⚡ Quick Summary
Published by the IAPP (Research and Insights), this tracker maps AI governance law and policy across 25 jurisdictions in focus, from Argentina, Australia and Bangladesh to the U.K. and the U.S., including the EU. Its stated aim is to identify legislative or policy developments, or both, and it observes that governance of AI "often, if not always, begins with a jurisdiction rolling out a national strategy or ethics policy instead of legislating from the get-go" (p. 2).
Each jurisdiction entry is organised under four headings: specific AI governance law or policy, relevant authorities, other relevant laws and policies, and wider AI context. Entries range from draft plans (Argentina's National AI Plan), through enacted instruments (the EU AI Act, in force since 1 Aug. 2024), to voluntary frameworks (Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework, Australia's Voluntary AI Safety Standard with its 10 guardrails) and national strategies in Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.
The tracker also records multilateral activity, including the OECD AI principles, UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the G7 Hiroshima Process guiding principles, the Bletchley Declaration, the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI and the AI Action Summit joint statement. It states that it does not cover every AI initiative in every jurisdiction. Last updated May 2025.
🧩 What’s Covered
The tracker is organised country by country, preceded by a short statement of scope.
- Introduction (p. 2): sets out the tracker's purpose, notes that jurisdictions commonly begin with a national strategy or ethics policy rather than legislation, describes multilateral coordination through the OECD, UNESCO, ISO, the African Union, the Council of Europe and the 2023 U.K. AI Safety Summit, and states that not all AI initiatives are included.
- Jurisdictions in focus (p. 3): lists the 25 covered jurisdictions across six continents with an interactive map, and notes that the map does not represent how active jurisdictions are on AI governance legislation.
- Country entries: each jurisdiction is presented under four headings — "Specific AI governance law or policy", "Relevant authorities", "Other relevant laws and policies" and "Wider AI context" — with instruments tagged [IN FORCE], [DRAFT], [PASSED] or [DROPPED].
- Enacted and draft AI instruments: the EU AI Act and its phased compliance dates from early 2025 to the end of 2030, South Korea's AI Basic Act, Brazil's Bill 2338/2023, Taiwan's draft AI Basic Act, Chile's draft AI legislation and Japan's draft bill.
- Voluntary frameworks and guidance: Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI and AI Verify, Australia's Voluntary AI Safety Standard and AI Impact Navigator, Israel's policy on AI regulation and ethics, New Zealand's Algorithm Charter, and the UAE's AI Ethics Principles and Guidelines.
- National strategies and plans: Bangladesh's National AI Strategy for 2019–2024, Egypt's second edition released in January 2025, Indonesia's National Strategy on AI, Saudi Arabia's National Strategy on Data and AI, and Canada's AI Strategy.
- U.S. federal and state coverage (pp. 33–34): lists federal laws and nonbinding frameworks such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, Trump administration executive orders and OMB memoranda, and state action including the Colorado AI Act.
- Contact page (p. 35): names three IAPP contacts and carries a disclaimer that nothing in the material is legal advice.
💡 Why it matters?
For organisations that must track AI obligations across borders, the tracker consolidates what each jurisdiction has enacted, drafted or signalled, and which authority is responsible. It lets a compliance or policy team see where an instrument sits in the legislative pipeline — in force, draft or under consultation — and note the related privacy, consumer, copyright and cybersecurity laws that already apply. Because entries use the same four headings, they can be read in parallel, and the multilateral references show which cross-border instruments a jurisdiction has adopted, such as the OECD AI principles or the Council of Europe Framework Convention.
❓ What’s Missing
The tracker states that it does not include all AI initiatives within every jurisdiction and covers only a subset of jurisdictions; selection criteria and the update method are not set out. Many entries are undated, and status tags such as [IN FORCE] or [DRAFT] are not tied to commencement, enforcement or penalty detail, which appears mainly for the EU. Several items are described as pending public comment, so their status can change. Coverage is a snapshot to May 2025, and the closing disclaimer states that the material is not legal advice.
👥 Best For
Policy and compliance teams needing a quick orientation on AI law and policy in a specific market; government and public-sector strategists comparing national approaches; legal researchers tracking draft bills and consultation stages; and governance leads preparing briefings on where AI rules are in force, in draft, or still absent.
📄 Source Details
Global AI Law and Policy Tracker, by IAPP Research and Insights, published by the IAPP. Updated May 2025; 35 pages; English. No series or reference number is printed. The final page lists contacts Richard Sentinella, Joe Jones and Ian Scanlon with the address research@iapp.org, and carries the notice "© 2025 IAPP. All rights reserved." The full 35-page text extraction was available, so all listed jurisdictions were reviewed.
