How AI governance is defined

Part 1, Definitions (related terms), “AI governance”

Defines AI governance as stakeholders designing and operating technological, organisational and social systems to keep the risks of using AI at levels stakeholders find acceptable while maximising AI’s benefits.

Scope note: A provisional translation; the Japanese original prevails. The same definition appears in Ver1.01 (December 2024). Non-binding guidance for businesses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · japan-definition

Table 1.1, “Definitions of key terms”, p. 15

Defines AI governance as a framework of policies, guidelines and practices, including oversight, risk management and accountability, designed to make AI development and deployment responsible, ethical and transparent. The executive summary calls for an agile and dynamic governance framework.

Scope note: Read from a copy hosted by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; no government-hosted PDF could be found.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · kenya-definition

Articles 1, 2, 6, 33 and 35

States its purpose as the sound development of AI and the creation of a foundation of trust. Article 2 defines twelve terms, none of them governance, and the translated text does not use the word. It requires advance review of whether AI is high-impact and efforts to assess impacts on fundamental rights in advance, and a master plan every three years.

Scope note: An unofficial English translation.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · korea-act-no-governance

Recommendation 2.3(a)–(b), OECD/LEGAL/0449

Asks governments to promote an agile policy environment, use outcome-based approaches that leave flexibility in meeting governance objectives, co-operate for interoperable governance, and review and adapt their frameworks. The Recommendation defines AI system and AI actors but not AI governance.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · oecd-agile-adapt

Executive summary, para. vi; para. 47 (guiding principle 4)

Says AI governance is needed both to address risks and to harness AI’s potential in ways that leave no one behind, and that it must be universal, networked and rooted in adaptive multi-stakeholder collaboration. The report does not define the term.

Scope note: An advisory body report representing a majority consensus of its members in their personal capacity. It is not a UN member-state decision. Page locators refer to the PDF's printed page numbers.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · un-hlab-governance-crucial

Preamble; Articles 1, 2 and 16

Aims to ensure activities within the lifecycle of AI systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It defines only “artificial intelligence system”; the word governance does not appear in the text we read. Article 16 requires risk and impact management applied iteratively across the lifecycle, including testing before first use.

Scope note: The Council of Europe overview page was reviewed, not the treaty text itself. The Convention binds only parties for which it has entered into force, and is largely framed as obligations on states to adopt measures. Signature and ratification status changes; verify before relying on it. The treaty text itself (CETS 225) was opened on 19 October 2026 for the definitions comparison.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · coe-no-governance-term

Operative paragraph 4

Establishes the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, with governments and all relevant stakeholders, as a platform to discuss international cooperation and share practice, so that AI can contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals and to closing digital divides. The resolution uses the term without defining it.

Scope note: Read from the copy hosted by the Office of the President of the General Assembly. Covers the non-military domain only.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · unga-global-dialogue

p. 5 (definition); p. 6 (contrast with AI safety); abstract, p. 1

Defines AI governance as a field that studies how humanity can best navigate the transition to advanced AI. It contrasts governance, which focuses on the institutions and contexts in which AI is built and used, with technical AI safety.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · dafoe-govai-definition

Section 2, “Defining AI governance”

Defines organisational AI governance as a system of rules, practices, processes and technological tools that keeps an organisation’s use of AI aligned with its strategy, objectives and values, with legal requirements and with its ethical AI principles.

Scope note: Birkstedt et al. (Internet Research, 2023) refine this definition, dropping “technological tools” and adding requirements set by stakeholders.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · mantymaki-definition

Part 1, Definitions (related terms), “AI governance”

Defines AI governance as stakeholders designing and operating technological, organisational and social systems to keep the risks of using AI at levels stakeholders find acceptable while maximising AI’s benefits.

Scope note: A provisional translation; the Japanese original prevails. The same definition appears in Ver1.01 (December 2024). Non-binding guidance for businesses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · japan-definition

Table 1.1, “Definitions of key terms”, p. 15

Defines AI governance as a framework of policies, guidelines and practices, including oversight, risk management and accountability, designed to make AI development and deployment responsible, ethical and transparent. The executive summary calls for an agile and dynamic governance framework.

Scope note: Read from a copy hosted by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; no government-hosted PDF could be found.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · kenya-definition

Recommendation 2.3(a)–(b), OECD/LEGAL/0449

Asks governments to promote an agile policy environment, use outcome-based approaches that leave flexibility in meeting governance objectives, co-operate for interoperable governance, and review and adapt their frameworks. The Recommendation defines AI system and AI actors but not AI governance.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · oecd-agile-adapt

Section 5.1, GOVERN function; figure 5

Describes GOVERN as a cross-cutting function that builds a culture of risk management in organisations and aligns AI risk management with organisational principles, policies and priorities. Attention to governance is continual over an AI system’s lifespan.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · nist-govern-function

Public page, FAQ

Says implementing the standard means putting in place policies and procedures for the sound governance of an organisation in relation to AI, using the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, and continually improving an AI management system.

