GLOBAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GOVERNANCE: A SCOPING REVIEW

LAILA SURIYA AHMAD APANDI; MOHD DINO KHAIRRI SHARIFFUDDIN

doi:10.55197/qjssh.v7i1.974

Authors

LAILA SURIYA AHMAD APANDI School of International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), Kedah, Malaysia.
MOHD DINO KHAIRRI SHARIFFUDDIN School of International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), Kedah, Malaysia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v7i1.974

Keywords:

global AI governance, international collaboration, accountable AI, human centered approach, scoping review

Abstract

Global AI governance is an eminent matter that needs to be addressed in the AI era. AI not only resulted to some benefits, but also drawbacks. This resulted government to govern AI as to contain these drawbacks of AI. However, different governments govern AI differently. This further situates the paper to examine global artificial intelligence governance using scoping review. It questions: What global AI governance ought to be? The paper found that global AI governance ought to be developed by an international collaboration that prioritizes accountable AI and adopts human centered approach. International collaboration within global AI governance, argued in this paper, should be inclusive. Various key stakeholders in AI governance should participate in the international collaboration. Only by having such inclusivity in international collaboration, global AI governance can benefits users, producers, regulators, etc. In addition, global AI governance should ensure that AI, supplied by industrial firms, remain accountable for their outcomes and impacts. Similarly, users are also accountable, at all times, when using AI. This element of accountable AI should prioritize human matters at all stages of AI policy making, be it the phases of draft, implementation, or review. Thus, the paper also contributes to a better understanding of what AI global governance ought to be.

Author Biography

MOHD DINO KHAIRRI SHARIFFUDDIN, School of International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), Kedah, Malaysia.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd Dino Khairri is a senior lecturer attached at School of International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia. My academic interests revolve around the political economy, election systems, leadership, democracy and democratization, political parties, and student movements in Malaysia and Indonesia. I have been fortunate enough to secure research grants from reputable institutions such as YADIM, FRGS (granted by the Ministry of Higher Education), Geran Agensi Luar (dalam negara) Awam, and the Universiti Utara Malaysia gratt (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran, Geran Penjanaan, Geran UUMPress and Geran Pembangunan Pelajar). These grants will support my research endeavors in the aforementioned areas, allowing me to contribute to the scholarly understanding of political dynamics in Malaysia and Indonesia.

References

[1] Arksey, H., O’Malley, L. (2005): Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. – International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19-32.

[2] Ayana, G., Dese, K., Nemomssa, H.D., Bontu, H., Mellado, B., Badu, K., Yamba, E., Faye, S.L., Ondua, M., Nsagha, D., NKweteyim, D., Kong, J.D. (2024): Decolonizing global AI governance: assessment of the state of decolonized AI governance in Sub-Saharan Africa. – Royal Society Open Science 11(8): 16p.

[3] Batool, A., Zowghi, D., Bano, M. (2025): AI governance: a systematic literature review. – AI and Ethics 5: 3265-3279.

[4] Camilleri, M.A. (2023): Artificial intelligence governance: Ethical considerations and implications for social responsibility. – Expert Systems 41(7): 15p.

[5] Cheng, J., Zeng, J. (2023): Shaping AI’s future? China in global AI governance. – Journal of Contemporary China 32(143): 794-810.

[6] Council of the European Union (CEU) (2024): Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act). – Council of the European Union Web Portal 5p.

[7] Erman E., Furendal, M. (2024): Artificial intelligence and the political legitimacy of global governance. – Political Studies 72(2): 421-441.

[8] Feldstein, S. (2024): Evaluating Europe's push to enact AI regulations: how will this influence global norms? – Democratization 31(5): 1049-1066.

[9] Fontes, C., Corrigan, C., Lütge, C. (2023): Governing AI during a pandemic crisis: Initiatives at the EU level. – Technology in Society 72: 11p.

[10] Gwagwa, A., Mollema, W.J.T. (2024): How could the United Nations Global Digital Compact prevent cultural imposition and hermeneutical injustice? – Patterns 5(11): 16p.

[11] Hisham, A.A.B., Yusof, N.A.M., Salleh, S.H., Abas, H. (2024): Transforming governance: A systematic review of AI applications in policymaking. – Journal of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 10(1): 7-15.

[12] Hung, H.T. (2025): Exploring China’s cyber sovereignty concept and artificial intelligence governance model: a machine learning approach. – Journal of Computational Social Science 8(1): 31p.

[13] Ji, X., Kuai, J., Zamith, R. (2024): Scrutinizing Algorithms: Assessing Journalistic Role Performance in Chinese News Media’s Coverage of Artificial Intelligence. – Journalism Practice 18(9): 2396-2413.

