Path of International Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in the
Digital Economy Era
Litong Yu
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architectures, Beijing, China
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Regulation, Digital Economy.
Abstract: In the digital economy era, the development and advancement of artificial intelligence have triggered novel
legal regulatory dilemmas, posing global challenges. The risks posed by Artificial Intelligence must be
addressed through the establishment of a global governance framework, a technical standard system, and a
dispute resolution mechanism. Regulating Artificial Intelligence through international law represents the
optimal solution within the existing global governance paradigm. This paper employs case studies and
comparative analysis to examine current Artificial Intelligence legal regulatory pathways, primarily including
sovereign state legislation, regional collaborative regulation, and bilateral coordination mechanisms. By
analyzing their inherent institutional deficiencies, the study concludes that only a multilateral governance
framework centered on international law can achieve a leap in governance efficacy while safeguarding
technological sovereignty. Additionally, China’s responsive measures are elaborated. Regulating Artificial
Intelligence through international law will facilitate the formation of a new digital-era legal order
characterized by inclusiveness and effectiveness.
1 INTRODUCTION
As digital technologies reshape the global economic
landscape, traditional legal frameworks face
unprecedented challenges in addressing legal issues
arising from artificial intelligence, with the structural
contradiction between technological iteration and
legal lag becoming increasingly pronounced.
Current academic research on artificial
intelligence governance predominantly focuses on
technical ethics or domestic legislation, revealing a
theoretical gap in transnational collaborative
governance. To date, non-state actors have not
proposed or coordinated binding international hard
law. When nations prioritize self-interested benefit
distribution over reliance on enforceable international
hard law to sustain cooperation, non-state actors’
reliance on international soft law alone cannot ensure
the credibility of national commitments (Schwemer et
al., 2022). Consequently, inter-state cooperation
remains unstable, exacerbating value conflicts across
diverse cultural contexts. Furthermore, international
law contains minimal specific provisions on artificial
intelligence. Instruments such as the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights only broadly address rights related to freedom
of thought, privacy protection, and non-
discrimination, reflecting that international legal
innovation remains confined to ethical dimensions
(Dwivedi et al., 2019).
This study aims to address the governance
dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence in the
context of international legal regulation. By revealing
the functional deficiencies of existing national laws
and regulations, it creatively proposes a global
cooperative pathway for artificial intelligence
governance. The paper advocates clarifying existing
defects, governance necessity, and fundamental
elements to construct a new international legal order
for the digital era while ensuring technological
innovation.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Scholars have proposed various pathways to regulate
artificial intelligence in the digital economy era. One
approach is sovereign state legislation, exemplified
by the United States’s unilateral Political Declaration
on the Responsible Military Use of Artificial
494
Yu, L.
Path of International Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Economy Era.
DOI: 10.5220/0014385200004859
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 494-498
ISBN: 978-989-758-785-6
Proceedings Copyright © 2026 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda.

Intelligence and Autonomy (Roberts et al., 2020).
Nations may establish gradient regulatory systems
based on their digital economic development levels.
However, such fragmented legislation leads to
overlapping compliance costs. Another proposal is
regional collaborative regulation. For instance, the
European Union and the United States have engaged
in technical cooperation, such as the third EU-U.S.
Joint Technology Competition Policy Dialogue
(TCPD) held in Washington in March 2023, aimed at
consolidating collaborative outcomes and ensuring
fair competition in the digital domain (Von Struensee,
2021). Nonetheless, this model risks technological
hegemony, and regional governance rules face
challenges in global scalability.
Additionally, scholars advocate bilateral
coordination mechanisms. In August 2020, Singapore
and Australia signed the Singapore-Australia Digital
Economy Agreement (SADEA), accompanied by
memoranda of understanding (MoUs) to promote
Artificial Intelligence best practices and shared
ethical governance frameworks (Shen & Zhao, 2023).
While bilateral models enhance regulatory efficiency,
they entail issue-linkage risks, with some agreements
imposing conditions such as data localization or
market access.
Based on this analysis, this study concludes that
although the current international legal framework for
regulating Artificial Intelligence remains incomplete,
it represents the sole pathway capable of balancing
national sovereignty with the uneven technological
development and digital economic disparities
underlying Artificial Intelligence. A multi-
stakeholder governance model not only accelerates
Artificial Intelligence advancement but also fosters a
universally equitable global legal governance
environment.
