This study comparatively analyzes two major global AI governance frameworks—the European Union’s AI Act and the United Nations’ Governing AI for Humanity report—through the dual lenses of Kantian ethics and techno-governmentality. While previous research has focused on the ethical content of these policies, this study investigates the fundamental tension between their normative rhetoric and operational mechanisms. The findings reveal a critical paradox: While both documents articulate strong Kantian commitments to human dignity, autonomy, and rights, their implementation strategies rely heavily on techno-governmental logics—managing populations through surveillance, classification, and statistical risk assessment. The analysis highlights deep structural constraints, including the EU’s reliance on internal market competence, which subordinates rights to communitarian market standardization, and the “responsibility gap” in autonomous systems, rendering strict Kantian duty ethics structurally unfulfillable. Ultimately, the study argues that without robust participatory mechanisms, ethical AI governance risks becoming a tool shaped by power dynamics and bureaucratic control rather than moral protection. This research concludes that restoring human autonomy requires moving beyond technical compliance to democratically legitimized, inclusive decision making.
Hasib et al. (2026) studied this question.