Aug 2026· AI and Ethics· Vol 6· 0 citations· 68 references
TL;DR
The study develops a Leo XIV-informed, normatively grounded hybrid model of AI governance that extends beyond the exercise of agency over technology to fostering a more just and inclusive social order in which technology enables human flourishing.
Abstract
Debates on artificial intelligence (AI) governance focus on legal regulation, risk management, institutional accountability, and the division of responsibilities between the state, market, and other social actors. However, the anthropological and social assumptions underlying governance models remain underexplored, particularly in relation to the risk of erasing human dignity amid the growing technocratisation and algorithmisation of social life. The study analyses Leo XIV’s reflections on AI governance. This article adopts a conceptual and comparative approach. It is based on a close reading of the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas and a systematic comparison of the framework for AI governance articulated in the document with dominant AI governance models identified in the literature. This study reconstructs an implicit hybrid model of AI governance grounded in eight principles: (1) human dignity, (2) the common good, (3) the universal destination of goods, (4) social justice, (5) solidarity, (6) subsidiarity, (7) shared responsibility, and (8) transparency/accountability. The Tower of Babel – Nehemiah heuristic demonstrates that contemporary AI governance can be understood as a fundamental tension between two logics: one oriented toward centralisation, control, and exclusion, and another toward participation, distributed responsibility, and the protection of human dignity. As an additional contribution, the study operationalises the proposed model through the example of AI-assisted allocation of social benefits, translating its normative principles into concrete governance requirements. Leo XIV’s reflections not only align with a hybrid governance model but provide a normative corrective to both state-led and market-led models by prioritising relational human dignity and shared responsibility over centralised control. The study develops a Leo XIV-informed, normatively grounded hybrid model of AI governance that extends beyond the exercise of agency over technology to fostering a more just and inclusive social order in which technology enables human flourishing.
The Anthropological, Spiritual and Civilizational (ASC) Framework is proposed as a diagnostic heuristic for extending trustworthy AI toward dignity, truth, social justice and humane futures, which requires future empirical and expert validation.
Carlos Alberto Echeverría Mayorga, Marta Irene Flores Polanco, José Miguel Esperanza Amaya· Societies· 0 citations
Global artificial intelligence (AI) governance is currently framed as a bipolar confrontation between the ‘Brussels’ and ‘California’ approaches. The article argues that the BRICS countries are attempting to craft a third path-an alternative model of AI governance rooted not in unification, but in an ‘overlapping consensus.’ Drawing on political ontology and a comparative analysis of national strategies, the authors demonstrate how the twin imperatives of digital sovereignty and resistance to technological hegemony can bridge the initial regulatory diversity among member states. The methodology combines discourse analysis of key BRICS documents with a case study approach, revealing the emerging architecture of a hybrid ‘soft law’ regime. Empirically, the study draws on frequency and contextual analysis of three core concepts-‘sovereignty,’ ‘inclusiveness,’ and ‘fairness’-across BRICS summit declarations from 2020 to 2025. The findings indicate a clear conceptual shift: from a predominantly political discourse on sovereignty in 2020, to its progressive digitalization and embedding within the technological agenda by 2025. The rising salience of terms tied to technological autonomy and digital security underscores this shift. The ‘overlapping consensus’ model proves workable for states with different politico-economic systems and technological capabilities. It enables them to maintain regulatory sovereignty, manage heterogeneity without resorting to rigid harmonization, and establish flexible coordination frameworks. BRICS cooperation is oriented less toward creating a supranational regulator than toward aligning principles for joint action in international fora. Enlargement enhances the group’s representational appeal for the Global South, but it also complicates standard-setting amid a growing diversity of national interests. The prevalence of ‘soft law’ and flexible ‘coalitions of the willing’ gives members the room to maneuver in the era of intense technological rivalry. On the practical side, the study offers several actionable recommendations: a digital platform for standard alignment, a mechanism for expedited mutual recognition of certification, and a joint large language model program tailored to the Global South’s linguistic and cultural diversity.
