Global AI Laws & Governance Research Library

Japan's AI Act is a promotion-plus-governance statute. It promotes AI research, development and utilisation while establishing national strategy and government-wide coordination. It emphasises innovation, stakeholder responsibilities, transparency, fairness, safety and international cooperation rather than the EU AI Act's risk tiers, conformity regime and penalty structure. It establishes an AI Strategic Headquarters chaired by the Prime Minister and requires an AI Basic Plan.

It is Japan's current national AI statute and institutional foundation, not merely voluntary guidance.

Use it for Japan's national AI policy, stakeholder responsibilities, AI Basic Plan, R&D promotion, government coordination, safety, trust and international cooperation.

Responsibilities and policy mechanisms for Japanese government institutions and AI-related stakeholders, including specified foreign activity targeting Japanese businesses or citizens.

CURRENT: FULLY IN FORCE SINCE 1 SEPTEMBER 2025.

Article 1 → Article 2 → Articles 3–10 → Articles 11–17 → Article 18 → Articles 19–28 → AI Basic Plan → Government Guidelines.

AIDA was Part 3 of Bill C-27, a proposed federal package comprising the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. It proposed regulation of certain private-sector AI systems in interprovincial and international trade, focusing on high-impact systems, risk assessment, mitigation, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Committee consideration was not completed before the 44th Parliament ended on 6 January 2025.

It remains important legislative history for comparative research, but it never became operative Canadian law and must not be presented as a current compliance requirement.

Use it for historical research on Canada's proposed high-impact-AI regime, Bill C-27, combined privacy and AI reform, risk mitigation, monitoring, audits and proposed enforcement.

NO CURRENT STATUTORY APPLICABILITY. AIDA was proposed but not enacted.

HISTORICAL: PROPOSED BILL, NOT ENACTED. AIDA is not operative Canadian law.

Part 3 → Sections 1–5 → Section 7 → Section 8 → Section 9 → Sections 10–12 → Sections 13–19 → Sections 29–40.

SB 942 is specifically focused on transparency of widely used generative-AI systems.

It applies to a defined "covered provider", meaning a person creating/coding/producing a GenAI system with more than one million monthly visitors or users that is publicly accessible in California. (Legislative Information)

CURRENT: operative from 1 January 2026

Do not confuse SB 942 with California's separate CCPA/CPRA privacy framework.

§22757.1 → §22757.2 → §22757.3 → §22757.4 → §22757.6.

The EU AI Act creates the EU's horizontal AI regime for prohibited practices, high-risk systems, transparency, general-purpose AI models and systemic risk, governance, conformity, market surveillance, enforcement and penalties. It regulates both AI systems and general-purpose AI models.

Its duties vary by actor, system and application date. It operates alongside the GDPR; not all of its provisions apply yet.

Use it for prohibited practices, high-risk classification and duties, provider and deployer obligations, AI literacy, fundamental-rights assessments, transparency, GPAI, enforcement, penalties and phased application.

Providers, deployers, importers, distributors and other actors within the Regulation's territorial and functional scope, including qualifying organisations outside the EU.

CURRENT AND IN FORCE; PROVISIONS SUBJECT TO PHASED APPLICATION. Core dates include 2 February 2025, 2 August 2025, 2 August 2026, 2 December 2027 and 2 August 2028. The consolidated text is dated 27 July 2026.

Article 3 → Article 4 → Article 5 → Article 6 → Articles 9–15 → Articles 16–27 → Article 50 → Articles 53–56 → Article 99 → Article 113 → Annexes I, III and IV.

South Korea's principal horizontal AI statute covers AI development and industry promotion, governance, ethics, trustworthiness, transparency, safety, high-impact and generative AI, impact assessments, domestic representatives, certification and enforcement. It may apply to conduct outside Korea that affects the domestic market or users.

The amended current version creates operational transparency, safety and high-impact-AI duties, including incident-management and domestic-representative provisions.

Use it for Korean generative-AI transparency, synthetic-content labelling, high-impact classification, lifecycle safety, impact assessment, domestic representatives and enforcement.

Relevant AI business operators and covered AI systems, including out-of-country conduct affecting the Korean market or users under the statutory rules.

CURRENT: AMENDED 2026 VERSION EFFECTIVE 21 JULY 2026.

Articles 1–5 → Article 6 → Articles 27–30 → Article 31 → Article 32 → Articles 33–35 → Article 36 → Articles 42–43 → Enforcement Decree.

It regulates generative-AI services made available to the public within mainland China and covers generated:

• text

• images

CURRENT: effective 15 August 2023

Articles 1–4 → Article 7 training data → Articles 9–12 service/privacy duties → Articles 14–17 safety/algorithm filing → Articles 19–21 enforcement.

The Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI is a specialised extension of Singapore's broader model-AI-governance approach for AI systems that can act with a degree of autonomy. An agent may plan and execute multi-step tasks, interact with external applications, access databases, invoke software tools, act for users, operate across multiple agents and continue after the initial instruction. The governance question is not only whether output is accurate, but what authority the agent has, what it can access and do, and who remains accountable. The framework covers assessing and bounding risks upfront, meaningful human accountability, technical controls throughout the agent lifecycle, and end-user responsibility through transparency and training. Version 1.5 adds operational examples and practices for multi-agent systems, third-party agents and automation bias.

Agentic systems can use credentials, tools, data and external services to take consequential actions. The framework translates autonomy into governance questions about permission boundaries, approval, traceability, monitoring and accountability.

Use it when developing, deploying or procuring autonomous or semi-autonomous agents; setting tool and data permissions; designing human approval; governing multi-agent or third-party-agent systems; and addressing automation bias.

Voluntary guidance for organisations developing, deploying or procuring agentic AI, especially autonomous or semi-autonomous agents used internally or through third parties.

CURRENT: VERSION 1.5, MAY 2026. Current voluntary AI governance framework; it is not an AI Act or statutory regulation.

Assessing and Bounding Risks → Human Accountability → Technical Controls and Processes → End-User Responsibility → Multi-Agent Systems → Third-Party Agents → Automation Bias.

This document operationalises Canada's voluntary approach to generative-AI governance for critical infrastructure. It recognises that AI may enter infrastructure intentionally or through existing IT and operational-technology products, where failure may affect public safety, essential services, communications, transportation, energy, financial systems, digital infrastructure and national resilience. It uses the NIST-style GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE and MANAGE structure and is broad and non-prescriptive rather than a mandatory checklist.

It connects AI governance with the heightened safety, security and resilience consequences of critical-infrastructure environments.

Use it for critical-infrastructure AI governance, organisational accountability, use-case and dependency mapping, risk measurement, continuous mitigation, incident response, operational technology, supply-chain controls and resilience.

Canadian critical-infrastructure owners, operators and related stakeholders, including suppliers of AI-enabled products or services into critical-infrastructure environments.

CURRENT VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE.

Introduction & Purpose → AI Risk Governance Framework → GOVERN → MAP → MEASURE → MANAGE → AI Incident/Risk Controls → Critical-Infrastructure Application.

Supreme Decree No. 115-2025-PCM implements Law No. 31814 through six titles, 36 articles and six final complementary provisions. It operationalises responsible AI, governance, risk, transparency, accountability, human considerations, privacy, security, institutional responsibilities and deployment. Law No. 31814 and its Regulation are linked but separate resources.

It moves Peru's AI framework from statutory foundation to operational governance mechanisms; Peru's later National AI Strategy 2026–2030 is a separate instrument.

Use it for Peruvian AI governance responsibilities, risk management, transparency, explainability, accountability, responsible AI, security and institutional coordination.

Public- and private-sector AI activities within Law No. 31814 and its implementing framework.

CURRENT: OPERATIVE REGULATION. The National AI Strategy 2026–2030 is a separate policy instrument.

Law No. 31814 → Supreme Decree No. 115-2025-PCM → Title I → Governance → Risk → Transparency → Privacy → Security → Institutional Responsibilities.

The Second Edition translates AI governance principles into organisational practices.

IMDA describes the framework as practical guidance for organisations deploying AI, with emphasis on:

1. Internal governance structures and measures

Voluntary guidance for organisations developing/deploying AI.

CURRENT AS A NON-BINDING FOUNDATIONAL FRAMEWORK; SUPPLEMENTED BY LATER SINGAPORE AI FRAMEWORKS

Internal Governance Structures → Human Involvement → Operations Management → Stakeholder Interaction and Communication.

NIST AI RMF 1.0 is a voluntary, non-sector-specific and use-case-agnostic framework for managing risks to individuals, organisations and society across the AI lifecycle. Its four functions are GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE and MANAGE, supported by trustworthy-AI characteristics.

