Tech Governance in a Fragmented World

Frontier Technology Governance in a Fragmented World

Strategic rivalry and domestic political polarization may negatively impact frontier technology governance. The world requires safeguards to manage the risks of frontier technologies as geopolitical fractures intensify.

Geopolitical fragmentation is replacing global cooperation as technological supremacy defines economic and national security, which has consequences for innovation, governance, and economic resilience.

Emerging technologies and their associated risks are rapidly advancing. Beyond AI, advancements in synthetic biology, quantum computing, hypersonic missiles, and autonomous weapons are changing competition. These technologies are being used to expand power, challenge alliances, and intensify conflict, blurring the distinction between military and civilian applications.

Future crises might arise from algorithmic errors or unregulated dual-use tools, which are technologies intended for civilian use but adapted for harmful purposes. The dangers are real; AI-powered drones are impacting battlefield dynamics. Gene editing and machine learning could create bioweapons, and quantum computers might crack encryption, threatening financial systems and infrastructure. Generative AI is also amplifying disinformation and diminishing public trust in elections.

These risks are occurring amidst increasing geopolitical divisions. Leaders from the US and China acknowledged the risks of AI and agreed that humans must control nuclear weapons. Fifty-eight states have supported the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy, but it is non-binding and insufficient.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Cooperation Barometer 2025 indicates that international collaboration is stagnating. Momentum in climate, tech, and health in 2024 has slowed in 2025 due to declining trust, rising trade fragmentation, and faltering cooperation. Without action, frontier technology governance may suffer from strategic rivalry and political polarization.

The Need for Shared Guardrails

Governments cannot manage frontier technology alone. The private sector drives innovation, but regulation lags. Open-source tools are being weaponized faster than safeguards can be developed. As these systems develop faster than our comprehension, governance must adapt to keep pace.

Voluntary codes and advisory boards are helpful, but they cannot substitute global rules or internationally agreed-upon standards that harmonize innovation with security. Without shared guardrails, companies and countries are prioritizing speed and market dominance over stability and risk mitigation, which expands the gap between innovation and accountability.

AI is used in some countries to suppress dissent, expand surveillance, and manipulate public narratives under the guise of national security, blurring the distinction between humanitarian and military AI deployment. Computer power and semiconductors are becoming geopolitical chokepoints. Divergent regulatory approaches by the US, the EU, and China risk excluding innovators in emerging markets. The Global South's perspectives are underrepresented in rule-making, which makes a universally accepted and sustainable governance framework impossible.

International frameworks offer a bridge, and shared global principles can foster responsible innovation, even among strategic rivals. Governance should be viewed as infrastructure for innovation. Aligning corporate incentives with global security goals is strategic and ethical. Regulation is about market access, investment readiness, and long-term trust. Governance enhances global trust and resilience. Systems built with transparency, accountability, and oversight promote confidence and enable cooperation.

Strong governance indicates future readiness, while technology ecosystems lacking transparency, testing, and oversight risk losing investor confidence, global customers, and public legitimacy. AI governance software spending is projected to quadruple by 2030. The focus is now on how AI should be governed and by whom.

Emerging Models for Tech Governance

Public-private collaborations, like OpenAI’s partnership with US national laboratories to monitor CBRN risks, can realign innovation with global safety. However, isolated arrangements driven by corporate altruism are inadequate. Research indicates significant variation in companies’ AI safety protocols, highlighting the need for a shared global governance approach based on common principles, norms, and interoperable frameworks.

Institutions, such as the UK’s AI Safety Institute and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), offer blueprints by combining technical expertise and policy, evaluating models, and building risk registries. France’s public endowment for AI signifies a shift towards infrastructure funding. Global South countries are becoming trusted hubs that could contribute to a distributed governance ecosystem. These efforts show the potential for alternative models and the importance of avoiding oversight dominated by a few.

National policies and corporate protocols are needed for responsible technology governance, and a global approach—based on shared principles and diverse perspectives—is essential to build trust, reduce fragmentation, and align innovation with public interest. Public and private actors must shift from reactive responses to proactive coordinated governance grounded in shared principles. This involves embedding “safety by design,” realigning market incentives, and building institutional capacity to monitor, adapt, and enforce these principles as technologies evolve.

Verification and enforcement are necessary aspirations. Oversight should be a long-term goal, requiring new institutions, technical advancements, and political will. In the meantime, governance should focus on building adaptive systems that incentivize responsible behavior even without perfect enforceability. Public and private sector stakeholders must act because frontier technologies are accelerating alongside geopolitical tensions.

The absence of shared guardrails is a global risk. Cooperation must coexist with competition due to the dual-use nature of AI, quantum, and other frontier technologies. Global platforms offer opportunities to move from reflection to action. Despite geopolitical tensions, it is crucial to find common ground and move from risk awareness to coordinated stewardship and collective governance of frontier technologies.

The World Economic Forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR) Network promotes public-private collaboration in developing policy frameworks and piloting new approaches to technology regulation and adoption. The network has centers and plays a role in shaping the governance of emerging technologies at various levels.