B. V. Agonnoude, V. Glebov, A. Maslov· Vestnik RUDN International R...· 0 citations
Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in public administration to classify individuals, assess risks, prioritize cases, support eligibility determinations and guide the allocation of public resources. In the European Union, these uses are governed by the Artificial Intelligence Act, the GDPR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Formal compliance, however, does not by itself ensure lawful and accountable administration. AI relocates discretion from the visible act of decision-making to less visible choices concerning data, model design, procurement, thresholds and interface architecture. This Policy and Practice Review therefore treats human-centric AI governance not as a general ethical aspiration, but as an administrative and constitutional framework for governing public power. Drawing on EU law, public administration scholarship and a comparative institutional analysis of selected Member State practices, it develops six interdependent dimensions: legal anchoring, accountable discretion, fundamental rights by design, meaningful human oversight, contestability and justification, and institutional resilience. The analysis shows that common EU rules may produce unequal levels of protection where public authorities differ in technical expertise, audit capacity, procurement independence and access to effective remedies. It also argues that accountability must follow the chain of influence through which algorithmic systems shape administrative outcomes, rather than only the formal chain of decision-making. The article translates this framework into actor-specific recommendations concerning fundamental rights impact assessments, procurement, auditability, human oversight, transparency, contestability and post-deployment monitoring. It concludes that AI-enabled administration remains legitimate only where public authorities retain the capacity to understand, justify, correct, suspend and democratically control the systems they use.
A. Dragomir, Iulea Bulea, Lucian Tarnu· Frontiers in Political Scien...· 1 citation
The study advances GenAI governance scholarship by contributing a blueprint of a “virtue-based” governance regime, offering evidence-based and theoretically informed governance suggestions in global academia concerning the ethical use of GenAI.
Yanto Chandra, Guotong Liu· Data & Policy· 0 citations
ABSTRACT Democracy is, centrally, a system of making collective decisions on matters of public concerns in a way that gives each individual a fair and equal opportunity of influence over decisions (Christiano and Bajaj 2024; Himmelreich 2024; Hirvonen 2023). This is materially realised by citizen participation and deliberation concerning the issues that are of political significance. Extrapolating this idea in the field of AI governance, this article seeks to explore how to instrumentalise this emerging landscape to further democratisation of AI, specifically in Africa. It critically examines the European approach, focusing on the EU AI Act (2024), and discusses on how to develop democratic AI governance within Africa, delving into the African Union (AU) AI Strategy (2024a, 2024b). While the EU AI Act, which prioritises ethical and responsible AI, introduces two individual rights, i.e. the ‘right to explanation’ and the ‘right to lodge a complaint’, it does not adequately address concerns surrounding participatory and deliberative democracy, for lacking any tool or mechanism that would pave way for the formation and reflection of the citizens’ views and preferences. Based on this finding, it is considered that African AI governance should move beyond mere governance of ethics, e.g. risk and quality assessment, conformity procedure and monitoring, and uphold the idea of enhancing citizens’ ability to participate in the key regulatory processes. It is ultimately suggested AU should promote creation of civic space(s), i.e. deliberative venue for the citizens’ engagement, within the framework of the recently endorsed AI Strategy.
. AI ethics has recently emerged as a dominant governance paradigm, increasingly implemented through institutionalised, specialised and expert-driven tools and mechanisms, thereby compelling us to revisit the question of democratic deficit . This ethics-oriented technocratic approach is exemplified by the EU AI Act (2024), which promotes soft-law tools as part of a layered, risk-based governance framework. This article critically examines whether that model can address the democratic deficit in AI governance, focusing on harmonised standards, voluntary codes of conduct and regulatory sandboxes . Drawing on democratic theory and governance scholarship, it explores the extent to which these instruments advance participation, deliberation and accountability. By assessing these mechanisms as key sites of governance, the article concludes that they prioritise flexibility, technical expertise and market integration over public contestation and participation, offering little response to the democratic deficit. It argues that AI ethics can address this deficit only when complemented by institutional reforms that embed deliberation, broaden participation and ensure meaningful public accountability, including the involvement of non-expert citizens.
M. Ünver· HHAI· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
