On 22 September 2024 the UN Summit of the Future adopted the Global Digital Compact. The document records commitments on digital cooperation, artificial intelligence governance, capacity building and the protection of human rights. It is soft law and creates no directly enforceable obligation, but it changes the setting in which AI governance is discussed: from regulatory competition among a few states to a framework that includes developing countries, international organisations and multilateral mechanisms.
Why soft law still matters
Soft law works through expectations rather than penalties. Once the compact places AI governance, data governance and human rights in a single set of commitments, domestic legislation, international programmes and industry standards begin to cite that language. The direct consequence for companies is that regulatory enquiries in the EU, the UK or Southeast Asia may draw on regional legislation and global commitments at the same time. Understanding the vocabulary in advance reduces the cost of explaining a position across markets.
Three threads of commitment
Digital cooperation points to connectivity and interoperability, including digital public infrastructure and data governance arrangements. AI governance points to risk assessment, transparency and accountability, with governance capacity expected to keep pace with technology. Capacity building and human rights address gaps: how less-capable countries obtain support, and how users’ rights are protected when AI services are used.
The three threads affect companies unevenly. Those involved in government projects or international procurement meet specific requirements sooner. Consumer-facing products feel pressure more through platform rules and market access conditions.
Practical alignment with company policy
Mapping the compact’s principles onto existing governance documents can start immediately. The objects of the mapping include AI ethics guidelines, data governance policies, supplier codes of conduct and human rights statements. The point is not to add documents but to find conflicts and gaps. A policy that discusses only technical safety may leave human rights impact assessment blank; a policy that discusses only compliance may take no position on capacity building and knowledge sharing.
Overseas narrative needs verifiable content
In overseas markets, companies are often asked to explain how their technology serves the local economy. The compact’s framework can be cited, but citation is not proof. Verifiable content includes local data-processing arrangements, the division of responsibility with local partners, and the mechanism for responding to user complaints. Written into contracts and published policies, this material carries more weight than promotional copy.
Compliance entry points for digital cooperation projects
Participation in digital cooperation projects tends to trigger three sets of rules at once: public procurement, cross-border data transfer and security review. At the project-design stage, confirm the flow of funding and data, the roles of the parties, and applicable export control and sanctions requirements. Leaving these judgments until after signing tends to force adjustments during performance.
For multi-country deployment and policy alignment, see our multi-jurisdiction compliance service; for cross-border data arrangements, see GDPR cross-border; definitions are collected in the glossary.
This article is based on the Global Digital Compact adopted at the UN Summit of the Future on 22 September 2024, and on public information. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice.