Week 2
Question 1 (~30 mins): Drawing on Schuett et al.'s principles-to-rules spectrum and at least two jurisdictional examples from the readings, analyse how soft law mechanisms (voluntary commitments, ethical frameworks, industry standards) interact with hard law approaches (legislation, enforcement mechanisms) in AI governance.
Do these different governance layers complement each other to create more effective oversight, or do they create tensions that undermine regulatory effectiveness? Support your argument with specific examples from the readings, considering both the theoretical frameworks discussed by Schuett et al. and the practical implementation challenges evident in real-world cases.
Question 2 (~30 mins): As the EU moves forward with the implementation of the AI Act, its risk-based, rules-heavy approach contrasts with the innovation-first, deregulatory stance now emerging in the United States. At the same time, thought leaders argue that “AI middle powers” like the EU should focus less on competing in raw AI development and more on shaping the ecosystem through governance, norms, and control of key bottlenecks.
Should the EU embrace its role as an "AI middle power" by leveraging regulatory leadership and standard-setting as a form of global influence?
What would this look like in practice and what are the risks?
