Week 2 of a four-week AI governance discussion series, alongside the SAIN Utrecht lecture course on AI governance (November–December 2026). Each session builds on the lecture of the week before, but stands on its own, so join one or all.

Week 1 | Why AI governance matters (24 Nov)
Week 2 | Who shapes AI governance (1 Dec)
Week 3 | What policymakers act on (8 Dec)
Week 4 | Europe and the Netherlands (15 Dec)

The US, China, and where middle powers like the Netherlands fit

The lecture of 25 November mapped who shapes AI governance and compared what the US and China want to achieve beyond their borders. This week we ask whether these actors can cooperate at all. In International Affairs, Roberts, Hine, Taddeo and Floridi argue that AI's central role in great-power competition, weak international institutions and disagreement over priorities make one new global AI body unrealistic. They suggest strengthening the existing network of institutions instead. We'll test that argument against the US and Chinese plans themselves, and then look beyond them. A strategy shows what a government says it wants, not necessarily what it does, so we also compare the plans with what the US and China have actually done since July 2025, and ask which sources would show us.

Questions we'll explore

Are the US and Chinese plans governance documents, or competition strategies?
Do the plans match what the US and China have actually done since they were published? Where would you look to find out?
Does the world need an "IAEA for AI", or is that unrealistic?
What leverage does a middle power like the Netherlands actually have?
What would have to change for the US and China to cooperate on AI safety?

Format (90 min): Discussion in small groups and plenary. No presentations, no wrong questions.

Who can join: Anyone curious about AI safety and governance, whether you're new to the topic, a healthy skeptic, or already deep in it. No technical background needed, and no need to have joined the lectures or earlier weeks. You don't need to have answers, just curiosity.

Readings

How to prepare: This group follows the lecture of 25 November. Please reserve about 2 hours, ideally over a few evenings. Did the lecture readings already? Skip Part 1. Short on time? The ★ items (about 1.5 hours) are the essentials.

Part 1 (~55 min): the lecture readings

★ ~20 min: America's AI Action Plan, introduction and Pillar III
★ ~15 min: Global AI Governance Action Plan (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC)
~20 min: Carnegie Endowment, How China Views AI Risks and What to Do About Them

Part 2 (~50 min): the academic lens

★ ~40 min: Roberts, Hine, Taddeo & Floridi (2024), Global AI governance: barriers and pathways forward, International Affairs. Read the introduction, the analysis of barriers to cooperation and the conclusion.
~10 min: Middle Powers Should Invest in AI Verification

Part 3 (~15 min): reflection

★ ~15 min: note one sentence from either plan that surprised you, one thing that has happened since that matches or contradicts it (a news report, a policy decision or an export licence is enough), and whether you agree with Roberts et al. that a single new global AI body is unrealistic

Attendees consent to filming and photography as participants in this event. By attending, you agree to being filmed or photographed, which may be used for social media, website, and newsletter content. If you wish to attend but do not want to be photographed, please let a member of our staff know during the event so we can accommodate this.

Discussion Group - Who shapes AI governance

About

The US, China, and where middle powers like the Netherlands fit

Readings

Also on Tuesday 1 December