The Ownership of Invention Patent Rights for Generative Artificial

Intelligence

Xuanzhe Liu

School of Law, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, 225009, China

Keywords: Generative Artificial Intelligence, Technical Solution, Ownership of Patent Right.

Abstract: With the development of computer technology, generative artificial intelligence technology has gradually

matured. This has brought significant challenges to China's existing patent law. This article collates current

patent law provisions, judicial decisions, and relevant doctrines in China and foreign jurisdictions. Under

China's domestic patent law, there are four categories of patent ownership for inventions: ownership of non-

service inventions, ownership of service inventions, ownership of commissioned inventions, and ownership

of joint inventions. The two pre-dominant doctrines recognized in Chinese academia are the User Doctrine

and the Investor Doctrine. Regarding foreign jurisdictions, this article examines patent ownership regulations

in Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In terms of judicial practice, the DABUS case serves as

an entry point to explore whether AI systems can qualify as legal patent holders. Among foreign academic

theories, the Investor Doctrine and User Doctrine also hold significant recognition.

1 INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence technology is defined through

four dimensions: task execution, decision-making

scheme formulation, predictive anticipation, and

autonomous capability. It is conceptualized as a

tangible capacity that mimics human-like abilities to

perform real-world tasks and engage in

communicative interactions (Homero, Manuel,

Timilehin. 2024). In the contemporary era, alongside

China's high-quality economic development and

sustained advancement in technological capabilities,

generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology has

entered a phase of vigorous growth. This progress has

catalyzed significant quantitative and qualitative

leaps across industries. According to the Generative

Artificial Intelligence Application Development

Report, China has preliminarily established a

comprehensive AI industrial ecosystem

(CNNIC, 2024). Current statistics indicate that the

number of related enterprises exceeds 4,500, with the

core industry scale approaching 600 billion RMB.

The industrial chain extensively covers upstream and

downstream critical segments, including chips,

algorithms, data, platforms, and applications,

demonstrating robust momentum and immense

developmental potential (CNNIC, 2024). The

emergence of China's generative AI system Deepseek

in 2025 marks the nation's successful entry into the

AI era, with technological capabilities reaching

world-leading levels. Deepseek's achievements

underscore that computational efficiency, rather than

sheer scale of computing power, plays a decisive role

in AI advancement (Gibney, 2025). However, as

generative AI continues to evolve, its learning and

algorithmic capacities have achieved unprecedented

enhancement, enabling widespread applications

across domains. It not only assists humans in creative

endeavors but also independently completes

inventions or innovations under certain

circumstances. By leveraging human-input

instructions and content, AI autonomously generates

creative solutions through powerful data mining and

decision-making capabilities. Remarkably, AI

technology can even facilitate profound emotional

exchanges with humans, redefining and

reconstructing diverse social relationships (Mark,

Charlie, 2022). These transformations have ignited

intense legal debates over whether AI-generated

content qualifies for patent rights and how such rights

should be allocated. Currently, China's Patent Law

lacks explicit provisions regarding the patent

ownership of generative AI outputs, and academia

remains divided on this issue. Against this backdrop,

this paper systematically categorizes and evaluates

existing scholarly perspectives on patent ownership

368

Liu, X.

The Ownership of Invention Patent Rights for Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence.

DOI: 10.5220/0014381000004859

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science (ICPLSS 2025), pages 368-374

ISBN: 978-989-758-785-6

of AI-generated content. Through this research, the

author aims to reconcile conflicts between AI and

traditional patent frameworks while providing

readers with a comprehensive understanding of

research gaps and advancements. Ultimately, this

study seeks to offer actionable insights for future

theoretical exploration and practical implementation.

2 PATENT OF INVENTIONS BY

GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL

INTELLIGENCE

Among the six circumstances listed in the Patent Law

where patents are not granted, the provision on "rules

and methods for intellectual activities" is most likely

to hinder artificial intelligence-generated works from

becoming objects of patent law. Technical solutions

generated by artificial intelligence are the results of

computer program algorithms and do not fall under

the category of rules and methods for intellectual

activities (Chen, Xu, 2022). Specifically, artificial

intelligence's processing of basic data through deep

learning already constitutes a modification of existing

technologies. Through comprehensive retrieval and

screening, it can create technologies with features

differing from existing ones to a certain extent.

