On 6–7 May 2024, after talks in Paris, the heads of state of China and France issued the Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the French Republic on Artificial Intelligence and Global Governance. It builds on their statement of 7 April 2023 and records consensus on promoting the development and safety of AI, advancing international governance and supporting capacity building in developing countries. The document is political rather than legal: it creates no licence, no filing duty and no penalty. Its value lies in fixing a vocabulary that will recur in regulatory and commercial conversations.
What the statement offers: vocabulary, not rules
The statement turns phrases such as “development and safety in parallel”, “international governance” and “capacity building” into shared language. Companies should read it as an indication of how policy dialogue will be framed, not as an executable compliance standard. Treating a political commitment as a legal obligation leads to wasted investment; ignoring it removes a reference point in cross-border negotiations. The sensible approach is to keep it as background and handle specific licences, guidance and contracts separately.
Cross-border data is where the statement meets domestic law
Global governance language still has to pass through each country’s outbound data regime. A Chinese company processing data in a French collaboration faces domestic security assessment, standard-contract and certification routes, as well as the EU personal-data framework. Shared political language does not replace those procedures, though it may shape how an authority reads the context of a project. Cross-border projects therefore benefit from mapping data flows, processing roles and legal bases before a filing is prepared.
AI ethics and public-policy communication
The statement refers to safety and ethics. In external communication, a company that can explain model limits, content governance and safety assessment arrangements is usually received better than one that simply stresses technical sophistication. For French and EU customers, investors and regulators, a verifiable governance note is more persuasive than public-relations language. Ethical statements need to attach to concrete mechanisms: human review, risk tiers, incident response, and records that can be inspected.
What the statement leaves unresolved
The statement records consensus and leaves disagreement for later. Export controls, data localisation and mutual recognition of technical standards are not settled by the text. A company that treats the statement as policy endorsement overestimates certainty. It is safer to separate agreed points from open questions and to leave room in contracts for policy change. For long-term projects, a periodic review mechanism is more practical than a one-off judgment.
How companies should use it
Use the statement as secondary material when entering a market, designing cross-border data flows or participating in international standards discussions. For projects with French partners, asking during due diligence how the counterparty reads the statement often reveals internal compliance expectations early.
For cross-border data arrangements and multi-jurisdiction analysis, see our data compliance service and multi-jurisdiction service; for EU personal-data processing, see GDPR cross-border service.
This article is based on the Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the French Republic on Artificial Intelligence and Global Governance issued after the talks in Paris on 6–7 May 2024, and on public information. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice.