China has decided to up the game. In the midst of the global race for artificial intelligence, Beijing is proposing the creation of an international body to regulate AI and coordinate different national regulations. The idea, highlighted by
The Chinese proposal comes whilst the global regulatory framework is fragmented. The only legally binding international treaty is the Framework Convention on AI adopted by the Council of Europe in 2024, which obliges signatory countries to ensure through national laws that AI applications respect human rights. Everything else is voluntary: these are soft laws, recommendations. For a technology that runs faster than governments, it is clearly not enough.
Why China is moving
Beijing makes no secret of the fact that it wants to play a leading role in the AI revolution. With the AI+ strategic plan and increasingly stringent internal regulations—such as the 2023 measures governing generative AI services—it aims to present itself as the country that has already “ordered” its ecosystem and now offers a governance model to the world.
Behind the rhetoric of global cooperation, the political goal is evident: to become the global reference point for rules on AI, a role that until a few years ago seemed to fall to Europe and the United States. Those who write the rules, in a technology that pervades economics, defence, information and health, also guide the kind of society that that technology builds.
And here we come to the crux of the problem. The Chinese model is one of the most centralised in the world, with a dominant role of the state, rigid content filters, and a vision of AI as a tool of social order. Proposing it as an international framework means bringing this approach to the centre of the global arena.
Geopolitics of the algorithm
So, by proposing a global body on AI, China is aiming at a double target. On the one hand, to lead the world’s acceleration towards common rules (essential to limit the risks associated with the exponential growth of artificial intelligence) close to its own standards. On the other, to become the main partner in a multilateral architecture that balances Western, especially US, technological dominance.
This proposal should therefore be read within the framework of a larger battle: the contest for digital leadership in the 21st century. The United States and China race to develop the most advanced models; the European Union tries to distinguish itself as a regulatory power; Russia, India and the countries of the global South seek a significant place in the value chain.
The idea of a global authority, if adopted, could redraw geopolitical balances and define the common language of AI, affecting technical standards, legal accountability, transparency of algorithms, access to data and control over the most powerful systems.
The challenge of rights and social models
AI governance is not just a technological issue. It is a direct comparison between models of society.
On the one hand, an approach that sees AI as a tool to optimise production, strengthen security, and support economic development; on the other hand, a vision that focuses on rights, privacy, transparency, and accountability.
A world body dominated by a single geopolitical bloc would risk imposing standards that are not universally shared. In contrast, a truly multilateral institution could ensure a balance between innovation, freedom and the protection of people.
The problem is that today there is no international consensus on what constitutes “responsible” use of AI, nor on what limits to impose on systems that, when pushed to the limit, can influence public opinions, democratic processes, and global security dynamics.
Who will control the controller?
The Chinese proposal is therefore relevant, but it raises crucial questions. Who will lead the global body? Which countries will have a say? How will it relate to existing rules, such as the European Convention or the EU’s AI Act? Most importantly: what model of society will the common rules shape?
AI is not neutral. Its governance even less so. That is why the creation of a global authority cannot be read as a technical fact: it is central to the competition for leadership in the digital world. The race is wide open.