Second, the complexity of artificial intelligence has

minimal impact on the feasibility of technical

solutions, and usage levels and value judgments are

unaffected by changes in subjectivity (Liu, Wei,

2019). Third, artificial intelligence can generate

original and positively effective inventions based on

user instructions, leveraging its powerful data

retrieval, analysis, and learning capabilities.

Therefore, invention technical solutions generated by

artificial intelligence fully meet the eligibility

requirements for patent rights.

3 OWNERSHIP OF PATENT

RIGHTS FOR INVENTIONS BY

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

3.1 Current Situation of the Ownership

of Patent Rights for Inventions by

Artificial Intelligence in China

3.1.1 Current Situation of Legislation

Currently, there are four provisions in China's legal

system regarding the arrangement of the ownership of

patent rights: the ownership of patents for non-service

inventions, the ownership of patent rights for service

inventions, the ownership of patent rights for

commissioned inventions, and the ownership of

patent rights for cooperative inventions.

The General Provisions of the Civil Code of China

clearly stipulate that civil legal subjects are divided

into natural persons, legal persons, and

unincorporated organizations, and artificial

intelligence is not granted such status. Since

intellectual property is a kind of private right, and the

law of intellectual property is mainly a special civil

law, the civil law governs various individual

intellectual property laws. This means that the legal

subjects in the Patent Law are the same as those in the

Civil Law, namely natural persons, legal persons, and

unincorporated organizations. Similarly, artificial

intelligence is not granted the subject qualification of

a patentee.

China's patent system stipulates that for non-

service inventions and creations, the right to apply for

a patent belongs to the inventor; after the application

is approved, the inventor shall be the patentee. In free

inventions, the inventor enjoys the qualifications of

both the patent applicant and the patentee. According

to Article 13 of the Implementing Regulations of the

Patent Law, an inventor refers to a person who has

made a creative contribution to the essential

characteristics of the invention or creation (The State

Council of the People's Republic of China, 2023).

Secondly, according to the provisions in the

"Guidelines for Patent Applications Related to

Artificial Intelligence (Draft for Solicitation of

Comments)" issued by the National Intellectual

Property Administration in 2024, the inventor whose

name is signed in the patent document must be a

natural person, and artificial intelligence systems and

other non-natural persons shall not be regarded as

inventors. This means that no matter how significant

a role artificial intelligence plays in the process of

invention and creation. It cannot be signed as an

inventor. Only a natural person who has made a

creative contribution to the essential characteristics of

the invention or creation can be recognized as an

inventor and signed. It can be seen that in the case of

service inventions, when an inventor uses artificial

intelligence to generate an invention, the patent right

of the invention is likely to be granted to the inventor.

According to the provisions of China's Patent

Law, service inventions are divided into two

categories. The first category is inventions and

creations completed in the performance of tasks

assigned by the entity, and the second category is

inventions and creations mainly completed by using

The Ownership of Invention Patent Rights for Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence

369

the material conditions of the entity (The Standing

Committee of the National People's Congress,2020).

In the first case, if an employee of the entity uses

artificial intelligence to complete the invention and

creation as part of the work task assigned by the

entity, obviously the patentee of the invention

belongs to the entity. In the second case, if an

employee uses the artificial intelligence equipment

owned by the entity to complete the invention, the

patent right may belong to the entity. It can be seen

that in service inventions, although the inventor has

contributed a great deal of wisdom and cost, the

patent right still belongs to the entity.

A commissioned invention means entrusting

others to complete the invention and creation in the

manner agreed upon in the contract. Regarding the

ownership of the patent right for this type of

invention, both China's Patent Law and Contract Law

adopt the principle of contract priority, that is, the

patentee is determined according to the content

agreed upon in the contract. If the contract agreement

is unclear or there is no arrangement regarding the

ownership of the patent right, generally the principle

of giving priority to the entrusting party (i.e., the

inventor) is adopted, and the inventor shall enjoy the

patent right. In the case of a cooperative invention,

usually the patent right is jointly owned by all

inventors.

