Summarization of the Approaches

production, manufacturing and compliance-related issues – when it comes to technology democratization & transfer; • India can lead efforts in determining regulatory mechanisms to further its vision of the Indo-Pacific freely since the QUAD is not an alliance, but a clear mini-compact. How the approach is built, tested, is another question. Regulatory mechanisms should be both coherentist (based on already present administrative systems) and technologically manifested.

This should shape the power-competence dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region.

Geographically, there is no clear indication to show what actually constitutes the Indo-Pacific. If the QUAD members’ approach is adopted, then land-locked countries like Pakistan could be ignored from the region, but the Gulf states and Iran might be considered a part of the same, or perhaps the Indo-Pacific region could be limited to South Asia and South-East Asia only, at most up to Vladivostok, Russia, i.e., the Far East. Including Oceania countries (including Island states up to the Solomon Islands) is an agreeable parameter to geographically determine what constitutes the Indo-Pacific. The European approaches do not clarify if they are ambitious enough to include South-East Africa and South American countries, on the West near the Pacific Ocean into the construct, since countries like Djibouti, South Africa, Argentina, and others are also considered reasonably important enough here. For the purposes of this report, we have adopted the following summarized approach to constitute, under presumption, as to what constitutes the Indo-Pacific: (a) Countries in Asia and MENA where the QUAD members have strategic investments, and private international law plays an important role in technology-related and IP-related legal disputes – subject to the economic importance of artificial intelligence as an industrial concomitant, both as a separate class of technologies & a part of products and services, where AI is an essential component; (b) Countries in Asia and MENA which are considered to be target and origin-based countries. Examples may include

Regularizing Artificial Intelligence Ethics in the Indo-Pacific, GLA-TR-002

India, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Nigeria, Kenya,

Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and others. They might have strategic investments, and private international law plays an important role in technology-related and IP-related legal disputes – subject to the economic importance of artificial intelligence as an industrial concomitant, both as a separate class of technologies & a part of products and services, where AI is an essential component. In case –countries do not have interests to align with the

Quadrilateral framework, or are not interested to be subject to the conditions summarised in (a), they can be

categorised under (b) category as a starter; (c) Countries in Asia and MENA, which agree on most principles of international technology and IP Law (in both public & private domains), and companies, which comply with the standards & approaches or influence the same through their omnipotence and omnipresence regionally; (d) Countries in Asia and MENA, which agree more with

OECD, Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence or the

European Union/Council of Europe’s approach towards the ethics of artificial intelligence, irrespective of not being

QUAD members, provided they are within the list of countries under (a)/(b) & (c); (e) Countries listed under the category (d), where artificial intelligence as an industrial asset (as stated in the next section of this section of the report) has (1) some tangible valuation & market presence; (2) consumer availability and relationship dynamics in play; and (3) disruptive market players and AI-based technologies;

The companies in any of the lists from (a) to (d) must be conscious of the arrangements agreed upon in a minimal sense by the governments who might fit in any of the four types.

Thus, the approach employed in this report, is purely based on the following parameters: • Strategic approaches to intellectual property & technology law, i.e., knowledge management • Corporate Governance • Sustainability