Artificial Intelligence Policy Tracker

AI policy explorer

Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and official source.

Results

134 of 244 instruments match · page 7 of 7

Poland National strategy Adopted

Policy for the development of AI in Poland (2020)

Polityka dla rozwoju sztucznej inteligencji w Polsce od roku 2020

Adopted by resolution of the Council of Ministers in December 2020, the policy sets goals for AI in society, business, science, education, international cooperation and the public sector, with short-, medium- and long-term actions and an ethics and trustworthy-AI dimension.

Adopted 28 Dec 2020 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Ukraine Policy Adopted

Roadmap for AI regulation (2023)

Roadmap for the regulation of artificial intelligence in Ukraine

Published in October 2023, the roadmap sets a two-stage, bottom-up approach: first voluntary instruments (white paper, general and sector recommendations, a self-assessment tool, a code of conduct and regulatory sandboxes) to help businesses prepare, then a law on AI harmonised with the EU AI Act, timed with Ukraine's EU accession path.

Adopted 1 Oct 2023 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Holy See (Vatican) Framework Voluntary standard

Rome Call for AI Ethics

Rome Call for AI Ethics (Pontifical Academy for Life, 28 February 2020)

A declaration of six principles for the ethical development of AI (transparency, inclusion, responsibility, impartiality, reliability, security and privacy), first signed in February 2020 by the Pontifical Academy for Life, Microsoft, IBM, FAO and the Italian government, and since joined by other religious leaders, universities and companies. It calls for "algor-ethics" and human-centred design and is used as a reference in faith-based and corporate AI ethics commitments.

Adopted 28 Feb 2020 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Scotland (United Kingdom) National strategy Adopted

Scotland's AI Strategy 2026-2031

A five-year strategy for responsible and inclusive AI growth, with ten early actions due by the end of March 2027, delivered through the AI Scotland programme. It builds on the 2021 strategy for trustworthy, ethical and inclusive AI.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Singapore Framework Voluntary standard

Singapore agentic AI governance framework

Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI

A governance framework for AI agents that reason and act on a user's behalf, in four areas: assessing and bounding risks upfront, making humans meaningfully accountable, technical controls across the agent lifecycle, and enabling end-user responsibility. IMDA treats it as a living document and has since added case studies and input from more than 50 organisations.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Singapore Policy Adopted

Singapore AI Tester Accreditation Programme

AI Tester Accreditation Programme (AI TAP)

Accredits third-party firms that test AI systems, in benchmarking and red teaming, for 12 months at a time; the first five were AIDX Tech, Knovel Engineering, PwC Singapore, Resaro and Vulcan. Accreditation does not certify that a tester is independent or that a tested system is safe.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Singapore Framework Voluntary standard

Singapore Model AI Governance Framework

Model AI Governance Framework (Second Edition) and Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI

Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework is a voluntary, sector-agnostic guide for organisations deploying AI. The second edition (January 2020) covers four areas: internal governance structures and measures, determining the level of human involvement in AI-augmented decision-making, operations management (data, model development, monitoring), and stakeholder interaction and communication. The May 2024 Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI extends it with nine dimensions including accountability, data, trusted development and deployment, incident reporting, testing and assurance, security, content provenance, safety and alignment research, and AI for the public good.

Adopted 21 Jan 2020 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Singapore Guidance Guidance

Singapore starter kit for testing agentic AI

Starter Kit for Testing Agentic Systems for Safety and Reliability

A practical reference for organisations starting to test AI agents that reason, act on a user's behalf, use tools and access data. It sets out four steps (identify risks such as erroneous or unauthorised actions; design and run realistic tests without real-world harm; analyse results and operational logs; monitor and retest continuously), tests the agent's whole trajectory of reasoning and actions rather than only its output, and suggests metrics such as tool-use accuracy, handoff accuracy and human-intervention rates. It extends the agentic AI governance framework and builds on the LLM starter kit.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Singapore Guidance Guidance

Singapore starter kit for testing LLM applications

Starter Kit for Testing LLM-Based Applications for Safety and Reliability (v1.0)

Voluntary guidelines for testing applications built on large language models against five risks: hallucination and inaccuracy, bias in decision-making, undesirable content, data leakage and adversarial prompts. Baseline tests are available on Project Moonshot.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Telangana (India) National strategy Adopted

Telangana AI framework

Telangana's AI Framework (ITE&C Department)

A six-pillar framework for AI in Telangana (data exchange; talent and education; research and innovation; high-performance computing; governance, ethics and privacy; adoption and community), run by the Telangana AI Mission with NASSCOM.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
United Arab Emirates National strategy Adopted

UAE AI Strategy 2031

UAE National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence 2031

The UAE National Strategy for AI 2031 aims to position the UAE as a global leader in AI by 2031. It sets objectives across priority sectors, AI talent and research, data and infrastructure, government adoption and governance, including a commitment to AI ethics and to developing appropriate regulation. It is a strategy document that guides government programmes and does not itself impose obligations on private organisations.

Adopted 16 Oct 2017 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
United Kingdom Policy Guidance

UK AI regulation framework

A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation (white paper and government response)

The UK white paper sets out a principles-based, context-specific approach to regulating AI. Instead of a single AI law, it asks existing regulators to interpret and apply five cross-cutting principles within their remits: safety, security and robustness; appropriate transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. Central government provides coordination, monitoring and guidance.

Adopted 29 Mar 2023 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source

UN General Assembly resolution 78/265 on safe, secure and trustworthy AI

UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/78/265: Seizing the opportunities of safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development (21 March 2024)

The first General Assembly resolution on AI, adopted by consensus with more than 120 co-sponsors, encourages states to promote safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems that respect human rights and advance the Sustainable Development Goals, to close digital divides, and to develop governance frameworks and interoperable safeguards; it calls on companies to act responsibly. It was followed by resolution A/RES/79/325 (August 2025) establishing an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and a Global Dialogue on AI Governance under the Global Digital Compact.

Adopted 21 Mar 2024 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source

UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI

UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (adopted by the General Conference, 23 November 2021)

The first global normative instrument on AI ethics. It sets values (human rights and dignity, environment and ecosystem flourishing, diversity and inclusiveness, peaceful and just societies) and principles (proportionality and do no harm, safety and security, fairness, sustainability, privacy, human oversight, transparency and explainability, responsibility, awareness and literacy, multi-stakeholder governance), and eleven policy action areas from ethical impact assessment and data policy to gender, education, health and the environment. UNESCO supports implementation with a Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) and an Ethical Impact Assessment tool used by dozens of countries.

Adopted 23 Nov 2021 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source

Frequently asked questions

What counts as an AI policy instrument here?

Anything a government or standards body has actually issued: acts, regulations, executive orders, rules, national strategies, frameworks, guidance, codes of practice, voluntary standards and open consultations. Each record states which of those it is, whether it binds anyone, and links the official source it was read from.

Are these records legally verified?

A record is marked verified only after a named reviewer has opened its official source and confirmed each field. Anything that has not been through that carries "pending review" on the record itself, and the data-health document reports the current totals. Nothing here is legal advice.

How current is the information?

Every record carries the date its source document was published and the date it was last checked. A record not re-checked within the freshness window set by the verification policy is flagged as stale rather than quietly presented as current.

Can I reuse this data?

Yes. The records are published under CC BY 4.0 with attribution, and are available as CSV, newline-delimited JSON and a read-only REST API that needs no key. Cite the record URL, the date accessed and the official source alongside it.