Scope note: The standard itself is paid; this record relies on the publisher’s public description.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · iso-42001-sound-governance

Operative paragraph 4

Establishes the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, with governments and all relevant stakeholders, as a platform to discuss international cooperation and share practice, so that AI can contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals and to closing digital divides. The resolution uses the term without defining it.

Scope note: Read from the copy hosted by the Office of the President of the General Assembly. Covers the non-military domain only.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · unga-global-dialogue

Section 2, “Defining AI governance”

Defines organisational AI governance as a system of rules, practices, processes and technological tools that keeps an organisation’s use of AI aligned with its strategy, objectives and values, with legal requirements and with its ethical AI principles.

Scope note: Birkstedt et al. (Internet Research, 2023) refine this definition, dropping “technological tools” and adding requirements set by stakeholders.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · mantymaki-definition

Section “AI governance definition”, p. 4

Defines AI governance for business as the structure of rules, practices and processes that ensures an organisation’s AI technology sustains and extends its strategies and objectives.

Scope note: Read from the authors’ arXiv copy, which shows the journal DOI and a 2022 copyright notice.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · schneider-definition

Opening paragraphs

Defines AI governance as the processes, standards and guardrails that help keep AI systems safe and ethical, and says it is about sustaining ethical standards over time, not one-time compliance.

Scope note: A vendor explainer, included because it is widely read, not for its standing. IBM sells AI governance products.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · ibm-definition

Section 1.1, footnote 7

For the report’s purposes, governance means the broader framework of laws, rules, practices and processes used to ensure AI is developed and used responsibly. Elsewhere it describes governance as an iterative, agile process.

Scope note: Read from the World Bank’s plain-text rendering of the report; page markers are approximate.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · world-bank-governance-definition

Table 1.1, “Definitions of key terms”, p. 15

Defines AI governance as a framework of policies, guidelines and practices, including oversight, risk management and accountability, designed to make AI development and deployment responsible, ethical and transparent. The executive summary calls for an agile and dynamic governance framework.

Scope note: Read from a copy hosted by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; no government-hosted PDF could be found.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · kenya-definition

Part 2 E, “Building AI governance”

Describes agile governance: multiple stakeholders continuously run a cycle of risk analysis, goal setting, system design, operation and evaluation across governance systems in companies, regulation, infrastructure, markets and social codes.

Scope note: A provisional translation; the Japanese original prevails. The same definition appears in Ver1.01 (December 2024). Non-binding guidance for businesses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · japan-agile

Table 1.1, “Definitions of key terms”, p. 15

Defines AI governance as a framework of policies, guidelines and practices, including oversight, risk management and accountability, designed to make AI development and deployment responsible, ethical and transparent. The executive summary calls for an agile and dynamic governance framework.

Scope note: Read from a copy hosted by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; no government-hosted PDF could be found.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · kenya-definition

Recommendation 2.3(a)–(b), OECD/LEGAL/0449

Asks governments to promote an agile policy environment, use outcome-based approaches that leave flexibility in meeting governance objectives, co-operate for interoperable governance, and review and adapt their frameworks. The Recommendation defines AI system and AI actors but not AI governance.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · oecd-agile-adapt

Section 5.1, GOVERN function; figure 5

Describes GOVERN as a cross-cutting function that builds a culture of risk management in organisations and aligns AI risk management with organisational principles, policies and priorities. Attention to governance is continual over an AI system’s lifespan.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · nist-govern-function

Public page, FAQ

Says implementing the standard means putting in place policies and procedures for the sound governance of an organisation in relation to AI, using the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, and continually improving an AI management system.

Scope note: The standard itself is paid; this record relies on the publisher’s public description.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · iso-42001-sound-governance

Executive summary, pp. 1–2

Calls for clearly defining the responsibilities of stakeholders inside the organisation and with vendors, and for adaptive governance so the organisation can update its approach as agentic AI evolves. Calls itself a living document.

Scope note: The cover gives both 19 and 22 January 2026. IMDA announced an updated version in May 2026, which we did not read. Voluntary guidance.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · singapore-agentic-adaptive

Section 6-1-1703(2)(a), pp. 10–11

Requires deployers of high-risk AI to implement a risk management policy and program, specifying principles, processes and personnel, to govern deployment. The program must be iterative and regularly reviewed over the system’s life cycle, and names the NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001 as benchmarks. The act does not define governance.

