Multistakeholder Promises and Power Gaps in Global AI Summits
Global AI summits have increasingly embraced the language of multistakeholder governance, yet meaningful participation by civil society and academic actors remains limited. Despite governments gradually expanding opportunities for engagement with researchers, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders, the ability of non-state and non-corporate actors to shape agendas and outcomes remains constrained.
Summit Overview
From the series of AI summits—from Bletchley and Seoul to Paris and New Delhi—issues such as democratization, sovereignty, equity, and inclusivity have been brought into discussions. However, these summits often resemble trade shows for showcasing industrial prowess rather than forums for substantive governance conversations.
The New Delhi AI Impact Summit Declaration, signed by over 90 countries including China and the United States, formally recognized international cooperation and multistakeholderism. The 2026 India AI Impact Summit also created additional avenues for participation, particularly for civil society groups, researchers, and academics from the Global Majority. However, the inclusion of these themes in summit agendas has not yet translated into meaningful influence over decision-making.
Challenges in Global AI Governance
If global AI governance is to address real-world impacts, the architecture and institutional processes of these summits must evolve. Multistakeholder participation should progress from mere representation to active involvement in agenda-setting and decision-making, especially for those from the Global Majority who face additional barriers.
The thematic priorities of AI summits have shifted, particularly during the India AI Impact Summit, which emphasized the perspectives and needs of the Global Majority. However, there is still a lack of accountability and coherent governance frameworks that can effectively address the challenges faced by these stakeholders.
Evaluating Summit Architecture
The architecture of these summits has often lacked coherence, offering civil society and academic stakeholders limited roles in shaping agendas and outcomes. For instance, the Bletchley Summit had minimal civil society participation, while the Paris Summit utilized a multistakeholder steering committee with variable impact.
Despite the establishment of working groups at the Delhi Summit, and the integration of civil society sessions into the main agenda, actual decision-making remained disconnected from broader participation. Promises of Global Majority leadership did not translate into meaningful action, as exemplified by the image of the Indian Prime Minister alongside mostly male US tech CEOs.
Systemic Barriers to Participation
These summits expose a persistent disconnect between government decision-making and the voices of civil society. To bring these voices to the forefront, future summits must create shared spaces that foster deliberation among governments, companies, and civil society.
Key issues that must be addressed include:
- Lack of a governing framework: The current model operates ad-hoc, lacking a central secretariat or coordinating body, which creates unpredictability and hinders sustained engagement.
- Accountability deficit: Without formal monitoring mechanisms, commitments made risk becoming performative and influenced by geopolitical interests.
- Procedural ambiguity: Pathways for integrating non-governmental input into outcomes remain undefined, leading to inconsistent participation.
Future Directions
As the focus of AI governance shifts from New Delhi to Geneva, the international community faces a pivotal moment. The challenge is to ensure that the AI governance agenda reflects the needs of the over 80% of the world’s population living in the Global Majority.
This requires a commitment to inclusive, rights-focused frameworks that prioritize meaningful multistakeholder participation. The Centre for Communication Governance and the Global Network Initiative have developed recommendations aimed at ensuring diverse perspectives are included in AI governance.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of the global AI governance architecture will depend on its ability to operationalize the rhetoric of multistakeholderism. This demands a shift from symbolic inclusion to transparent, rights-driven frameworks that empower those most affected by AI technologies.
