Position: AI Governance Needs ISO-like Interoperability Protocols, Not Just Laws
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems become deeply integrated into critical global infrastructure, the urgency for robust governance frameworks has intensified. However, current approaches, led by jurisdiction-specific laws, policies, and voluntary frameworks such as the EU AI Act, China's algorithm governance, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework in the U.S., create a fragmented regulatory landscape. In this position paper, we argue that textbftextitAI governance must be built not on laws alone, but on ISO-like interoperability protocols that enable standardized, machine-readable risk communication across borders. Drawing on the success of the GDPR, which was operationalized through standards like ISO 27001 and Privacy by Design, we propose the development of standardized AI textitnutrition labels containing unified metrics for bias, energy usage, and data provenance to facilitate cross-jurisdictional compliance. These manifests would lower barriers for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), reduce redundant regulatory efforts, and build public trust. The paper addresses concerns that standards may stifle innovation by advocating for modular, versioned protocols designed to evolve in tandem with technological change. Overall, we call for a shift from siloed legal compliance toward interoperable technical conformance, enabling a shared global language for responsible AI deployment.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 74 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2026.
Builds on
19 of 74 references.
References · 19
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
- 2019Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLPcited by 1,254
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 384
- 2019Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AIcited by 135
- 2018A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual & Group Unfairness via Inequality Indicescited by 97
- 2023FUTURE-AI: International consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcarecited by 60
- 2025Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself: Selectively Quitting Improves LLM Agent Safetycited by 12
- 2025PersonaTeaming: Exploring How Introducing Personas Can Improve Automated AI Red-Teamingcited by 9
7 more
- 2025Atlas: A Framework for ML Lifecycle Provenance & Transparencycited by 8
- 2025Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligencecited by 8
- 2024Comparative Global AI Regulation: Policy Perspectives from the EU, China, and the UScited by 5
- 2025The Backfiring Effect of Weak AI Safety Regulationcited by 3
- 2025Toward Effective AI Governance: A Review of Principlescited by 2
- 2025Generative AI as a Geopolitical Factor in Industry 5.0: Sovereignty, Access, and Controlcited by 2
- 2025Global AI Governance: Where the Challenge is the Solution- An Interdisciplinary, Multilateral, and Vertically Coordinated Approachcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.