Project

A Feminist Reading of the First UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance

Live preview

Client

Services

Policy Analysis

AI Governance

Article

Year

2026

The Challenges

Introduction

Before the first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance opened in Geneva on July 6, Linda Bonyo, the Founder and CEO of the Lawyers Hub, and the Thematic Co-Chair for Cluster 4 at the Dialogue said something that should have been the headline of every piece of coverage that followed. She noted that 51% of global conversations on AI governance happen in Geneva. She also noted that Africa accounts for 7 out of 10 visa refusal rates among participants trying to attend those conversations. The governance process designed to represent the world is physically inaccessible to most of the world. And it was named in the room, registered by the room, and then the session moved on. That moment of the naming, the acknowledgment, the moving on, is the most honest summary of what happened in Geneva across two days. The Dialogue produced genuine rigour, surprising moments of political honesty, and a civil society presence that was sharper than most multilateral processes allow. It also produced a structural silence so complete that it can only be understood as a choice, even if nobody in the room chose it consciously. This is an attempt to read both things at once.

our approach

The Good and The Structural Silence

Let's start with what deserves recognition. The Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, with its co-chairs, Yoshua Bengio and Maria Ressa, set a tone in the opening plenary that cut through the diplomatic register of UN opening sessions. The civil society interventions were consistently stronger than the government statements. Nighat Dad from the Digital Rights Foundation made the structural argument most precisely, stating, "Companies conduct meaningful assessments where the law requires them to do, primarily in the EU. Then they deploy the same system in the majority world with no equivalent process. This is a structural choice, not a capacity gap." That sentence, "a structural choice, not a capacity gap", refuses the frame that makes harm into accident. It insists on intentionality. It names the two-tier rights regime for what it is – geography as a determinant of whether you receive human rights protection or whether you are the market for unconstrained deployment.

the result

The Critique

This is not a criticism of the delegates who spoke. The critique is of the architecture itself. A human rights cluster that spends three hours on accountability and transparency without naming the specific populations for whom accountability runs in no direction they can access. A Dialogue that can acknowledge the Global South is locked out of visa queues while proceeding as if the governance produced in Geneva will nonetheless represent their interests.