This paper argues that artificial intelligence exposes the shortcomings of traditional regulatory paradigms, challenging Easterbrook’s ‘Law of the Horse’ view that general legal principles suffice. AI’s opacity, autonomy, and systemic risks demand risk-informed, technology-specific governance. We identify the pacing problem, where innovation outstrips regulatory capacity, and propose a tripartite framework distinguishing functional, structural, and relational risks. Comparative analysis of EU, US, UK, and Chinese approaches highlights divergent logics of precaution, market oversight, hybrid flexibility, and state control. Effective governance requires embedding risk into policy design through adaptive, proportionate, and harmonised mechanisms, balancing innovation with accountability. The paper underscores the urgency of global coordination and calls for interdisciplinary IS research to inform anticipatory, participatory, and ethically grounded regulation.
Currie et al. (Tue,) studied this question.