It integrates AI, privacy and security risk into a continuous organisational governance cycle without creating a generally applicable federal statutory requirement.

Use it for AI governance programmes, risk ownership, contextual risk mapping, testing and evaluation, metrics, red teaming, monitoring, mitigation, third-party risk and lifecycle review.

Voluntary use by AI developers, deployers, procurers, public bodies, private organisations and internal AI-governance programmes.

CURRENT VOLUNTARY FRAMEWORK: REVISION UNDERWAY. It is not United States federal AI law.

Introduction → Trustworthy & Responsible AI → GOVERN → MAP → MEASURE → MANAGE → AI RMF Playbook → GenAI Profile → Critical Infrastructure Profile.

The strategy is intended to position the UAE as a global AI leader and integrate AI into government services, infrastructure and priority economic sectors.

The official strategy materials identify objectives including:

• establishing the UAE as an AI destination

It is directed primarily toward national strategy and government/sectoral implementation, not direct statutory compliance by every private organisation.

CURRENT NATIONAL STRATEGY / POLICY

Strategic objectives → priority sectors → AI infrastructure/data → talent/research → governance → implementation initiatives.

Canada's Code applies to organisations developing or managing advanced generative AI systems with broad capabilities. Narrowly designed low-risk tools generally sit outside its intended scope. It provides a voluntary governance baseline organised around Safety, Accountability, Transparency, Fairness and Equity, Human Oversight and Monitoring, and Validity and Robustness. The implementation guide identifies 18 operational measures.

It provides a practical voluntary governance layer for advanced general-purpose generative systems.

Use it for advanced GenAI development or management, governance responsibility, testing, monitoring, transparency, fairness, human oversight, robustness and security.

Voluntary commitments for organisations developing or managing advanced generative AI systems within the Code's scope.

CURRENT VOLUNTARY CODE. This instrument is Canadian, not South Korean.

Safety → Accountability → Transparency → Fairness & Equity → Human Oversight & Monitoring → Validity & Robustness → 18 implementation measures.

Iran's national AI strategy. It sets a vision and goals for AI, establishes governance through a national AI organisation and steering structures, and sets priorities for research, talent, data and computing infrastructure, private-sector and industrial use, international cooperation and AI regulation, framed around Iranian-Islamic values. It refers to security and privacy as principles but does not create enforceable data-protection rules.

It is the foundational statement of Iranian AI policy and governance structures.

Use it for Iran's AI policy direction, institutional responsibility for AI and planned AI regulation.

Iranian state bodies and the AI ecosystem; a policy document, not binding legislation on private parties.

CURRENT. Approved by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution and notified for implementation. Read the official PDF on this page for the operative text.

Introduction and values → vision and goals → governance structure → strategies and priorities.

The strategy builds on Egypt's first National AI Strategy launched in May 2021. It sets a mission to create an AI industry supported by governance, talent and infrastructure, benchmarks other countries, analyses Egypt's position (including a SWOT analysis) and organises action under six pillars: Governance, Technology, Data, ICT and AI Infrastructure, Ecosystem, and Talent. It also covers an implementation roadmap, capacity assessment and expected results.

It is Egypt's top-level AI policy document and signals the direction of future AI regulation, data governance and public-sector AI adoption in Egypt.

Use it to understand Egypt's AI policy priorities, planned governance and regulatory steps, data-governance plans, or the context for AI investment and public-sector AI projects in Egypt.

Government bodies, the AI ecosystem and investors in Egypt; a policy document, not a source of legal obligations.

CURRENT. Strategy period 2025-2030; it is policy, not law. Read the official PDF on this page for the operative text.

Strategy overview → Governance pillar → Data pillar → Implementation roadmap.

A short information page on Uzbekistan's Unified Interactive Government Services Portal. It defines artificial intelligence, AI technologies, AI systems, ethical guidelines and participants in AI; explains that the portal's "AI Assistant" chatbot gives advisory answers only; lists the principles participants must follow; and sets out the rights and obligations of AI users, by reference to the ethical rules approved by Order No. 3787.

It is a concise official statement of Uzbekistan's AI ethics principles and a clear example of a government disclosing that AI answers are advisory, not official decisions.

Use it for Uzbekistan's AI ethics principles, user rights when AI is used in public services, or wording on AI-generated answers being advisory.

Individuals and legal entities developing, implementing or using AI in Uzbekistan, and users of the government services portal.

Definitions → principles → user rights → user obligations.