty to assess how digital sovereignty is variously implicated in AI-empowered global governance. States both seek sovereign control over AI infrastructures in the institutional approach, while establishing sovereign competence through AI infrastructures in the practice approach. Overall, we present the digital sovereignty stakes of AI as related to entanglements of public and private power. Rather than foreseeing technology companies as replacing states, we argue that AI systems will embed in global governance to create dueling dynamics of public/private cooperation and contestation. We conclude with sketching future directions for IR research on AI and global governance.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Design Concept: Scaffolding Geopolitical Reflection Among Tech Workers
A speculative design concept in which tech workers play an AI-driven geopolitical narrative and discuss assigned archetypes, aiming to spark geopolitical reflection without moralizing.
-
Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen
The paper proposes a definition of contestability for AI, a four-dimension taxonomy, and a weighted Contestability Assessment Score, applied to three illustrative case studies.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.