Artificial intelligence has ceased to be a promise of the future and has become an everyday reality in businesses and government. But this technological advancement has brought with it a question that can no longer be postponed: how do you govern a technology that learns, decides, and acts with increasing autonomy? The answer is taking shape on two simultaneous fronts: the European regulatory framework, which is already in effect, and the geopolitical struggle between the United States and China to define the rules of the game on a global scale.
While the European Artificial Intelligence Regulation requires organizations to demonstrate compliance with transparency, security, and human oversight criteria, two initiatives have emerged internationally that chart very different paths. On the one hand, China has spearheaded the creation of the World Organization for Cooperation in Artificial Intelligence (WAICO), headquartered in Shanghai and initially supported by 29 countries. On the other, the United States has launched Pax Silica, an alliance restricted to partners deemed "trusted" that seeks to control the entire AI supply chain, from critical minerals to foundational models.
European regulation as a starting point
The implementation of the European AI Regulation has brought about a paradigm shift for boards of directors. Experimenting with pilot projects is no longer sufficient; companies must integrate AI governance into their daily operations , assigning responsibilities, documenting decisions, and establishing controls proportionate to the risk of each use. This is reflected in both the report presented by the UN's AI Governance for Humanity Lab and the guidelines of the ISO/IEC 42001 standard, which helps translate legal principles into concrete business processes.
The key lies in moving from declarations of intent to real management systems. It's not just about compliance, but about being able to demonstrate compliance to regulators, clients, and partners. In this regard, the experience of Spanish organizations like DigitalES, which participated in the drafting of the United Nations report, shows that the European technology industry is already contributing its vision on how to apply governance in practice.
The global struggle: WAICO versus Pax Silica
While Europe consolidates its regulatory model and debates the future of digital Europe , the international scene has fragmented into two major blocs. The World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC), held in Shanghai in July 2026, was the venue chosen by China to launch WAICO, an intergovernmental organization presented as a forum open to all countries, with a particular focus on the Global South. In his speech, President Xi Jinping championed the need for governance based on openness, open source, and shared benefits , and announced training programs for 5.000 people from developing countries over the next five years.
In response to this multilateral proposal, the United States has promoted Pax Silica, an initiative that brings together allied countries around "trusted" supply chains. Pax Silica assigns each partner a specific role in the AI ​​value chain , from lithium and copper mining to advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg has called the pursuit of digital sovereignty by countries "regressive," advocating instead for functional integration under US leadership.
Shared risks and the need for supervision
Despite their differences, both the European approach and global initiatives agree on one point: increasingly autonomous AI systems require control mechanisms that go beyond prior certifications . The United Nations report emphasizes that oversight must be continuous and adapted to the level of autonomy of each system, differentiating between reversible actions and those that could have serious consequences. Cybersecurity, the potential for malicious use of AI, and the ability of models to perform tasks without immediate human intervention are risks that concern both regulators and companies.
In this context, the proposal to create an international body for independent testing of the most advanced models, put forward by the head of Google DeepMind, has resonated in various forums. The idea of ​​subjecting cutting-edge systems to external evaluations before deployment is gaining traction, although its implementation depends on political will and the ability to coordinate public and private stakeholders.
The role of companies and trust as an asset
AI governance is not just a matter for states and international organizations. It is companies that truly put the principles of transparency, explainability, and risk management into practice . Every implementation, every new use case, generates knowledge that allows for the refinement of governance models. The ISO 42001 standard has become a key tool for organizations to demonstrate their compliance with the requirements of the European Regulation and, at the same time, build trust in the market.
Trust, precisely, is emerging as the true differentiating factor. It won't necessarily be the companies that use the most AI that win, but rather those that demonstrate they use it responsibly, transparently, and securely . In an environment where technology is increasingly accessible, the ability to respond to customers, employees, and regulators will be what makes the difference.
The governance of artificial intelligence is thus advancing on multiple fronts: regulatory, geopolitical, and business. The entry into force of the European Regulation has set the bar high, but the global debate remains open. While China and the United States compete to establish the institutions and standards of the future, Europe is committed to a model based on risk and human oversight. The question is no longer whether AI will be governed, but who will govern it and under what rules. The answer, judging by the events of this summer, is being written in several languages ​​simultaneously.