Vazirani on Autonomy in Conflict: Legal, Technical, and Strategic Challenges of AI-Enabled Autonomous Weapon Systems Under International Humanitarian Law

Saahir Vazirani (The Perrin Research Institution) has posted “Autonomy in Conflict: Legal, Technical, and Strategic Challenges of AI-Enabled Autonomous Weapon Systems Under International Humanitarian Law” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

War has historically acted as a catalyst for new technologies, driving advancements that have transformed society. From the creation of nuclear weapons to the establishment of cyber warfare teams, the pressures of war have expedited technological development while also forcing often controversial ethical discussions. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) stands at the pinnacle of technology with the potential and already seen capability to change military strategy. Due to its rapid pace and inherent complexities, states have not come to a consensus on its usage. As such, there is no international regulatory framework to address the concerns around the use of AI in the context of warfare. Furthermore, existing international laws do not specifically address autonomous weapons systems (AWS), and there is a lack of consensus on how to adapt existing legal frameworks to the digital realm of AI. This paper argues that ensuring legal compliance for AI-driven AWS during conflict escalation requires a formal international framework grounded in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles and informed by existing state policies. In doing so, it seeks to bridge the accountability gap that arises when machines, rather than humans, carry out hostilities. Using doctrinal analysis, technical evaluations, and geopolitical assessments, it argues that enforceable standards are essential to prevent ungoverned proliferation. My conclusions emphasize the necessity of integrating legal, technical, and political safeguards to align AWS use with humanitarian values. If implemented, this framework will pave the way for the ethical and humane usage of AI within future conflicts.

Nazareno et al. on Six Years of Proposed AI Legislation Across the US States: What’s on Policymakers’ Minds?

Luísa Nazareno (Virginia Commonwealth U (VCU)) and Nakeina E. Douglas-glenn (Virginia Commonwealth U (VCU)) have posted “Six Years of Proposed AI Legislation Across the US States: What’s on Policymakers’ Minds?” (https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/rise/7/) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies expand rapidly, public debate has focused on their societal impacts and the need for regulatory oversight. This report offers the first overview of the “what, where, and when” of AI-related legislation introduced in U.S. state legislatures between 2019 and 2024, analyzing key policy trends, priorities, and equity considerations. Although relatively few bills have been enacted, legislative activity has accelerated, reflecting growing political attention to the promises and risks of AI. Most approved bills focus on regulating public or private sector uses of AI, establishing commissions or study groups, and updating education and workforce development programs. While equity is not always central in bill titles or summaries, it surfaces in provisions related to fairness, non-discrimination, transparency, risk assessments, and protections for vulnerable communities, especially in health, employment, and education.

Hornuf et al. on Regulatory Competition in the Age of AI

Lars Hornuf (Dresden U Technology) et al. have posted “Regulatory Competition in the Age of AI” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has not only triggered a technology race and a fight for market leadership, but has also become a site of regulatory competition. As governments race to define rules for AI, they embed competing visions of alignment, innovation, and control into digital technology. These regulatory choices are shaping global markets, norms, and institutions. To analyze how regulatory competition unfolds in the AI domain, this article presents a four-part framework that includes value priorities, areas of AI regulation, governance approaches, and strategic openness and control. Building on this framework, the article discusses current developments in AI regulation and their implications for regulatory competition, both in practice and as a research field. Identifying four shifts from traditional models of regulatory competition, the article highlights how Information Systems research can connect global regulatory policy with the organizational realities of AI design, adoption, and governance within organizations.

Chatzipanagiotis on Incident Reporting and Investigation under the AI Act: Some Insights from Aviation

Michael Chatzipanagiotis (U Cyprus) has posted “Incident Reporting and Investigation under the AI Act: Some Insights from Aviation” (International Journal Of Law And Information Technology, forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This article examines the provisions of the EU AI Act (AIA) on incident reporting and investigation and explores how the regulatory context of the AIA could benefit from the experience of aviation. Accounting for the differences between the AI and the aviation industries, it is concluded that the establishment of a strong safety culture is a key element, while a series of interventions could significantly improve the current AIA system on incident reporting: (a) clarification of the reporting duties, including the development of a common taxonomy of risk or harm, alongside the expansion of the duty’s personal scope; (b) disconnection of incident reporting and investigation from liability; (c) establishment of voluntary reporting systems; (d) provisions on confidentiality of the reports and protection of the reporters; (e) mandatory investigation of at least some serious incidents by an independent authority; (f) effective dissemination of safety information. A major enabler of all these is the development of a strong safety culture.

Chaffer on On the Institutional Origins of the Agentic Web

Tomer Jordi Chaffer (McGill U Law) has posted “On the Institutional Origins of the Agentic Web” (Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Digest, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Artificial intelligence (AI) agents are emerging as autonomous delegates that act, decide, and transact on users’ behalf across digital environments. Their rise marks a turning point for internet governance: will authority over these agents be defined by proprietary platform rules or by open protocols that enable portable identity, verifiable delegation, and accountable behavior? The recent Amazon–Perplexity dispute illustrates this institutional crossroads. If platforms prevail, agentic action will remain confined within walled gardens; if protocols do, authority may shift toward interoperable infrastructures that allow agents to act as true extensions of the user. Ultimately, the question is not whether the agentic web will be governed—but who will govern it, and on what terms. This commentary situates that question within a broader exploration of institutional design, protocol governance, and the emerging duty of care that will define accountability in an era of autonomous systems.