Scope note: Signed 17 May 2024 according to the LegiScan status page. The enrolled text gives an effective date of 1 February 2026; later amendments to that date were not checked.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · colorado-risk-program

Preamble

Our translation: affirms that AI governance must take account of the region’s particular socioeconomic and cultural contexts, address risks and impacts across the life cycle, and promote digital inclusion and equitable access, while respecting each country’s power to set its own policy.

Scope note: A non-binding ministerial declaration, in Spanish; passage summaries are our translation.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · montevideo-governance

Methodology, governance dimension, pp. 21–22

Our translation: the index’s governance dimension tries to approximate the state’s effective capacity to steer the deployment of AI and align it with development objectives, measured through strategy, institutions, budgets, targets and monitoring.

Scope note: In Spanish; passage summaries are our translation. Read from the index’s own site.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · cepal-ilia-governance

Section 2.4.1, “AI Governance and Regulation”, pp. 33–36

Calls effective governance a key mechanism for making the use and development of AI inclusive of diverse populations, serving African agendas and avoiding harm, through a multi-tiered approach and agile, forward-looking, adaptable regulation.

Scope note: Global South regional body. Adopted by the AU Executive Council at its session of 18–19 July 2024 and posted by the AU on 9 August 2024; a strategy, not binding law.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · au-effective-governance

Operative paragraph 4

Establishes the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, with governments and all relevant stakeholders, as a platform to discuss international cooperation and share practice, so that AI can contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals and to closing digital divides. The resolution uses the term without defining it.

Scope note: Read from the copy hosted by the Office of the President of the General Assembly. Covers the non-military domain only.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · unga-global-dialogue

p. 5 (definition); p. 6 (contrast with AI safety); abstract, p. 1

Defines AI governance as a field that studies how humanity can best navigate the transition to advanced AI. It contrasts governance, which focuses on the institutions and contexts in which AI is built and used, with technical AI safety.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · dafoe-govai-definition

p. 418, footnote 3

Defines AI governance as the study or practice of local and global governance systems (norms, policies, laws, processes and institutions) that govern, or should govern, AI research, development, deployment and use.

Scope note: Footnote 3 attributes its definition to Ó hÉigeartaigh et al. (2020), whose published text defines AI governance differently. We treat this article as the source of the wording, which Sastry et al. (2024) and Maas (2023) reuse.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · hua-belfield-definition

Section 2, “Defining AI governance”

Defines organisational AI governance as a system of rules, practices, processes and technological tools that keeps an organisation’s use of AI aligned with its strategy, objectives and values, with legal requirements and with its ethical AI principles.

Scope note: Birkstedt et al. (Internet Research, 2023) refine this definition, dropping “technological tools” and adding requirements set by stakeholders.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · mantymaki-definition

Table 1.1, “Definitions of key terms”, p. 15

Defines AI governance as a framework of policies, guidelines and practices, including oversight, risk management and accountability, designed to make AI development and deployment responsible, ethical and transparent. The executive summary calls for an agile and dynamic governance framework.

Scope note: Read from a copy hosted by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; no government-hosted PDF could be found.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · kenya-definition

Section 2, “Defining AI governance”

Defines organisational AI governance as a system of rules, practices, processes and technological tools that keeps an organisation’s use of AI aligned with its strategy, objectives and values, with legal requirements and with its ethical AI principles.

Scope note: Birkstedt et al. (Internet Research, 2023) refine this definition, dropping “technological tools” and adding requirements set by stakeholders.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · mantymaki-definition

Section “AI governance definition”, p. 4

Defines AI governance for business as the structure of rules, practices and processes that ensures an organisation’s AI technology sustains and extends its strategies and objectives.

Scope note: Read from the authors’ arXiv copy, which shows the journal DOI and a 2022 copyright notice.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · schneider-definition

Part 1, Definitions (related terms), “AI governance”

Defines AI governance as stakeholders designing and operating technological, organisational and social systems to keep the risks of using AI at levels stakeholders find acceptable while maximising AI’s benefits.

Scope note: A provisional translation; the Japanese original prevails. The same definition appears in Ver1.01 (December 2024). Non-binding guidance for businesses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · japan-definition

Glosario, “Gobernanza”, p. 17

Our translation: governance is a process through which a community’s actors, including government, the private sector, citizens and academia, interact and take collective decisions to steer and regulate shared spaces and issues towards sustainable development.