3.1.2 Current Situation of Domestic

Theoretical Research

Facing the diverse subjects of patent rights, the

Chinese academic community generally adopts the

"user theory" and the "investor theory" for the

arrangement of the patent rights of the generated

inventions.

The internal logic of the operation of artificial

intelligence is to display the inner thoughts and

concepts of users through its own powerful

capabilities of information retrieval, resource

integration, and advanced deep learning ability, based

on the language and instructions input by users.

During the operation of artificial intelligence, users

also need to continuously modify and correct the

generated content to achieve the original

expectations. Throughout the whole process, users

need to spend a lot of time and energy. Evidently,

users have made outstanding and substantial

contributions to the output of the generated products,

which conforms to the definition of an inventor in

China's Patent Law.

Therefore, many scholars in the academic

community believe that users have carried out a large

amount of preparatory work in the process of artificial

intelligence invention and creation, and have made

substantial contributions to the output of the content,

so they should be eligible as patent right holders. Liu

Youhua and Wei Yuanshan believe that users have

collected, screened, integrated, and optimized the

relevant information content before operating

artificial intelligence. The resulting technical solution

is essentially a manifestation of the user's wisdom and

makes a substantial contribution to the output

technical solution (Liu, Wei, 2019). Yang Lihua

believes that users of artificial intelligence are deeply

involved in every stage of invention and creation,

making huge and substantial contributions to the

generation of invention and creation. They are closely

linked to the invention and creation of artificial

intelligence in terms of time and space. Moreover,

this can prevent patent rights from being monopolized

by investment companies with strong capital,

promote the sharing of artificial intelligence patent

achievements among individuals, and contribute to

the balance of social public interests (Yang, 2023).

Wang Zhengzhong believes that users will provide

certain data samples, material and financial resources,

as well as technical support to the program during the

invention and creation process of artificial

intelligence. At the same time, the direct use of

artificial intelligence inventions and creations by

users can better face the market, reduce many

intermediate links, save a large amount of time,

manpower, and technical costs, and better apply and

promote them in the market, thus promoting the

prosperous development of the economic society. It

can also more efficiently combine with traditional

enterprises, promote the digital transformation and

upgrading of traditional enterprises, and thus generate

more applicable technical achievements (Wang,

2019). Liu Youhua and Li Yangfan believe that if

there is an agreement on the ownership of the patent

rights of the generated products of artificial

intelligence in advance, it shall be subject to the

agreement. If there is no agreement, it shall be

analyzed according to the theory of creative

contribution. The operation of artificial intelligence is

carried out under the user's instructions and makes a

contribution to the output of the generated products.

Therefore, the patent rights of the generated products

should belong to the users of artificial intelligence

(Liu, Li, 2023).

The author believes that as the operator of

artificial intelligence, the user has his own concepts

and assumptions about the outstanding features and

functions of the generated product. In fact, the user

regards artificial intelligence as a production tool and

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

370

objectively expresses his own innovative ideas

through certain means. Secondly, the instruction

information input into artificial intelligence is

basically screened, integrated, optimized, and

modified by the user. Without a large amount of

materials provided by the user, artificial intelligence

will not be able to generate a technical solution with

novelty and integrity. It can be seen that the generated

product is essentially the intellectual achievement of

the user and makes a substantial contribution to the

output of the generated product, and thus belongs to

the inventor in the Patent Law. Therefore, it is a

reasonable choice to grant the patent rights of the

generated product to the user in the case of a non-

service invention.

Article 1 of China's Patent Law stipulates: This

Law is formulated in order to protect the legitimate

rights and interests of patent right holders, encourage

invention and creation, promote the application of

invention and creation, enhance the ability of

innovation, and boost the progress of science and

technology as well as the development of the

economic society (The Standing Committee of the

National People's Congress, 2020). It can be seen that

one of the purposes of China's patent system is to

enhance the ability of scientific and technological

innovation and stimulate the output of inventions and

creations. However, the manufacturing and training

of generative artificial intelligence often require high

capital costs, which are generally borne by investors

(also known as owners). Therefore, it is somewhat

reasonable to confer patent rights on investors as a

form of return. At the same time, it is conducive to

encouraging more investors to invest in the scientific

and technological innovation industry, continuously

promoting the generation of more products of

invention, and filling the society with creative

vitality.

