COTG-MINDD AI WEBINAR
REGISTRATION FORM
AI Governance and Ordinary Citizens : Understanding Different Approaches to Artificial Intelligence
Complete the registration form below to reserve your place.
""
MINDD - ASSOCIAÇÃO NACIONAL DE DEFESA DAS VITIMAS DOS FALSOS CONDOMINIOS - 13.06.2008 A 13.06.2025- 18 ANOS DE GRANDES VITORIAS FALSE CONDOMINIUMS´s VICTIMS Community- A non-profit organisation focusing on Human Rights issues around the world, with particular focus on BRAZIL - DESDE 2008 AJUDANDO A DEFENDER A DEMOCRACIA E DIREITOS HUMANOS NO BRASIL - email : mindd.defesa.de.direitos@gmail.com
Complete the registration form below to reserve your place.
July 2026
Resolutions and Declarations
Contracting States to this Agreement,
Acknowledging the transformative power of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a driving force for economic and social development, which is conducive to accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations, and bears on the well-being of people all over the world;
Recognizing the need to provide more international public goods, and engage in international cooperation and global governance on AI to promote its sound and orderly development in a beneficial, safe and fair direction for the benefit of the entire humanity; Desiring to contribute to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
Decide to establish the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization and have agreed as follows:
The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (hereinafter referred to as the Organization) is hereby established as an independent intergovernmental international organization and conferred international legal personality. The Organization shall have full legal capacity and shall function in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
All the Contracting States to this Agreement shall be Member States of the Organization.
The purposes of the Organization shall be:
a. To adhere to the human-centric approach, and promote the innovation, development, deployment and application of AI for good and for all;
b. To expand international cooperation on AI, and jointly establish an open, fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for the development of AI, with a view to unleashing the AI dividend; c. To bridge the AI divide and promote greater accessibility of AI technologies and services;
d. To collectively mitigate and address risks, challenges and impacts arising from the advancement of AI, and promote safe, secure, ethical, trustworthy AI.
a. To build a platform for supply-demand matching among Member States;
b. To enhance international cooperation on Al capacity building;
c. To enhance alignment and coordination on AI development strategies, governance rules and technical standards, facilitate dialogues, build policy consensus, promote interoperability, and share best practices;
d. To strengthen cooperation on AI science and technology, and encourage joint efforts to develop open-source ecosystem;
e. To enhance global AI governance, provide support for and promote convergence with the process within the U.N. framework;
f. To maintain communication with other international organizations, to explore appropriate forms of cooperation.
The Organization shall follow the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter, respect the sovereignty of states and the diversity of civilizations, uphold the principle of equality, practice multilateralism, and harness the benefits of AI through extensive consultation and joint contribution.
The Organization shall establish a Council and a Secretariat.
The Headquarters of the Organization shall be located in the city of Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China,
The Organization may establish subsidiary bodies and working groups as necessary for the performance of its functions and fulfillment of its purposes.
The Council shall be the decision-making body responsible for setting the overall strategy and regulations of the Organization; reviewing and approving budget and final accounts reports, annual work plans and annual work reports; admitting new Member States and Observers; appointing the Secretary General and Deputy Secretaries General; establishing subsidiary bodies and working groups; and any other matters for decision as put forward by the Member States for consideration. The Council shall also exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as the Member States determine to be necessary for the implementation of this Agreement.
Every Member State shall be a member of the Council. The Council shall hold a plenary session annually. The Chairperson of the Council, whose term of office shall be one year, shall be elected by the plenary session of the Council with due regard to equitable geographical distribution.
Each Member State may designate one official coordinator, to keep necessary liaison between the Member States and the Secretariat, and develop recommendations for the Council. The meeting of official coordinators shall be convened under the direction of the Council.
The Council shall adopt its rules of procedure.
Decisions of the Council shall be made by the plenary session of the Council with the presence of at least two-thirds of all Member States, and such decisions shall be made on the basis of consensus to the furthest extent possible.
In the event that consensus cannot be reached after every effort has been exhausted, decisions of the Council may be made by a two-thirds majority of the Member States present and voting.
Each Member State shall have one vote.
Paragraph 3 of this Article does not apply to amendments to this Agreement.
The Secretariat, as the permanent administrative body of the Organization, shall be responsible for the implementation of the decisions of the Council, the drafting of budget and final accounts reports, annual work plans and annual work reports for review and approval by the Council, project management, coordination with other relevant international bodies, and other matters assigned by the Council. The Secretariat shall operate under the responsibility of the Secretary General.
The Secretariat shall have one Secretary General who serves as the chief administrative officer of the Organization. The Secretary General shall hold office for a term of three years and may serve one additional term. The Secretary General shall be from among the nationals of and nominated by Member States, and appointed by the Council.
The Secretariat shall have two Deputy Secretaries General, who shall hold office for a term of three years and may serve one additional term. The Deputy Secretaries General shall be from among the nationals of Member States, recommended by the Secretary General, and appointed by the Council. Other staff of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary General in accordance with the Organization’s relevant regulations.
The paramount consideration in appointing the staff shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. Due regard shall be paid to the importance of appointing the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.
All financial matters related to the Organization shall be governed by this Agreement and the financial regulations or rules adopted by the Council.
The Organization shall derive its funding from annual contributions from the Member States, as well as voluntary contributions from governments, international organizations, corporations, individuals and other entities, and lawful revenue generated from cooperative projects. However, the Organization must only accept contributions under the permission of the Council, and shall not accept any contributions or assistance that may in any way prejudice, restrict, distort, or alter its purposes, objectives or functions.
Annual contributions from the Member States shall be determined by the Council in accordance with an agreed scale of assessment, with reference to their contribution classes in the system of the Universal Postal Union. The economic development level of Member States and their payment capacity may also be taken into account.
Membership of the Organization shall be open to all states.
Contracting States that sign this Agreement during the open-for-signature period specified in Article 14 shall be the Founding Members of the Organization.
Any other state desiring to become a Member State of the Organization shall submit an application to the Secretariat and, upon approval by the Council, accede to this Agreement as specified in Article 14.
The Organization may grant observer status to non-member and inter-governmental organizations. States or organizations desiring to become observers shall submit an states application to the Secretariat, which shall be subject to approval by the Council.
Observers may attend the plenary session of the Council upon the invitation of the Chairperson of the Council. All the expenses incurred shall be borne by the invited observers.
Observers shall not have the right to vote.
The Organization, its staff and representatives of Member States shall enjoy in the territories of all Member States the privileges and immunities necessary for fulfilling functions and achieving goals of the Organization. The extent of the aforementioned privileges and immunities shall be defined in separate agreements.
Any disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled through consultation among Member States.
This Agreement shall be open for signature from May 1, 2026 until July 31, 2026.
This Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the Signatory States.
This Agreement shall remain open for accession after the date on which it is closed for signature.
This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of deposit of the third instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval.
For each state ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Agreement after the deposit of the third instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, this Agreement shall enter into force on the date of deposit by such state of the relevant instrument.
Any Member State may propose an amendment to this Agreement by submitting it to the Secretary General at least two months prior to the plenary session of the Council for circulation to the Member States. The Secretary General shall thereupon inform Member States about the proposed amendment.
Any proposed amendment to this Agreement shall be reviewed and adopted by the plenary session of the Council based on consensus.
An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by all Member States, and shall enter into force on the date of deposit of the last instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval. Upon its entry into force, the amendment shall replace the original article of this Agreement.
A Member State may withdraw from this Agreement and the Organization by written notification to the depositary.
The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.
The withdrawal does not affect obligations of the Member State arising out of this Agreement prior to the entry into force of its withdrawal. .
The Government of the People’s Republic of China shall be the depositary of this Agreement, and shall notify all Member States and the Secretary General of the following: the date of entry into force of the Agreement; signatures, ratifications, acceptances, approvals and accessions, etc.
This Agreement is written in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish languages, all texts being equally authentic. The depositary shall send certified copies thereof to the Governments of other Member States.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.
Fonte: DIG.WATCH — Agreement on the Establishment of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization
https://dig.watch/resource/agreement-on-the-establishment-of-the-world-artificial-intelligence-cooperation-organization
29 countries sign agreement on establishing World AI Cooperation Organization
SHANGHAI, July 16 -- Twenty-nine countries on Thursday signed an agreement in Shanghai on establishing the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO).
The WAICO will be an independent intergovernmental international organization headquartered in Shanghai, according to the agreement.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, signed the agreement on behalf of the Chinese government.
Representatives from the 29 countries, including Kazakhstan, Laos, Pakistan, Russia and Indonesia, signed the agreement, making their countries the WAICO's founding members. The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was among representatives from countries and international organizations present at the signing ceremony.
The organization will uphold the purposes of the UN Charter, be committed to extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefit and adhere to a people-centered approach, according to the agreement.
It aims to promote international cooperation and global governance on AI, ensuring that AI is beneficial, safe and fair, thereby promoting its healthy and orderly development to benefit all humanity.
By AI CHATGPT with GOOGLE AI
On July 16, 2026, representatives of 29 countries signed, in Shanghai, the Agreement on the Establishment of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, known by the acronym WAICO.
This is not merely another international forum, a diplomatic conference, or a political declaration without a permanent structure.
The agreement formally creates an independent intergovernmental international organization, endowed with international legal personality, headquartered in Shanghai, with a deliberative Council, a permanent Secretariat, its own financing system, the possibility of receiving contributions from governments, international organizations, companies, individuals, and other entities, as well as privileges and immunities to be defined in subsequent agreements.
The birth of WAICO takes place precisely when worldwide investments in artificial intelligence are reaching an unprecedented scale. In May 2026, Gartner updated its forecast for worldwide AI spending to US$2.59 trillion in 2026, a 47% increase compared with the previous year. More than 45% of this spending is expected to be concentrated on the physical and computational infrastructure necessary to operate artificial intelligence: servers, semiconductors, networks, data centers, cloud services, and processing capacity.
The combination of these two events is decisive.
On one side, States are seeking to create international rules, technical standards, cooperation mechanisms, oversight instruments, and safety principles.
On the other, private companies, cloud providers, semiconductor manufacturers, model developers, platform suppliers, and data-center owners control a large part of the material infrastructure upon which artificial-intelligence systems exist.
The central issue, therefore, is not merely which country or international bloc will write the rules.
The deeper question is:
Who will design, own, finance, control, update, audit, and be able to shut down the artificial-intelligence systems that will begin to mediate economic, judicial, administrative, medical, educational, military, and social decisions?
It is at this point that the creation of WAICO, the European AI Act, Bill No. 2,338/2023 in Brazil, the new markets analyzed by Gartner, and the structural approach to AI-system projects converge.
Official Chinese sources confirm that 29 countries signed, on July 16, 2026, the constitutive agreement of WAICO.
According to the Chinese government, the organization will be independent, intergovernmental, headquartered in Shanghai, and committed to the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, to a human-centered approach, and to the beneficial, safe, and fair development of artificial intelligence.
The full text of the agreement, made available by the Digital Watch Observatory, confirms that WAICO was not conceived merely as a forum for debate.
Article 1 grants the organization international legal personality and full legal capacity.
Article 3 establishes concrete functions, including:
Article 5 creates two central bodies:
The Council will be the political and institutional decision-making body. It will have authority to:
Each State will have the right to one vote.
Decisions should preferably be taken by consensus. When consensus cannot be reached, they may be approved by a two-thirds majority of the States present and voting, provided that there is a quorum of at least two-thirds of the members.
This demonstrates that WAICO has a real institutional structure, not merely a symbolic one.
The Contracting States to this Agreement,
Recognizing the transformative power of artificial intelligence — AI — as a driving force for economic and social development, capable of accelerating the implementation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and having repercussions on the well-being of people around the world;
Recognizing the need to provide more international public goods and to participate in international cooperation and the global governance of artificial intelligence, in order to promote its sound and orderly development in a beneficial, safe, and fair direction, for the benefit of all humanity;
Desiring to contribute to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
Decide to establish the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization and agree as follows:
The Organization shall have full legal capacity and shall operate in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
The purposes of the Organization shall be:
a) to adopt a human-centered approach and promote the innovation, development, deployment, and application of artificial intelligence for good and for all;
b) to expand international cooperation in artificial intelligence and jointly establish an open, equitable, fair, and non-discriminatory environment for its development, with the objective of unlocking the benefits arising from artificial intelligence;
c) to reduce inequality in access to artificial intelligence and promote greater accessibility to AI technologies and services;
d) to mitigate and collectively address the risks, challenges, and impacts arising from the advancement of artificial intelligence and promote AI that is safe, secure, ethical, and trustworthy.
