The United Nations is grappling with the challenge of uniting its 193 member states on a cohesive framework for artificial intelligence governance amid differing national agendas and geopolitical competition. The institution’s latest approach relies on a voluntary global commission and technical standards development, seeking practical progress where binding international regulation remains elusive.
What Happened
At the 2025 United Nations AI for Good Global Summit held in Geneva, the UN unveiled the AI for Good Global Commission, designed as a voluntary forum to advance cooperation on AI governance rather than enforceable rules. The commission includes over 40 members such as heads of state, UN leaders, and executives from prominent AI companies like Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, and ZTE, but notably excludes civil society and academic representatives. It was launched shortly after the inaugural Global Dialogue on AI Governance, which brought together experts to discuss the challenges of policymaking in AI.
Alongside these political initiatives, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN agency, highlighted its work on international AI standards, including Recommendation F.748.44 adopted in March 2025. This standard benchmarks foundational AI models and aims to establish global infrastructure for AI evaluation. The summit also saw the launch of two ITU focus groups: one on embodied AI and another on verifying AI agent identities, supported by multiple governments and industry players.
Key Facts
The UN’s AI for Good Global Commission is modeled on the earlier Broadband Commission but differs as it lacks binding regulatory authority and omits critical stakeholders such as civil society groups from its membership. It targets bridging digital divides and building trust in AI, addressing the fact that 2.2 billion people worldwide remain offline.
The ITU’s Recommendation F.748.44 is the world’s first international standard for AI foundation model benchmarking. The initiative is led by entities including the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, signaling China’s proactive engagement in setting technical standards. The United States and China governments are absent from the commission, although American companies and Chinese state-backed organizations participate widely in standard-setting activities.
Observers point to the difficulty of establishing binding global AI treaties in the current geopolitical climate. Instead, national frameworks and corporate policies often dominate, with international standards bodies filling governance gaps. The ITU secretary-general and other industry leaders stress that these standards can control market access and financial backing, making them powerful despite their voluntary nature.
What This Means
The UN’s reliance on voluntary commissions and technical standards rather than binding legislation reflects the fragmented global environment for AI policy, where geopolitical rivalries hinder consensus-building. This approach signals that meaningful governance of AI may increasingly depend on informal cooperation facilitated through standards-setting bodies rather than traditional treaties.
Standards like those from the ITU will influence definitions of AI safety, trustworthiness, and capability—effectively shaping what global markets accept as compliant AI products. Since these benchmarks affect access to capital and commercial viability, control over standards carries significant power. The absence of civil society participation risks sidelining voices that advocate for ethical and equitable AI use, potentially limiting governance to the priorities of governments and corporations.
For countries in the Global South, the UN’s fragmented approach means that having a meaningful voice in global AI governance remains a challenge. The digital divide remains stark, and the voluntary nature of these initiatives means that disparities in AI access and influence are unlikely to narrow quickly.
Background
The UN’s current AI governance efforts build on years of international discussions and highlight familiar limits of multilateral diplomacy. The Broadband Commission, established in 2010, aimed to expand internet access globally but after 15 years still leaves a significant portion of humanity unconnected. Similarly, AI governance lacks binding global rules, and international technical standards provide one of the few viable paths for cooperation amid competition between the United States, European Union, and China.
The Bigger Picture
The United States favors market-driven AI development, the European Union emphasizes regulatory frameworks like the proposed AI Act, and China pairs state-led investments with active leadership in international standards bodies. This tripartite dynamic means global AI governance is fragmented across models—regulatory, market, and standards-driven approaches—making coordinated global policy formation all the more difficult.
Standards-setting is emerging as one of the few arenas where geopolitical actors exert influence over AI governance without formal treaties. The rules embedded in these standards will determine interoperability, safety requirements, and trust protocols, influencing the international AI ecosystem far beyond any single country’s legislation.
What Remains Unclear
The future authority and impact of the UN’s AI for Good Global Commission remain uncertain. It has no regulatory powers, and its voluntary mandate limits its capacity to enforce compliance or regulate AI directly. What role civil society and academia will play in ongoing governance discussions has yet to be resolved, amid concerns about inclusiveness and representation.
The potential for a binding global AI treaty remains remote, with experts forecasting difficulty in achieving consensus before the next UN Global Dialogue planned for 2027.
What Comes Next
The UN will continue convening dialogues on AI governance, with the next global dialogue scheduled for 2027. Meanwhile, international standard-setting bodies like the ITU are expected to advance technical benchmarks and expand focus groups on AI issues. National governments and companies will continue to shape AI oversight through their own frameworks. Close attention will focus on whether standards bodies can bridge the current geopolitical fragmentation by delivering widely accepted norms.
Sources
This article is based on reporting and publicly available information from the following sources:
Read more AI Regulation stories on Goka World News.