Navigating AI Policy Landscapes: Insights into Human Rights Considerations Across IEEE Regions

This paper explores the integration of human rights considerations into AI regulatory frameworks across different IEEE regions—specifically the United States (Region 1-6), Europe (Region 8), China (part of Region 10), and Singapore (part of Region 10). While all acknowledge the transformative potential of AI and the necessity of ethical guidelines, their regulatory approaches significantly differ. Europe exhibits a rigorous framework with stringent protections for individual rights, while the U.S. promotes innovation with less restrictive regulations. China emphasizes state control and societal order in its AI strategies. In contrast, Singapore’s advisory framework encourages self-regulation and aligns closely with international norms. This comparative analysis underlines the need for ongoing global dialogue to harmonize AI regulations that safeguard human rights while promoting technological advancement, reflecting the diverse perspectives and priorities of each region.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/r10-htc59322.2024.10778841
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.58
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Navigating AI Policy Landscapes: Insights into Human Rights Considerations Across IEEE Regions

Angel Mary John, Jerrin Thomas Panachakel, Anusha S.P.
3 citations
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
1.58
article

Navigating AI Policy Landscapes: Insights into Human Rights Considerations Across IEEE Regions

Angel Mary John, Jerrin Thomas Panachakel, Anusha S.P.
article en
3 citations

Abstract

This paper explores the integration of human rights considerations into AI regulatory frameworks across different IEEE regions—specifically the United States (Region 1-6), Europe (Region 8), China (part of Region 10), and Singapore (part of Region 10). While all acknowledge the transformative potential of AI and the necessity of ethical guidelines, their regulatory approaches significantly differ. Europe exhibits a rigorous framework with stringent protections for individual rights, while the U.S. promotes innovation with less restrictive regulations. China emphasizes state control and societal order in its AI strategies. In contrast, Singapore’s advisory framework encourages self-regulation and aligns closely with international norms. This comparative analysis underlines the need for ongoing global dialogue to harmonize AI regulations that safeguard human rights while promoting technological advancement, reflecting the diverse perspectives and priorities of each region.

Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
1.58
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.