Among them, Chen Quanzhen and Xu Difeng

believe that when artificial intelligence inventions

meet the patentability requirements, a system for the

ownership of patent rights for artificial intelligence

inventions can be established, with artificial

intelligence investors (generally owners) as the patent

right holders, supplemented by the principle of

autonomy of will (Chen, Xu, 2022). Zhu Xuezhong

and Zhang Guangwei hold that investors in artificial

intelligence should be the default patent right holders,

which can better promote and stimulate innovation.

Because usually, the owners of artificial intelligence

will invest a large amount of resources and costs in

developing and promoting core technologies, playing

a major and constructive role. Granting patent rights

to the owners is in line with the principle of fairness

in the patent system (Zhu, Zhang, 2018).

The author believes that the purpose of China's

Patent Law is to protect the intellectual achievements

of inventors and encourage natural persons and

organizations with the intention of invention and

creation to actively innovate and produce more

scientific and technological achievements. People

who use investment as a means to obtain economic

returns obviously run counter to China's patent

system. Moreover, once investors with a large amount

of capital possess a large number of patent rights,

there is a high possibility of causing a technology

monopoly, which will then enable them to control the

industrial market, exclude the orderly and free

competition in the market, and is not conducive to

inspiring the public to carry out innovation.

3.2 Current Situation of Overseas

Research on the Ownership of

Patent Rights

3.2.1 Current Situation of Overseas

Legislation

Some countries have made relevant legal provisions

regarding inventions generated by artificial

intelligence (AI). Japan takes a negative attitude

towards AI as the subject of patent rights. Its Patent

Law stipulates that only "natural persons who have

actually made the invention" can become inventors

and patent applicants.

The UK Intellectual Property Office has pointed

out that the current patent legal framework faces

institutional challenges in dealing with AI-generated

inventions. According to the policy statement issued

by this institution, the existing patent system is still

unable to properly regulate the situation where AI

acts as the subject of invention. The reason is that the

existing laws clearly stipulate that patent applicants

must be natural persons or legal entities. Although it

is possible to adapt to technological development

through special legislation or the revision of

examination standards in the future, currently, there

are still legal vacuums in the intellectual property

system regarding key issues such as determining the

creative contributions, rights ownership, and ethical

boundaries of inventions independently generated by

AI.

In addition, in the current patent laws and

regulations of the United States, a large number of

words such as "individual" and "person" are used to

describe inventors. The Manual of Patent Examining

Procedure (MPEP) in the United States also stipulates

The Ownership of Invention Patent Rights for Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence

371

that inventors must have ideas about the invention,

that is, "a complete manifestation of the spiritual part

of the inventive act", and words such as "conscious"

are used to clearly state that inventors can only be

natural persons (An, Pa, 2020). In judicial precedents,

U.S. courts also do not recognize the status of AI as

an inventor, and instead, they more often grant patent

rights to investors and inventors (Wang, Xu, 2021).

Moreover, according to the provisions of the

Australian Patent Law, it can be inferred that its

attitude towards inventions generated by AI is similar

to that of the United States, that is, it does not

recognize the legal status of AI as a patent right holder

(Wei, Peng, Mao, 2022).

It can be seen that although the patent law systems

of many foreign countries do not explicitly specify

the subject to which inventions generated by AI are

granted, it can be inferred from the language

expressions that foreign countries do not recognize

the subject qualification of AI in patent law, which is

basically the common understanding in the laws of

most countries.

3.2.2 Current Situation of Overseas Judicial

Practice

In 2018, Dr. Thaler launched a landmark legal

practice globally (Liu, Ren, 2022). He filed patent

applications in more than a dozen jurisdictions,

including the United States Patent and Trademark

Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office

(EPO). The core demand of his application was to list

the DABUS system as a patent inventor. The DABUS

system is an autonomous cognitive system formed by

simulating the neural network structure of the human

brain and training with massive amounts of data. It is

capable of independently completing the entire

invention and creation process, from

conceptualization to the formation of technical

solutions.

