pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23860 · v1 · pith:YETXBEL6new · submitted 2026-06-22 · 💻 cs.CY

World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO): Mapping an Emerging Institution in the Global AI Governance Regime Complex

William Guey , Pierrick Bougault , Wei Zhang , Vitor D. de Moura , Jos\'e O. Gomes This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 05:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords AI governanceWAICOregime complexmultilateral institutionsChina AI policyglobal capability dividesovereigntyinternational organizations
0
0 comments X

The pith

China's proposed WAICO would combine open membership to all states, no values test, and a development agenda in a way no existing multilateral body does.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper places China's proposed World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization within the emerging regime complex for AI governance. By coding fifteen instruments on membership rules, organization, and priorities, it shows that WAICO's design is unique among constituted bodies. No other body offers membership open to any sovereign state without a values or regime-type test while building its agenda around development and the global capability divide. Western-led bodies gate by shared values and focus on rights and safety, while universal UN bodies anchor in human rights. This suggests the formation of a second pole organized around sovereignty and development.

Core claim

WAICO's proposed design joins three features that no constituted multilateral body currently combines: membership open to any sovereign state, no values or regime-type test for entry, and an agenda built around development and the global capability divide. The incumbent Western-led bodies gate membership by shared values and concentrate on rights and safety; the universal United Nations bodies are open but anchored in human rights; a development-first agenda is otherwise carried by the regional strategies of the Global South. Among constituted institutions, the only occupant of WAICO's intended position is China's own 2023 precursor initiative. We read this as the formation of a second, stil

What carries the argument

Coding of a cross-section of fifteen international AI governance instruments on how they admit members, how they are organized, and what they prioritize, which identifies the unique position WAICO is designed to hold.

If this is right

  • Global AI governance would feature two distinct poles rather than a single dominant framework.
  • WAICO would institutionalize a development-first approach currently limited to regional Global South strategies.
  • The contest in AI rules would shift from principles and ethics codes to institutional forms with different membership and priority logics.
  • Testable expectations can be set for WAICO's membership patterns and agenda as it takes shape.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the position holds, countries may align with one pole or the other based on their priorities for development versus rights commitments.
  • This could lead to fragmented AI norms along sovereignty-development lines versus rights-safety lines.
  • A natural extension is to monitor whether WAICO attracts members from the Global South and how it interacts with existing UN bodies.

Load-bearing premise

The coding of the fifteen instruments accurately captures the membership, organizational, and priority features of all relevant multilateral bodies without missing any that combine the three features.

What would settle it

Identification of any other existing multilateral AI governance body that admits all sovereign states without a values or regime-type test and prioritizes development and the global capability divide.

read the original abstract

Who sets the rules for artificial intelligence, and on what terms, has become a defining question of global governance. For several years that contest ran through principles and ethics codes; it now runs through institutions. China's proposed World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) is the most consequential recent entrant and the least examined. We place WAICO within the emerging regime complex for AI and argue that its importance lies not in any single commitment but in the position it is designed to hold. Coding a cross-section of fifteen international AI governance instruments and institutions on how they admit members, how they are organized, and what they prioritize, we find that WAICO's proposed design joins three features that no constituted multilateral body currently combines: membership open to any sovereign state, no values or regime-type test for entry, and an agenda built around development and the global capability divide. The incumbent Western-led bodies gate membership by shared values and concentrate on rights and safety; the universal United Nations bodies are open but anchored in human rights; a development-first agenda is otherwise carried by the regional strategies of the Global South. Among constituted institutions, the only occupant of WAICO's intended position is China's own 2023 precursor initiative. We read this as the formation of a second, still-proposed pole in global AI governance, organized around sovereignty and development rather than rights and safety, and argue that WAICO would be the first standing organization built to anchor it. We report the full coding, state testable expectations against which the claim can be judged as the organization takes shape, and release the dataset for replication.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper examines China's proposed World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) in the emerging AI governance regime complex. Coding fifteen international AI governance instruments on membership rules, organizational form, and priorities, it claims that WAICO's design uniquely combines three features—no values or regime-type test for entry, membership open to any sovereign state, and a development agenda centered on the global capability divide—that no other constituted multilateral body currently joins. Western-led bodies gate by shared values and focus on rights/safety; universal UN bodies are open but human-rights anchored; development-first agendas appear mainly in Global South regional strategies. Only China's 2023 precursor matches the position among existing institutions. The paper releases the dataset, states testable expectations, and interprets WAICO as anchoring a second pole organized around sovereignty and development.