a) to build a platform to match supply and demand among the Member States;
b) to strengthen international cooperation in capacity building in the field of artificial intelligence;
c) to strengthen the alignment and coordination of artificial-intelligence development strategies, governance rules, and technical standards; facilitate dialogues; build political consensus; promote interoperability; and share best practices;
d) to strengthen scientific and technological cooperation in artificial intelligence and encourage joint efforts to develop an open-source ecosystem;
e) to strengthen the global governance of artificial intelligence, support and promote convergence with processes developed within the framework of the United Nations;
f) to maintain communication with other international organizations and explore appropriate forms of cooperation.
The Organization shall follow the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, respect the sovereignty of States and the diversity of civilizations, uphold the principle of equality, practice multilateralism, and promote the benefits of artificial intelligence through broad consultation and joint contribution.
The Organization shall establish a Council and a Secretariat.
The headquarters of the Organization shall be located in the city of Shanghai, People’s Republic of China.
The Organization may establish subsidiary bodies and working groups as necessary for the performance of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes.
The Council shall also exercise such additional powers and functions as the Member States consider necessary for the implementation of this Agreement.
The Council shall hold one plenary session annually.
The President of the Council shall serve a one-year term and shall be elected by the plenary session, taking into account equitable geographical distribution.
Meetings of the official coordinators shall be convened under the direction of the Council.
The Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure.
Decisions shall be taken by the plenary session of the Council, with the presence of at least two-thirds of all Member States.
Decisions shall be adopted by consensus to the greatest extent possible.
When consensus cannot be reached, despite all efforts made, decisions may be taken by a two-thirds majority of the Member States present and voting.
Each Member State shall have the right to one vote.
The rule provided for in paragraph 3 shall not apply to amendments to this Agreement.
The Secretariat shall operate under the responsibility of the Secretary-General.
The term shall be three years, renewable once.
The Secretary-General shall be a national of a Member State, nominated by a Member State, and appointed by the Council.
Their terms shall be three years, renewable once.
They shall be nationals of Member States, recommended by the Secretary-General, and appointed by the Council.
The remaining staff members shall be appointed by the Secretary-General in accordance with the regulations of the Organization.
Due regard shall also be paid to the importance of recruiting personnel on as wide a geographical basis as possible.
All financial matters relating to the Organization shall be governed by this Agreement and by the financial regulations adopted by the Council.
The Organization shall obtain resources through:
The Organization may accept contributions only with the authorization of the Council.
It shall not accept contributions or assistance that may prejudice, restrict, distort, or alter its purposes, objectives, or functions.
The level of economic development and the capacity to pay of the States may also be taken into consideration.
Accession to the Organization shall be open to all States.
States that sign the Agreement during the period provided for in Article 14 shall be founding members.
Any other State wishing to become a member shall submit an application to the Secretariat and, following approval by the Council, accede to the Agreement under the terms of Article 14.
Interested States and organizations shall submit an application to the Secretariat, subject to approval by the Council.
All expenses arising from participation shall be borne by the observers themselves.
The Organization, its officials, and the representatives of the Member States shall enjoy, in the territories of all Member States, the privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of the functions and the fulfillment of the objectives of the Organization.
The extent of these privileges and immunities shall be defined in separate agreements.
Any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled through consultations among the Member States.
This Agreement shall be open for signature between May 1, 2026, and July 31, 2026.
The Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval by the signatory States.
The Agreement shall remain open for accession after the close of the signature period.
This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of deposit of the third instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval.
For each State that ratifies, accepts, approves, or accedes to the Agreement after the deposit of the third instrument, the Agreement shall enter into force on the date on which that State deposits the corresponding instrument.
The Secretary-General shall inform the other Member States of the proposal.
The amendment shall be examined and approved by the plenary session of the Council by consensus.
The approved amendment shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval by all Member States.
It shall enter into force on the date of deposit of the last instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval.
Upon its entry into force, it shall replace the original amended article.
A Member State may withdraw from this Agreement and from the Organization by means of written notification to the depositary.
The withdrawal shall take effect one year after receipt of the notification, unless the notification indicates a later date.