This claim has triggered major discussions in the

field of intellectual property. Different countries have

made different arrangements regarding the

application requests. Except for South Africa,

institutions such as the USPTO, the UK Intellectual

Property Office, the UK High Court, the EPO, the

German Patent Office, and the Korean Intellectual

Property Office have successively rejected the patent

application of DABUS based on the principle that

"the inventor should be a natural person", clearly

ruling that artificial intelligence does not have the

qualification to be an inventor (Yang, 2023).

This series of decisions indicates that under the

existing judicial frameworks of most countries and

regions, artificial intelligence is still unable to obtain

the same status as a natural person as the subject of

patent invention, even if the technical invention is

completely created relying on the powerful

algorithmic capabilities of artificial intelligence.

3.2.3 Current Situation of Overseas

Theoretical Research

When faced with the practical dilemma of the

ownership of rights brought about by the rapid

development of artificial intelligence, foreign

scholars have mainly proposed the "designer theory",

the "investor theory", and the "owner theory".

The designer theory holds that before the artificial

intelligence system is completely created, it requires

a large amount of algorithm setting, program

modification, and massive data input. These

technically difficult preparatory works need to be

completed independently by the designers. Designers

have made outstanding and substantial contributions

to the creation of the complex artificial intelligence

system (Darin, 2001). Moreover, granting designers

the patent rights for the generated inventions is

conducive to motivating the design subjects to

continue innovating and promoting the development

of science and technology. Otherwise, designers may

keep the artificial intelligence system confidential in

the form of trade secrets and not make it public.

Obviously, this approach is not conducive to the

continuous development of the industrial science and

technology (Pamela, 1986).

The author believes that the contribution of

designers only lies in the development of the artificial

intelligence computing system itself. Their

contribution cannot be extended to the generated

technical solutions, as designers do not invest specific

efforts and costs in the creation of technical solutions.

Secondly, designers can obtain legal protection by

applying for the patent rights of the artificial

intelligence system, safeguarding their patent

achievements, and thus promoting the development

of the science and technology industry.

Scholars who hold the owner theory, from the

perspective of the proportion of input costs, believe

that the owners have invested the most costs in the

activity of creating artificial intelligence systems, and

they should be compensated for their invested costs

through certain forms of returns. Mengyu Wa

believes that the creation of artificial intelligence has

provided a large amount of resource costs, such as

funds, technology, and talents, etc. It has made

contributions to a certain extent to the creation of

artificial intelligence and has a powerful promoting

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

372

effect on the development of the artificial intelligence

industry. Granting the patent rights to the owners can

boost the development of the artificial intelligence

technology industry (Wang, 2019).

However, the author believes that owners

generally possess a large amount of capital strength.

If the ownership of patent rights is granted to the

owners, it is very likely to cause a monopoly of patent

technologies, resulting in the inability of patent

achievements to be shared by society, thus hindering

the progress of scientific and technological

innovation.

The user theory holds that in the current social

context, artificial intelligence is still an ordinary

production tool. Essentially, when users use artificial

intelligence to generate inventions, they are creating

inventions by taking advantage of the conditions of

existing production tool technologies (Evan, 1989).

Moreover, inventions and creations made by artificial

intelligence can be regarded as the external creative

behaviors of the users' expressions of intent, which

have made important contributions to the output of

inventions.

The author believes that it is reasonable to regard

generative artificial intelligence as a production tool.

In the era of weak artificial intelligence, although

generative artificial intelligence has made great

breakthroughs in technologies such as algorithmic

computing, it still needs to be improved in some

aspects. It cannot completely generate relatively

mature technical solutions independently without

human intervention. It still requires humans to input

certain precise information to complete the

generation of technical solutions.

4 CONCLUSION

Currently, the academic community's focus on the

issue of the ownership of patent rights for artificial

intelligence-generated products mainly lies in

stimulating innovation and balancing the

relationships among various relevant stakeholders, so

as to determine the corresponding pattern of interest

distribution. However, the fundamental original

intention of promoting the in-depth development of

artificial intelligence is to benefit all mankind,

enabling people around the world to share the

development dividends brought about by artificial

intelligence, fully meeting the needs of social public

interests, and helping humanity create a better life.