[14] Jones, E. (2023): Digital disruption: artificial intelligence and international trade policy. – Oxford Review of Economic Policy 39(1): 70-84.

[15] Joshi, D. (2024): AI governance in India–law, policy and political economy. – Communication Research and Practice 10(3): 328-339.

[16] Kaufman, D. (2024): Logic and foundations of artificial intelligence and society’s reactions to maximize benefits and mitigate harm. – Filosofia Unisinos 25(1): 13p.

[17] Mao, Y., Shi-Kupfer, K. (2023): Online public discourse on artificial intelligence and ethics in China: context, content, and implications. – AI & Society 38: 373-389.

[18] Montagnani, M.L., Najjar, M., Davola, A. (2024): The EU Regulatory approach (es) to AI liability, and its application to the financial services market. – Computer Law & Security Review 53: 19p.

[19] Mügge, D. (2023): The securitization of the EU’s digital tech regulation. – Journal of European Public Policy 30(7): 1431-1446.

[20] National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (2024): What is Artificial Intelligence? – NASA Web Portal 4p.

[21] Omar, M., Sorin, V., Collins, J.D., Reich, D., Freeman, R., Gavin, N., Charney, A., Stump, L., Bragazzi, N.L., Nadkarni, G. N., Klang, E. (2025): Multi-model assurance analysis showing large language models are highly vulnerable to adversarial hallucination attacks during clinical decision support. – Communications Medicine 5(1): 7p.

[22] Paoli, N. (2025): Deloitte was caught using AI in $290,000 report to help the Australian government crack on welfare after a researcher flagged hallucinations. – Fortune Web Portal 17p.

[23] Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025): Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework. – The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 34(2): 18p.

[24] Rebolledo, V.G. (2025): Impact of Artificial Intelligence on International Relations: Towards a Global Algorithms Governance. – Revista UNISCI 43p.

[25] Robles, P., Mallinson, D.J. (2023): Catching up with AI: Pushing toward a cohesive governance framework. – Politics & Policy 51(3): 355-372.

[26] Roberts, H., Babuta, A., Morley, J., Thomas, C., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L. (2023): Artificial intelligence regulation in the United Kingdom: a path to good governance and global leadership? – Internet Policy Review 12(2): 1-31.

[27] Roberts, H., Hine, E., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L. (2024): Global AI governance: barriers and pathways forward. – International Affairs 100(3): 1275-1286.

[28] Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) (2025): Opinions of the State Council on deepening the implementation of the “Artificial Intelligence+” action. – CSET Web Portal 5p.

[29] Segun, S. (2024): Are certain African ethical values at risk from artificial intelligence? – Data & Policy 6: 14p.

[30] Sioumalas-Christodoulou, K., Tympas, A. (2025): AI metrics and policymaking: assumptions and challenges in the shaping of AI. – AI & Society 16p.

[31] Tallberg, J., Erman, E., Furendal, M., Geith, J., Klamberg, M., Lundgren, M. (2023): The global governance of artificial intelligence: Next steps for empirical and normative research. – International Studies Review 25(3): 23p.

[32] The Star (2025): Journal defends work with fake AI citations amid Hong Kong university probe. – The Star Web Portal 8p.

[33] The Straits Times (2024): ByteDance’s TikTok cuts hundreds of jobs in shift towards AI content moderation. – The Straits Times Web Portal 4p.

[34] Trigui, H., Guerfali, F., Harigua-Souiai, E., Qasrawi, R., Atri, C., Sokhn, E. S., Morr, C.E., Hammami, K., Souiai, O., Wu, J., Kong, J.D., Rousseau, J.J., Znaidi, S. (2024): Exploring AI governance in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: gaps, efforts, and initiatives. – Data & Policy 6: 13p.

[35] Vecchietti, G., Liyanaarachchi, G., Viglia, G. (2025): Managing deepfakes with AI: Introducing the business calculus. – Journal of Business Research 186: 10p.

[36] Wakunuma, K., Eke, D. (2024): Africa, ChatGPT, and generative AI systems: Ethical benefits, concerns, and the need for governance. – Philosophies 9(3): 19p.

[37] Xu, J., Lee, T., Goggin, G. (2024): AI governance in Asia: policies, praxis and approaches. – Communication Research and Practice 10(3): 275-287.

[38] Zaidan, E., Ibrahim, I.A. (2024): AI governance in a complex and rapidly changing regulatory landscape: A global perspective. – Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1):1-18.

GLOBAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GOVERNANCE: A SCOPING REVIEW

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

Author Biography

References

Downloads

Published

Issue

Section

License

How to Cite