3 CURRENT LEGAL
REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE
3.1 Domestic Legal Pathways
In 2017, the State Council of China issued the New
Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan
(AIDP), establishing a national Artificial Intelligence
strategy through 2030. Managed by the Ministry of
Science and Technology (MOST), the New
Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan
aims to guide private enterprises toward Artificial
Intelligence ethical development and deployment
aligned with state values. To this end, the Chinese
government has incentivized Artificial Intelligence
initiatives by private enterprises, provided such
initiatives conform to its values and objectives.
However, the New Generation Artificial Intelligence
Development Plan’s failure to precisely define
artificial intelligence has triggered a series of
complex issues.
The 2023 Artificial Intelligence Law established
a "classified and tiered regulatory" framework. On
October 18 of the same year, the Cyberspace
Administration of China released the Global
Artificial Intelligence Governance Initiative,
emphasizing the establishment of a risk-level testing
and evaluation system, safeguarding personal privacy
and data security in Artificial Intelligence research,
development and application, achieving fairness and
non-discrimination principles, and improving
Artificial Intelligence ethical guidelines, norms, and
accountability mechanisms (Guo & Xu, 2024).
However, challenges persist, including overly
abstract principles, regulatory frameworks lacking
practical implementation experience, and instances of
regulatory absence or overreach.
The United States primarily adopts an “interstate
legislation + federal guidance” model to regulate
Artificial Intelligence. For example, California’s
proposed comprehensive Artificial Intelligence
framework-Assembly Bill 311-requires companies
developing critical Artificial Intelligence products (in
employment, education, housing, etc.) to conduct
impact assessments, provide notice and opt-out rights
to California residents, and implement governance
plans with reasonable administrative and technical
safeguards to address algorithmic discrimination
risks (Raja & John, 2019). This law would be
enforced by the California Attorney General and
includes limited private litigation rights. Although the
bill remains under committee review, California’s
legislature tends to proactively regulate tech policy
issues regardless of federal or other states’ actions.
Meanwhile, New York State has proposed
requirements for bias audits of Artificial Intelligence
recruitment tools. However, measures such as impact
assessments may impede Artificial Intelligence
enterprises’ research, development, and growth to
some extent. These measures are confined to
domestic technological advancement, diminishing
opportunities and efficiency for international
collaboration, restricting the progress of global
Artificial Intelligence projects, and posing obstacles
to the synergistic development of worldwide data
flows and the digital economy.
Path of International Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Economy Era
495

3.2 Regional Collaborative Pathways
On April 21, 2021, the European Commission
promulgated the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA),
which preliminarily articulates the EU’s values,
fundamental rights and principles, as well as its
commitment to democracy and the rule of law. The
Act aims to create a fair competitive market for the
provision of Artificial Intelligence systems, protect
fair and responsible digital services, and align with
appropriate data governance and the Data Act to
achieve comprehensive digital transformation
(Buckley et al., 2021).
However, the Artificial Intelligence Act does not
adopt a rights-based approach, such as introducing
new rights for individuals affected by Artificial
Intelligence system decisions. Instead, it focuses on
regulating Artificial Intelligence system providers
and users in a manner akin to product supervision.
Furthermore, the Act defines Artificial
Intelligence systems broadly as “machine learning or
logic-and knowledge-based systems.” This expansive
definition extends prohibitions-for example, against
the use of Artificial Intelligence for social scoring-to
private entities, thereby constraining the scope of
permissible Artificial Intelligence applications.
The Artificial Intelligence Act also restricts the
discretionary authority of the European Commission
by establishing common technical specifications for
high-risk and general-purpose Artificial Intelligence
systems. As a result, many existing legal Artificial
Intelligence and information system use cases may
fall under the scope of this Act. Only a very limited
number of legal Artificial Intelligence and
information systems are classified under the high-risk
category of "judicial management and democratic
processes," requiring third-party certification for
high-risk Artificial Intelligence systems. This results
in 25 legal Artificial Intelligence and information
systems within this domain, particularly those in
private practice, remaining uncovered, thereby
generating significant regulatory gaps.
3.3 Bilateral Treaty Pathways
In August 2020, Singapore and Australia officially
signed the Singapore-Australia Digital Economy
Agreement (SADEA). Under this agreement, 12
specific memoranda of cooperation were established,
with Memorandum No. 7 exclusively targeting the
field of Artificial Intelligence governance. This
document defines three core components: algorithm
transparency benchmarks, data ethics evaluation
mechanisms, and norms for cross-border Artificial
Intelligence research and development collaboration.