Looking ahead, relevant research could take

satisfying public interests as the core objective,

starting from the standpoint of enhancing the well-

being of all mankind, and continuously and deeply

improve the issue of the ownership of rights for

artificial intelligence-generated products. This would

encourage more subjects to participate in sharing the

remarkable achievements created by artificial

intelligence.

REFERENCES

An, W. S, Pan, D. 2020. Analysis of the Inventor

Qualification of AI Patents from the Perspective of US

Patent Law. China Invention & Patent 17(10), 110–113.

Chen, Q. Z., Xu, D. F. 2022. On the Patentability and

Ownership of Inventions Generated by Artificial

Intelligence. Science & Technology Progress and

Policy 39(9), 114–115.

China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC):

Report on the Development of Generative Artificial

Intelligence Applications. 2024.

https://www.100ec.cn/detail--6645013.html, last

accessed 2025/03/02.

Deuze, M., Beckett, C. 2022. Imagination, Algorithms and

News: Developing AI Literacy for Journalism. Digital

Journalism 10, 1913–1918.

Farr, E.H. 1989. Copyrightability of Computer-Created

Works. Rutgers Computer Technology Law Journal 1,

63–80.

Gibney, E. 2025. China's cheap, open AI model DeepSeek

thrills scientists. Nature.

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Goyanes, M., Durotoye, T. 2024. A

Scholarly Definition of Artificial Intelligence (AI):

Advancing AI as a Conceptual Framework in

Communication Research. Political Communication 2,

317–334.

Whom, If Anyone, Do We Reward. Duke Law and

Technology Review.

Liu, Y. H., Ren, Y. F. 2023. Exploration of the Patent Law

Protection of Technical Solutions Generated by

ChatGPT. Intellectual Property 7, 88–89.

Liu, Y. H., Ren, Z. L. 2022. A Re-exploration of the

Eligibility for the Invention of Artificial Intelligence—

Also on the Impact of the DABUS Case. Journal of

Wuling 2, 1.

Liu, Y. H., Wei, Y. S. 2019. The Patentability and

Ownership of Technical Solutions Generated by

Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Xiangtan University

(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 43(4), 87.

Samuelson, P. 1986. Allocating Ownership Rights in

Computer-generated Works. University of Pittsburgh

Law Review 4, 1185–1228.

The Standing Committee of the National People's

Congress. 2020. Article 6 of the Patent Law of the

People's Republic of China.

https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2020/11/23/art_97_1551

67.html, last accessed 2025/03/04.

The State Council of the People's Republic of China. 2023.

Article 13 of the Implementing Regulations of the

The Ownership of Invention Patent Rights for Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence

373

Patent Law of the People's Republic of China.

https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/12/21/art_98_1891

97.html, last accessed 2025/03/04.

Wan, M. Y. 2019. The Challenge and Research of Artificial

Intelligence to the Legal Problems of Intellectual

Property. Advances in Social Science, Education and

Humanities Research 329, 1484–1488.

Wang, H. Y., Hongyan, Xu, T. R. 2021. An Analysis of the

Challenges and Response Systems of Artificial

Intelligence to Intellectual Property Protection in China

and the United States. In: Collected Papers of Shanghai

Law Research (Volume 7 in 2021, Total Volume 55)—

Collected Papers on Lawyer Law Research, pp. 30–38.

Wang, Z. Z. 2019. On the Ownership of the Rights of

Inventions and Creations Generated by Artificial

Intelligence—Based on Promoting the Application of

Inventions and Creations. Electronic Intellectual

Property Daily 2, 27–29.

Wei, L. L. Peng, F. R., Mao, T. 2022. Discussion on the

Arrangement of the Ownership of Patent Rights for

Contents Generated by Artificial Intelligence—From

the Perspective of the DABUS Case. Patent Agency 3,

43–48.

Yang, L. H. 2023. The Patentability of Technical Solutions

Generated by Artificial Intelligence and Its Institutional

Response. Peking University Law Journal 2, 356–357.

Zhu, X. X., Zhang, G. W. 2018. Research on the

Patentability and Ownership of Technical

Achievements Generated by Artificial Intelligence.

Journal of Intelligence 37(2), 74.

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

374