Key Takeaway
The global AI debate is shifting from capability to governance. As governments begin deploying artificial intelligence in public services and companies integrate it into decisions affecting customers and workers, the central policy question is no longer whether AI needs rules, but who should set them and how responsibility should be divided. For Georgia, this is becoming an immediate institutional issue: the country is expanding digital government, supporting AI adoption, and developing public-sector use cases while also aligning parts of its digital framework with European approaches.
Main Analytical Narrative
The Wall Street Journal reported on September 24, 2026 that a group of Western leaders was pushing for a new international framework for AI oversight. Norway’s Jonas Gahr Støre and Finland’s Alexander Stubb argued that AI should remain under human direction, oversight and control, while the U.S. administration warned against allowing international dialogue to become global governance. The disagreement is important because it reveals the next phase of AI policy: the dispute is increasingly about institutional authority, enforcement and accountability rather than the abstract need for safety.
At the United Nations, part of the institutional architecture is already in place. The Global Digital Compact, adopted in 2024, calls for transparency, accountability and robust human oversight. In August 2025, the UN General Assembly established the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance. The first Dialogue took place in Geneva on July 6–7, 2026, with delegations from 163 countries, according to the UN. The design separates scientific assessment from political deliberation: the Panel develops an evidence base, while governments and stakeholders debate governance approaches.
This is not a single global AI regulator. National and regional regimes remain decisive, while the UN process focuses on common understanding, evidence and interoperability. A realistic governance model is therefore likely to be layered: technology companies remain responsible for system design and operational safety; national governments define legal obligations and enforcement; and international institutions help establish common principles, scientific assessments and compatibility across jurisdictions.
Why Self-Regulation Is Not Enough
AI developers have the deepest technical knowledge of their systems, but they also have commercial incentives to scale them quickly. That creates an inherent governance tension. Yet purely national regulation also has limits because AI services cross borders and fragmented rules can increase compliance costs. International coordination therefore has an economic function as well as a safety function: interoperable baseline requirements can reduce uncertainty for firms operating across markets.
Effective oversight should not be confused with government inspection of every line of code. In practice, governance is about creating an accountable chain: identifying where automated decisions are used, documenting relevant data and risks, establishing human review for consequential decisions, assigning responsibility when systems fail, and giving affected people a meaningful route to challenge outcomes.
Georgia: Building Governance While Deploying AI
Georgia’s 2026 state budget explicitly supports the development of AI systems, implementation of the 2025–2030 Digital Governance Strategy, and the use of artificial intelligence in areas of the Ministry of Justice. It also refers to establishing an AI legal research center. This matters because it places governance and deployment on the same timeline: rules for accountability should be designed while systems are being introduced, not after they become embedded in public administration.
Georgia’s personal data protection framework already provides one important starting point. The Law of Georgia on Personal Data Protection requires a data protection impact assessment in cases including fully automated decisions that can have legal, financial or other significant consequences for a person. Georgia’s Personal Data Protection Service has also noted that the regulation of automated individual decision-making is aligned with relevant EU principles. This is not a comprehensive cross-sector AI law, but it provides a legal foundation for oversight of high-impact automated processing.
The practical agenda is also expanding. In September 2026, Georgia’s Ministry of Justice announced deeper digital-governance cooperation with the Republic of Korea. The areas identified include a virtual assistant, digital identity and the integration of AI into government services. As these systems expand, performance alone will not be enough; explainability, privacy, cybersecurity, auditability and meaningful human oversight become part of service quality.
What This Means for Georgian Business
For Georgian companies, algorithmic governance is likely to become a competitiveness issue as well as a legal one. Firms using AI for customer scoring, personalized offers, financial decisions, recruitment or cybersecurity should increasingly be able to answer four basic questions: what data the system uses, how its outputs are validated, who bears final responsibility, and how a person can challenge a consequential result.
For companies connected to the European market, the phased implementation of the EU AI Act adds another layer. Its risk-based structure imposes different obligations depending on the system and use case. Not every Georgian firm falls directly within its scope, but serving EU markets, working with European partners or adopting systems designed for EU compliance can turn European requirements into practical business standards. Early compliance planning may therefore be less costly than retrofitting governance after systems are already deployed.
Assessment by BTU Researchers
According to an assessment by BTU researchers, the most useful approach for Georgia is not a choice between innovation and regulation. A small open economy benefits more from a proportionate framework: stronger accountability and human oversight for high-impact applications, with lighter requirements for low-risk uses. The state’s role should be to define minimum expectations for responsibility, data protection, auditability, appeal and security rather than to prescribe a single technological solution.
International interoperability is especially important for Georgia. The country is unlikely to shape global AI standards through market size alone, but it can adapt its institutional framework quickly to principles emerging through UN, European and partner-country processes. That can reduce regulatory uncertainty for business while allowing public institutions to deploy AI without treating efficiency and rights protection as competing objectives.
Conclusion
There is no single answer to who should control algorithms. Companies have technical expertise but cannot be the sole judges of systems from which they benefit. States have legal authority but face cross-border technologies. International institutions can create common principles and evidence, but their effectiveness depends on participation and implementation by major technology powers. The most plausible model is therefore shared responsibility across companies, governments and international institutions.
For Georgia, the priority is to build that responsibility architecture before AI becomes deeply embedded across public services and business processes. The practical question is less “Who controls the algorithm?” than whether every consequential algorithmic decision has an accountable human, a clear rule, documented safeguards and a meaningful path for review.
Data and Main Sources
Primary media source: The Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2026, “Western Leaders Make Push to Tame AI.” Verification and Georgian-context research used official materials from the United Nations, the Legislative Herald of Georgia, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, and Georgia’s Personal Data Protection Service.
UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance
Georgia 2026 State Budget – Legislative Herald
Law of Georgia on Personal Data Protection
Ministry of Justice of Georgia – Digital Governance Cooperation, September 8, 2026
Prepared by the academic team of Business and Technology University and the BTUAI Research Team, Tbilisi, Georgia.