Scope note: Adopted by decree; published in the Diario Oficial. Quotes are in Spanish; the passage summary is a translation.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · chile-gobernanza-definition

Executive summary, para. vi; para. 47 (guiding principle 4)

Says AI governance is needed both to address risks and to harness AI’s potential in ways that leave no one behind, and that it must be universal, networked and rooted in adaptive multi-stakeholder collaboration. The report does not define the term.

Scope note: An advisory body report representing a majority consensus of its members in their personal capacity. It is not a UN member-state decision. Page locators refer to the PDF's printed page numbers.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · un-hlab-governance-crucial

Section 2, “Defining AI governance”

Defines organisational AI governance as a system of rules, practices, processes and technological tools that keeps an organisation’s use of AI aligned with its strategy, objectives and values, with legal requirements and with its ethical AI principles.

Scope note: Birkstedt et al. (Internet Research, 2023) refine this definition, dropping “technological tools” and adding requirements set by stakeholders.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · mantymaki-definition

Part 1, Definitions (related terms), “AI governance”

Defines AI governance as stakeholders designing and operating technological, organisational and social systems to keep the risks of using AI at levels stakeholders find acceptable while maximising AI’s benefits.

Scope note: A provisional translation; the Japanese original prevails. The same definition appears in Ver1.01 (December 2024). Non-binding guidance for businesses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · japan-definition

Table 1.1, “Definitions of key terms”, p. 15

Defines AI governance as a framework of policies, guidelines and practices, including oversight, risk management and accountability, designed to make AI development and deployment responsible, ethical and transparent. The executive summary calls for an agile and dynamic governance framework.

Scope note: Read from a copy hosted by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; no government-hosted PDF could be found.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · kenya-definition

Methodology, governance dimension, pp. 21–22

Our translation: the index’s governance dimension tries to approximate the state’s effective capacity to steer the deployment of AI and align it with development objectives, measured through strategy, institutions, budgets, targets and monitoring.

Scope note: In Spanish; passage summaries are our translation. Read from the index’s own site.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · cepal-ilia-governance

p. 418, footnote 3

Defines AI governance as the study or practice of local and global governance systems (norms, policies, laws, processes and institutions) that govern, or should govern, AI research, development, deployment and use.

Scope note: Footnote 3 attributes its definition to Ó hÉigeartaigh et al. (2020), whose published text defines AI governance differently. We treat this article as the source of the wording, which Sastry et al. (2024) and Maas (2023) reuse.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · hua-belfield-definition

Part 2 E, “Building AI governance”

Describes agile governance: multiple stakeholders continuously run a cycle of risk analysis, goal setting, system design, operation and evaluation across governance systems in companies, regulation, infrastructure, markets and social codes.

Scope note: A provisional translation; the Japanese original prevails. The same definition appears in Ver1.01 (December 2024). Non-binding guidance for businesses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · japan-agile

Abstract

Guides an organisation’s governing body to enable and govern the organisation’s current and future use of AI so that it is effective, efficient and acceptable.

Scope note: The standard is paid; this record relies on the public abstract and a publisher preview of its opening clauses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · iso-38507-scope

Para. 16; para. 35

Says any governance framework should shape incentives globally towards larger and more inclusive objectives, and calls for agile governance so that accountability keeps pace with AI.

Scope note: An advisory body report representing a majority consensus of its members in their personal capacity. It is not a UN member-state decision. Page locators refer to the PDF's printed page numbers.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · un-hlab-shape-incentives

Section 2.B, p. 11

Reuses Hua and Belfield’s definition of AI governance and treats compute governance, governing access to and use of computing power, as one tool for AI governance.

Scope note: A preprint by authors affiliated with AI developers, universities, and governance organizations; not peer reviewed. Several authors have institutional stakes in compute governance.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · sastry-compute-tool

Section 2, “Defining AI governance”

Defines organisational AI governance as a system of rules, practices, processes and technological tools that keeps an organisation’s use of AI aligned with its strategy, objectives and values, with legal requirements and with its ethical AI principles.

Scope note: Birkstedt et al. (Internet Research, 2023) refine this definition, dropping “technological tools” and adding requirements set by stakeholders.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · mantymaki-definition

Preamble

Our translation: affirms that AI governance must take account of the region’s particular socioeconomic and cultural contexts, address risks and impacts across the life cycle, and promote digital inclusion and equitable access, while respecting each country’s power to set its own policy.

Scope note: A non-binding ministerial declaration, in Spanish; passage summaries are our translation.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · montevideo-governance

Executive summary, para. vi; para. 47 (guiding principle 4)

Says AI governance is needed both to address risks and to harness AI’s potential in ways that leave no one behind, and that it must be universal, networked and rooted in adaptive multi-stakeholder collaboration. The report does not define the term.