Significance. If the coding holds, the result identifies a genuine institutional vacancy and maps an emerging multipolar structure in AI governance. The release of the full coding dataset for replication is a clear strength, as are the explicit testable expectations that allow the uniqueness claim to be judged empirically as WAICO develops.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / coding of fifteen instruments] The description of the coding exercise (abstract and methods) supplies no criteria for assigning the three features, no inter-coder reliability statistics, and no protocol for edge cases. Because the central uniqueness claim rests solely on the outcome of this exercise, the lack of methodological transparency is load-bearing.
  2. [Selection of the fifteen instruments] The paper does not demonstrate that the fifteen instruments exhaust the relevant population of multilateral AI bodies. Omission of additional UN specialized agencies, regional organizations, or Global South initiatives could render the reported vacancy an artifact of sample construction rather than an actual gap.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the dataset is released but supplies no repository link or accession number.
  2. [Introduction] The term 'regime complex' is used without a brief definitional footnote or citation to the foundational literature on regime complexes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these constructive comments, which highlight areas where the manuscript can be strengthened for clarity and replicability. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that improve methodological transparency while preserving the paper's core argument and dataset release.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / coding of fifteen instruments] The description of the coding exercise (abstract and methods) supplies no criteria for assigning the three features, no inter-coder reliability statistics, and no protocol for edge cases. Because the central uniqueness claim rests solely on the outcome of this exercise, the lack of methodological transparency is load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree the main text would benefit from expanded detail on the coding protocol. The released dataset includes a codebook with explicit criteria for each feature (sovereign-state membership without values tests; development/capability-divide focus), assignment rules, and edge-case resolutions, along with the raw codings for all fifteen instruments. The two authors performed the coding with iterative discussion to resolve ambiguities. We will revise the methods section to summarize these criteria, note the absence of formal inter-coder statistics (as the exercise was small-scale and author-led), and direct readers to the codebook. This addresses the transparency concern directly without changing the empirical findings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Selection of the fifteen instruments] The paper does not demonstrate that the fifteen instruments exhaust the relevant population of multilateral AI bodies. Omission of additional UN specialized agencies, regional organizations, or Global South initiatives could render the reported vacancy an artifact of sample construction rather than an actual gap.

    Authors: The fifteen instruments were selected as a purposive cross-section representing the main poles in the AI governance regime complex (Western-led, universal UN, and Global South regional), drawn from prominent policy documents and literature rather than an exhaustive list. We will revise the methods section to state the selection rationale explicitly, acknowledge that other bodies (e.g., additional UN agencies or regional initiatives) could be added, and note that the dataset format supports such extensions. The uniqueness claim is scoped to the sampled set; the referee's point is well-taken and will be reflected in the revised text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; descriptive mapping with released data

full rationale

The paper performs a comparative coding of fifteen AI governance instruments to map membership, organization, and priority features, then observes that WAICO's proposed combination of open membership, no regime-type test, and development agenda is not replicated in other constituted bodies. This is an empirical claim resting on the presented coding table rather than any equation, fitted parameter, or self-referential definition. The authors explicitly release the full dataset for replication and state testable expectations, rendering the analysis externally falsifiable. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to the authors' own prior results or to a tautological renaming; the derivation chain is self-contained against the coded instruments.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the domain assumption that the regime-complex framework is the right lens and that the fifteen-instrument sample plus the three coding dimensions are sufficient to identify unique positions; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The regime complex framework applies to AI governance and the selected dimensions (membership, organization, priorities) capture the load-bearing differences among institutions.
    Invoked when placing WAICO and comparing it to other bodies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5839 in / 1422 out tokens · 29046 ms · 2026-06-26T05:53:34.950094+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    10 AI Seoul Summit

    URL https://au.int/en/ documents/20240809/continental-artificial-intelligence-strategy . 10 AI Seoul Summit. Seoul declaration by countries attending the AI seoul summit,

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    URL https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/ seoul-declaration-countries-attending-ai-seoul-summit-21-22-may-2024 . ASEAN. ASEAN guide on AI governance and ethics (expanded edition on gen- erative AI),

    2024

  3. [3]

    Arindrajit Basu

    URL https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ Expanded-ASEAN-Guide-on-AI-Governance-and-Ethics-Generative-AI.pdf . Arindrajit Basu. China’s pivot on global AI. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 21 May 2026,

    2025

  4. [4]

    URL https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2026/05/ chinas-pivot-on-global-ai . BRICS. BRICS leaders’ statement on the global governance of artificial intelligence. Rio de Janeiro, 6 July 2025,

    2026

  5. [5]

    Rebecca Cairns

    URL https://brics.br/en/documents/presidency-documents/250706_ brics_ggai_declarationfinal.pdf. Rebecca Cairns. W AIC: China pitches global AI governance group as the US goes it alone. CNN Business, 28 July 2025,

    2025

  6. [6]

    Peter Cihon, Matthijs M

    URL https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/28/tech/ china-global-ai-cooperation-organization-waic-hnk-spc . Peter Cihon, Matthijs M. Maas, and Luke Kemp. Fragmentation and the future: investigating architectures for international AI governance. Global Policy, 11(5):545–556,

    2025

  7. [7]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12890

    doi: 10.1111/ 1758-5899.12890. URL https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12890. Council of Europe. Framework convention on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy and the rule of law (CETS no. 225),

    work page doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12890

  8. [8]

    European Parliament and Council

    URL https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/ council-of-europe-opens-first-ever-global-treaty-on-ai-for-signature . European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (artificial intelligence act). EUR- Lex,

    2024

  9. [9]

    Founding members of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelli- gence

    URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng. Founding members of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelli- gence. Joint statement from founding members of the GPAI. U.S. Department of State,

    2024

  10. [10]

    Johannes Geith, Magnus Lundgren, and Jonas Tallberg

    URL https://2021-2025.state.gov/ joint-statement-from-founding-members-of-the-global-partnership-on-artificial-intelligence/ . Johannes Geith, Magnus Lundgren, and Jonas Tallberg. The emerging regime complex for artificial intelligence. Working paper, forthcoming in Global Studies Quarterly; SSRN 5722202,

    2021

  11. [11]

    Group of Seven (G7)

    URL https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/ai-safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/ the-bletchley-declaration-by-countries-attending-the-ai-safety-summit-1-2-november-2023 . Group of Seven (G7). Hiroshima process international code of conduct for organizations developing advanced AI systems. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 30 October 2023,

    2023

  12. [12]

    Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena

    URL https: //www.mofa.go.jp/files/100573473.pdf. Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9):389–399,

    arXiv

  13. [13]

    Jobin, M

    doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 . URL https://doi. org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 . 11 Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. The rational design of in- ternational institutions. International Organization, 55(4):761–799,

    work page doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

  14. [14]

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China

    URL https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zy/gb/202405/t20240531_11367503.html. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. Global AI governance action plan. 26 July 2025, 2025a. URL https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/zyxw/202507/t20250729_ 11679232.html. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. ದ۽ᇆିಆ౯ᇍ৘ྛ׮࠹߃čಆ໓Ď [global AI g...

    2025

  15. [15]

    URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11558-014-9188-2

    doi: 10.1007/s11558-014-9188-2 . URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11558-014-9188-2 . Nature. China is leading the world on AI governance: other countries must engage. Nature, Editorial,

    work page doi:10.1007/s11558-014-9188-2

  16. [16]

    URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2

    doi: 10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2 . URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2 . Lewin Schmitt. Mapping global AI governance: a nascent regime in a fragmented landscape. AI and Ethics, 2(2):303–314,

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2

  17. [17]

    URL https://doi.org/10

    doi: 10.1007/s43681-021-00083-y . URL https://doi.org/10. 1007/s43681-021-00083-y . Jonas Tallberg, Eva Erman, Markus Furendal, Johannes Geith, Mark Klamberg, and Magnus Lundgren. The global governance of artificial intelligence: next steps for empirical and normative research. International Studies Review, 25(3):viad040,

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00083-y

  18. [18]

    The State Council of the People’s Republic of China

    URL https://academic.oup.com/ isr/article/25/3/viad040/7259354. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Chinese premier calls for early formation of global AI governance framework. 26 July 2025, 2025a. URL https://english.www.gov.cn/ news/202507/26/content_WS6884bea8c6d0868f4e8f4732.html. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China. ৙...

    2025

  19. [19]

    URL https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/11/ fact-sheet-us-department-commerce-us-department-state-launch-international . 13

    2024