Article 15 of the agreement includes an ancillary
clause requiring participating enterprises to establish
data mirror servers in each other’s countries. This has
forced some small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) to withdraw from cooperation projects due to
cost pressures. Additionally, Article 8.3 links
Artificial Intelligence regulatory cooperation to
digital service market access, heightening issue-
linkage risks.
In April 2022, the United States and the European
Union signed the Transatlantic Artificial Intelligence
Cooperation Framework. The agreement
encompasses technical standard alignment, mutual
recognition of ethical governance, and sharing of
research and development resources. However, its
implementation has revealed dual effects: the
protocol annex mandates that participating parties
undergo each other’s data protection reviews, leading
a significant portion of European SMEs to abandon
the U.S. market due to compliance costs.
3.4 Disadvantage Analysis
In summary, regarding the regulatory pathways for
artificial intelligence, the sovereign state legislative
approach suffers from defects such as international
detachment. Nations focus solely on their own
development, reducing international cooperation and
restricting the advancement of global Artificial
Intelligence projects. Additionally, fragmented
legislative approaches, such as the U.S. "interstate
legislation + federal guidance" model, lead to
overlapping compliance costs. Divergent national
values, objectives, and definitions of Artificial
Intelligence further exacerbate these issues.
Moreover, overly abstract principles and regulatory
frameworks characterized by gaps or overreach are
prevalent across nations (Li, 2024).
The regional collaborative regulatory model
carries risks of technological hegemony, aggravating
technological lag in less-developed Artificial
Intelligence nations, while regional governance rules
themselves face challenges in global scalability.
Bilateral coordination mechanisms similarly entail
negative impacts such as spillover effects and issue-
linkage risks, coupled with insufficient enforcement
capacity.
ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science
496

4 INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
REGULATION PATHWAY FOR
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
4.1 Innovative Design of International
Legal Regulation
The development of Artificial Intelligence has
brought about global challenges. Government
strategies designed to incentivize domestic Artificial
Intelligence research may lead to fragmentation in
global governance frameworks, which, in the long
term, threatens regulatory stringency competition.
Under these circumstances, nations attract Artificial
Intelligence industries through national strategies and
incentives to accelerate Artificial Intelligence
development yet fail to correspondingly strengthen
regulatory efforts to mitigate the societal risks arising
from such advancements. Concurrently, lax
regulation and intense competition increase the
likelihood of biased and socially harmful systems,
even posing existential threats to human life,
underscoring a pressing security imperative. Issues
such as Artificial Intelligence discrimination and
privacy violations also necessitate a unified ethical
framework for resolution. Therefore, the pathway of
regulating Artificial Intelligence through
international law carries significant necessity.
The substantial risks posed by the rapid
development of Artificial Intelligence must be
addressed through the establishment of a global
governance framework, a technical standard system,
and dispute resolution mechanisms. International
legal regulation represents the optimal solution within
the existing global governance paradigm.
International law, formulated by expert teams, can
provide legitimate global rules and effective solutions
in the international competition for advanced
Artificial Intelligence system development.
Simultaneously, it supports the efficient growth of the
Artificial Intelligence industry, fosters trust between
nations and technology developers, and facilitates the
global implementation of beneficial systems and
practices (Periche, 2020).
A globally coordinated Artificial Intelligence
governance mechanism should comprise
interconnected and overlapping national standards,
best practice initiatives, and normative declarations
and principles issued by international organizations-
all grounded in the integration of historical and
contemporary legal frameworks across multiple
jurisdictions. A thorough understanding of the
impacts and shortcomings of past Artificial
Intelligence regulation is essential to form an updated
and optimal regulatory framework.
Given the high degree of industry control and
influence in global Artificial Intelligence
development, the issue of private power is critical.
Building on this, greater emphasis must be placed on
rights protection.
Furthermore, since the social, economic, and
environmental challenges highlighted by Artificial
Intelligence are not merely technical outcomes but
intertwined with broader and disparate systems, the
framework issue is paramount. It is imperative to
explore additional potential collaborative governance
forms in global discussions on discrimination,
accountability, energy use, privacy, and other
dimensions from an Artificial Intelligence
perspective.
4.2 China’s Responses Measures in the
Design of International Legal
Regulation for Artificial
Intelligence
4.2.1 Domestic-Level Response Measures
In accordance with new international legal rules,
refining traditional domestic sectoral laws and related
institutions to establish a comprehensive domestic
regulatory system for Artificial Intelligence is critical.