Scope note: An advisory body report representing a majority consensus of its members in their personal capacity. It is not a UN member-state decision. Page locators refer to the PDF's printed page numbers.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · un-hlab-governance-crucial

Section 2.4.1, “AI Governance and Regulation”, pp. 33–36

Calls effective governance a key mechanism for making the use and development of AI inclusive of diverse populations, serving African agendas and avoiding harm, through a multi-tiered approach and agile, forward-looking, adaptable regulation.

Scope note: Global South regional body. Adopted by the AU Executive Council at its session of 18–19 July 2024 and posted by the AU on 9 August 2024; a strategy, not binding law.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · au-effective-governance

Part 1, Definitions (related terms), “AI governance”

Defines AI governance as stakeholders designing and operating technological, organisational and social systems to keep the risks of using AI at levels stakeholders find acceptable while maximising AI’s benefits.

Scope note: A provisional translation; the Japanese original prevails. The same definition appears in Ver1.01 (December 2024). Non-binding guidance for businesses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · japan-definition

Table 1.1, “Definitions of key terms”, p. 15

Defines AI governance as a framework of policies, guidelines and practices, including oversight, risk management and accountability, designed to make AI development and deployment responsible, ethical and transparent. The executive summary calls for an agile and dynamic governance framework.

Scope note: Read from a copy hosted by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; no government-hosted PDF could be found.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · kenya-definition

Policy Area 2, “Ethical governance and stewardship”, para. 54

Asks Member States to make AI governance mechanisms inclusive, transparent, multidisciplinary, multilateral and multi-stakeholder, and says governance should include anticipation, protection, monitoring of impact, enforcement and redress.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · unesco-governance-mechanisms

Section 5.1, GOVERN function; figure 5

Describes GOVERN as a cross-cutting function that builds a culture of risk management in organisations and aligns AI risk management with organisational principles, policies and priorities. Attention to governance is continual over an AI system’s lifespan.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · nist-govern-function

pp. 10 and 13

Stresses timing: how fast and suddenly capabilities may arrive, forecasting key moments, and embedding principles early, while the stakes are still relatively low.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · dafoe-govai-timing

Section 2

Uses Guston’s definition of anticipatory governance: the institutional capacity to manage emerging technologies and their societal impacts while effective intervention is still possible.

Scope note: A preprint, not peer reviewed. The anticipatory-governance definition it uses is quoted from Guston (2014).

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · ojanen-anticipatory

Section 1.1, footnote 7

For the report’s purposes, governance means the broader framework of laws, rules, practices and processes used to ensure AI is developed and used responsibly. Elsewhere it describes governance as an iterative, agile process.

Scope note: Read from the World Bank’s plain-text rendering of the report; page markers are approximate.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · world-bank-governance-definition

Part 2 E, “Building AI governance”

Describes agile governance: multiple stakeholders continuously run a cycle of risk analysis, goal setting, system design, operation and evaluation across governance systems in companies, regulation, infrastructure, markets and social codes.

Scope note: A provisional translation; the Japanese original prevails. The same definition appears in Ver1.01 (December 2024). Non-binding guidance for businesses.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · japan-agile

Table 1.1, “Definitions of key terms”, p. 15

Defines AI governance as a framework of policies, guidelines and practices, including oversight, risk management and accountability, designed to make AI development and deployment responsible, ethical and transparent. The executive summary calls for an agile and dynamic governance framework.

Scope note: Read from a copy hosted by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; no government-hosted PDF could be found.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · kenya-definition

Recommendation 2.3(a)–(b), OECD/LEGAL/0449

Asks governments to promote an agile policy environment, use outcome-based approaches that leave flexibility in meeting governance objectives, co-operate for interoperable governance, and review and adapt their frameworks. The Recommendation defines AI system and AI actors but not AI governance.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · oecd-agile-adapt

Para. 16; para. 35

Says any governance framework should shape incentives globally towards larger and more inclusive objectives, and calls for agile governance so that accountability keeps pace with AI.

Scope note: An advisory body report representing a majority consensus of its members in their personal capacity. It is not a UN member-state decision. Page locators refer to the PDF's printed page numbers.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · un-hlab-shape-incentives

Section 2.4.1, “AI Governance and Regulation”, pp. 33–36

Calls effective governance a key mechanism for making the use and development of AI inclusive of diverse populations, serving African agendas and avoiding harm, through a multi-tiered approach and agile, forward-looking, adaptable regulation.

Scope note: Global South regional body. Adopted by the AU Executive Council at its session of 18–19 July 2024 and posted by the AU on 9 August 2024; a strategy, not binding law.

Passage checked 2026-10-19 · au-effective-governance