Aug 2026· AI and Ethics· Vol 6· 1 citation· 68 references
TL;DR
The study develops a Leo XIV-informed, normatively grounded hybrid model of AI governance that extends beyond the exercise of agency over technology to fostering a more just and inclusive social order in which technology enables human flourishing.
Abstract
Debates on artificial intelligence (AI) governance focus on legal regulation, risk management, institutional accountability, and the division of responsibilities between the state, market, and other social actors. However, the anthropological and social assumptions underlying governance models remain underexplored, particularly in relation to the risk of erasing human dignity amid the growing technocratisation and algorithmisation of social life. The study analyses Leo XIV’s reflections on AI governance. This article adopts a conceptual and comparative approach. It is based on a close reading of the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas and a systematic comparison of the framework for AI governance articulated in the document with dominant AI governance models identified in the literature. This study reconstructs an implicit hybrid model of AI governance grounded in eight principles: (1) human dignity, (2) the common good, (3) the universal destination of goods, (4) social justice, (5) solidarity, (6) subsidiarity, (7) shared responsibility, and (8) transparency/accountability. The Tower of Babel – Nehemiah heuristic demonstrates that contemporary AI governance can be understood as a fundamental tension between two logics: one oriented toward centralisation, control, and exclusion, and another toward participation, distributed responsibility, and the protection of human dignity. As an additional contribution, the study operationalises the proposed model through the example of AI-assisted allocation of social benefits, translating its normative principles into concrete governance requirements. Leo XIV’s reflections not only align with a hybrid governance model but provide a normative corrective to both state-led and market-led models by prioritising relational human dignity and shared responsibility over centralised control. The study develops a Leo XIV-informed, normatively grounded hybrid model of AI governance that extends beyond the exercise of agency over technology to fostering a more just and inclusive social order in which technology enables human flourishing.
The Anthropological, Spiritual and Civilizational (ASC) Framework is proposed as a diagnostic heuristic for extending trustworthy AI toward dignity, truth, social justice and humane futures, which requires future empirical and expert validation.
Carlos Alberto Echeverría Mayorga, Marta Irene Flores Polanco, José Miguel Esperanza Amaya· Societies· 0 citations
The article argues that the BRICS countries are attempting to craft a third path-an alternative model of AI governance rooted not in unification, but in an ‘overlapping consensus’ model that enables them to maintain regulatory sovereignty, manage heterogeneity without resorting to rigid harmonization, and establish fle...
B. V. Agonnoude, V. Glebov, A. Maslov· Vestnik RUDN International R...· 0 citations
This Policy and Practice Review concludes that AI-enabled administration remains legitimate only where public authorities retain the capacity to understand, justify, correct, suspend and democratically control the systems they use.
A. Dragomir, Iulea Bulea, Lucian Tarnu· Frontiers in Political Scien...· 2 citations
The study advances GenAI governance scholarship by contributing a blueprint of a “virtue-based” governance regime, offering evidence-based and theoretically informed governance suggestions in global academia concerning the ethical use of GenAI.
Yanto Chandra, Guotong Liu· Data & Policy· 0 citations
It is considered that African AI governance should move beyond mere governance of ethics, e.g. risk and quality assessment, conformity procedure and monitoring, and uphold the idea of enhancing citizens’ ability to participate in the key regulatory processes.
M. Unver· International Review of Law,...· 4 citations
It is argued that AI ethics can address this deficit only when complemented by institutional reforms that embed deliberation, broaden participation and ensure meaningful public accountability, including the involvement of non-expert citizens.
M. Ünver· HHAI· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.