During the construction of this system, it is essential
to incorporate fundamental ethical norms and
consensus, particularly aligning with existing
specialized international Artificial Intelligence legal
norms and fully implement and enforce them.
Simultaneously, as big data serves as the
cornerstone of Artificial Intelligence development,
and Artificial Intelligence developers rely on data to
execute their work, the advancement of data
governance is paramount. Only by ensuring robust
data governance can Artificial Intelligence be
effectively regulated.
Under a universal and equitable legal governance
environment, Artificial Intelligence technological
research and development will inevitably be
promoted. This progressive relationship entails
improving domestic legislation under the guidance of
international law to achieve the goal of accelerating
Artificial Intelligence development.
4.2.2 International-Level Response
Measures
As the world’s second-largest economy and a frontier
nation in Artificial Intelligence development, China
Path of International Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Economy Era
497

should actively participate in formulating and
constructing the international legal regulatory system
for Artificial Intelligence, contributing its wisdom
and strength to global data governance and the digital
economy. The establishment of this system requires
not only governmental involvement but also broad
participation from non-governmental entities. Both
types of stakeholders in China should collaborate to
foster a secure and stable international environment
for Artificial Intelligence application and governance.
Additionally, China should proactively engage in
the formulation of international rules such as
international soft law, industry norms, and ethical
consensus. By contributing cutting-edge theoretical
foundations and valuable experience to global,
regional, and national efforts, China will deepen
regional and inter-state cooperation, driving progress
in Artificial Intelligence technical standards
recognized by nations and globally.
5 CONCLUSION
This study employs the case study method and
comparative analysis method to investigate the legal
regulatory approaches for Artificial Intelligence. By
analyzing specific cases and regulatory principles of
existing legal pathways for Artificial Intelligence
regulation, the paper identifies their respective
governance defects and relative advantages, thereby
introducing the international legal regulation pathway
along with its strengths and governance outcomes.
Through deconstructing three practical pathways-
sovereign state legislation, regional collaborative
regulation, and bilateral coordination mechanisms-
the study reveals their inherent institutional
deficiencies, including regulatory fragmentation
caused by sovereign legislation, technological
hegemony risks inherent in regional models, and
conditional constraints faced by bilateral agreements.
It concludes that, compared to existing governance
pathways, constructing a multilateral governance
framework centered on international law can achieve
a leap in governance efficacy while safeguarding
technological sovereignty. Additionally, China’s
response measures are elaborated in detail,
manifesting in domestic-level actions such as refining
legislation, enhancing technological research and
development, and strengthening data governance, as
well as international-level measures including
participation in rulemaking, deepened regional
cooperation, and recognition of technical standards.
Against the backdrop of digital technologies
reshaping global governance structures, the legal
regulatory dilemmas triggered by Artificial
Intelligence necessitate breaking away from
traditional legal regulatory models. The innovation of
the international legal regulatory system lies in its
reliance on a multi-stakeholder collaborative
governance mechanism to resolve the "soft law
dilemma" and credibility challenges of commitments.
Future research should delve into the concrete
implementation mechanisms of Artificial Intelligence
governance under the international legal framework,
prioritizing core issues such as cross-border data
flows and digital sovereignty, to advance the
formation of a digital-era legal order characterized by
both inclusiveness and effectiveness.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, M. 2022. National Security Exceptions in the
WTO. Cambridge University Press.
Bradford, A. 2022. Digital Sovereignty: From Narrative to
Policy? SSRN Electronic Journal.
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. 2019. Data Colonialism:
Rethinking Big Data's Relation to the Contemporary
Subject. Television & New Media 20(4): 336-349.
Dong, J. 2025. Unilateral Economic Sanctions on U.S. Data
Security and Its Response Strategy. River Law
Jurisprudence 43(03): 109-128.
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. 2019. Weaponization of
Interdependence. International Security 44(1): 42-79.
Hathaway, O. 2020. The Global Web of Rules. Yale Law
Journal 129(5): 1120-1198.
Klonick, K. 2021. TikTok and the National Security
Internet. Stanford Law Review 73(5): 120-150.
Kohl, U. 2020. The International Law of the Internet. Hart
Publishing.
Lee, J. 2023. Countering Digital Hegemony. Harvard
International Law Journal 64(2): 301-345.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
2023. Global Data Justice: Theories and Practices.
United Nations.
Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The
Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power.
PublicAffairs.
ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science
498