Infrastructure-Mediated Multilateralism
A Technical Architecture for International AI Governance
Keywords:
multilateralism, polycentric governance, digital commons, federated systems, Global South, infrastructureAbstract
International AI governance confronts a paradox: normative consensus on principles like transparency, fairness, and accountability has never been stronger, yet this consensus has failed to prevent ethics washing, capability concentration, or harmful deployments. This paper argues that the problem lies not in insufficient agreement but in absent infrastructure for translating principles into verifiable practice. We propose the Multilateral AI Commons for Peace and Sustainability (MACPS), a five-layer technical architecture addressing three governance deficits: coordination failures across fragmented regulatory regimes; capability asymmetries between Global North and South; and credibility gaps enabling performative compliance. Drawing on Huayan Buddhist philosophy's concept of 'perfect interfusion'—mutual constitution without loss of distinctiveness—we theorise infrastructure-mediated multilateralism: cooperation emerging from shared technical systems that generate material interdependence rather than relying on normative alignment alone. Engaging critically with scholarship on the politics of infrastructure, we argue that technical systems' inevitable embedding of values presents an opportunity for intentional design that encodes equity commitments as architectural constraints. The architecture comprises semantic ontology for standards interoperability, federated compute resources with equity-weighted allocation, privacy-preserving data trusts, mechanism-level evaluation benchmarks, and machine-readable implementation guides. This design paper demonstrates that shared infrastructure can achieve governance objectives that normative frameworks alone cannot, offering a path forward for multilateral cooperation amid geopolitical fragmentation.
Downloads
References
Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell 1:389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
European Parliament (2024) Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Off J Eur Union L 186:1–144. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
UNESCO (2021) Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO, Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
G7 (2023) Hiroshima Process international code of conduct for advanced AI systems. G7, Hiroshima. https://www.mofa.go.jp/ecm/ec/page5e_000076.html
Png M (2022) At the tensions of South and North: critical roles of Global South stakeholders in AI governance. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. ACM, New York, pp 1271–1282. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533200
Effoduh JO (2024) A Global South perspective on explainable AI. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/01/a-global-south-perspective-on-explainable-ai
Bietti E (2020) From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view of tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. ACM, New York, pp 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372860
Cook FH (1977) Hua-yen Buddhism: the jewel net of Indra. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109(1):121–136. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
Star SL (1999) The ethnography of infrastructure. Am Behav Sci 43(3):377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326
Crawford K (2021) Atlas of AI: power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press, New Haven
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
Cihon P, Maas MM, Kemp L (2020) Fragmentation and the future: investigating architectures for international AI governance. Glob Policy 11(5):545–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12890
Taeihagh A (2021) Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy Soc 40(2):137–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1928377
Ulnicane I, Knight W, Leez T, Gerber A, Galanos V, Bjola C, Yeung K (2021) Framing governance for a contested emerging technology: insights from AI policy. Policy Soc 40(2):158–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1929728
Amodei D, Olah C, Steinhardt J, Christiano P, Schulman J, Mané D (2016) Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv:1606.06565. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565
Veale M, Zuiderveen Borgesius F (2021) Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Comput Law Rev Int 22(4):97–112. https://doi.org/10.9785/cri-2021-220402
Maas MM, Villalobos JJ (2023) International AI institutions: a literature review. AI Foundations Report 1. https://www.governance.ai/research-paper/international-ai-institutions-a-literature-review
Roberts H, Hine E, Taddeo M, Floridi L (2024) Global AI governance: barriers and pathways forward. Int Aff 100(3):1275–1298. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae073
Smuha NA, Yeung K (2024) The European Union’s AI Act: beyond motherhood and apple pie? SSRN Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4738954
Benkler Y (2006) The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven. https://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf
Couldry N, Mejias UA (2019) The costs of connection: how data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Dwork C, Roth A (2014) The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Found Trends Theor Comput Sci 9(3–4):211–407. https://doi.org/10.1561/0400000042
Bonawitz K, Ivanov V, Kreuter B, Marcedone A, McMahan HB, Patel S, Ramage D, Segal A, Seth K (2017) Practical secure aggregation for privacy-preserving machine learning. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. ACM, New York, pp 1175–1191. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3133982
Cleary T (1983) Entry into the inconceivable: an introduction to Hua-yen Buddhism. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu
Benjamin R (2019) Race after technology: abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code. Polity Press, Cambridge
Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs, New York
W3C (2012) OWL 2 Web Ontology Language document overview. W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ . Accessed 6 Jan 2026
GPAI (2023) Global Partnership on AI: 2023 annual report. GPAI Secretariat, Paris. https://gpai.ai/
OECD (2024) OECD.AI Policy Observatory. https://oecd.ai . Accessed 1 Jan 2026
Buchanan A, Keohane RO (2006) The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics Int Aff 20(4):405–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x
Global Fund (2023) Operational policy note: grant implementation. The Global Fund, Geneva. https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/operational-policy-notes/
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2026 Kao-Cheng Huang

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