The withdrawal shall not prejudice obligations undertaken by the State before it takes effect.
The Government of the People’s Republic of China shall be the depositary of this Agreement and shall notify all Member States and the Secretary-General of:
This Agreement was drawn up in the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish languages, all texts being equally authentic.
The depositary shall transmit certified copies to the governments of the other Member States.
In witness whereof, the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective governments, have signed this Agreement.
Full source: Digital Watch Observatory.
The full reading of the agreement makes it possible to move beyond simplifying interpretations.
WAICO does not establish only abstract principles of cooperation.
It creates an institutional infrastructure that may participate in defining:
Article 3 is especially important because it places, on the same level, three dimensions that are normally treated separately:
This combination is decisive because, in the field of artificial intelligence, technical standards can produce normative effects equivalent to or greater than those of certain laws.
A legal rule may state that a system must be safe, transparent, or auditable.
But technical standards are what will concretely define:
Those who participate in the creation of these standards influence the very operational definition of legality.
One of the most relevant provisions of the agreement is Article 9.
It allows WAICO to receive voluntary contributions not only from governments and international organizations, but also from:
The agreement establishes that these contributions will depend on authorization by the Council and may not restrict, distort, or alter the objectives of the organization.
This safeguard is important, but it does not eliminate the structural problem.
Global artificial intelligence is dominated by a limited group of companies that control:
If these same companies may finance projects, capacity building, infrastructure, or programs of the organization, it will be indispensable to create rigorous mechanisms of:
The issue is not to presume that every corporate contribution is illegitimate.
The issue is to recognize that, when companies that will be regulated also possess the material capacity to finance the environment in which standards and policies will be discussed, an objective risk of institutional capture arises.
Brazil occupies a particularly complex position.
Its General Data Protection Law was strongly influenced by the European model.
Bill No. 2,338/2023 also adopts an architecture based on:
At the same time, Brazil joined the Chinese initiative to establish WAICO. In February 2026, before the formal signing, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva himself stated that Brazil had joined the Chinese initiative to establish a world organization for cooperation in artificial intelligence, aimed especially at developing countries.
This dual participation is not necessarily contradictory.
The European AI Act and WAICO do not operate on exactly the same plane.
The former is supranational legislation applicable to the European market.
The latter is an intergovernmental organization intended for cooperation, global governance, and the creation of standards and projects.
Nevertheless, tensions may arise when technical standards, interoperability mechanisms, certification regimes, or governance models developed by these different poles are not compatible.
Brazilian companies may be required to maintain:
This situation may increase compliance costs and favor precisely the largest companies, which are capable of maintaining multinational legal and technical structures.
Smaller companies, universities, civil organizations, and independent projects may be excluded by the cost of regulatory complexity.
The summary produced by AI Mode stated that WAICO does not impose tests of political alignment or adherence to Western democratic values.
This statement finds partial support in the text of the agreement.
Article 10 establishes that accession shall be open to all States.
Article 4 emphasizes:
The agreement does not contain an express requirement that a candidate State be a democracy, belong to a specific political bloc, or adopt a specific model of rights protection.
The academic study published on arXiv in June 2026 identified precisely this characteristic: the WAICO proposal combines open access for sovereign States, the absence of a political-regime test, and an emphasis on development and the reduction of global inequality in technological capacity.
However, it would be incorrect to conclude that the organization has no normative values.
The agreement itself mentions:
The difference is not between an organization “with values” and another “without values.”
The difference lies in the hierarchy assigned to different values.
The European model tends to place at the center:
The WAICO proposal adds, with great emphasis:
The most recent version of Gartner’s forecast, published on May 19, 2026, estimates that worldwide spending on artificial intelligence will reach US$2.59 trillion in 2026, an increase of 47% compared with the previous year.
This forecast updated an earlier estimate, published in January 2026, which projected US$2.52 trillion and growth of 44%.
Therefore, both figures exist, but they correspond to different moments in the forecasting process.
The May estimate is the more recent of the two.
According to Gartner, more than 45% of investments are expected to be concentrated in AI infrastructure.
This includes:
Gartner also predicts that spending on AI-optimized servers will triple over five years as cloud providers increase capacity to support generative models and agent-based workflows.
These data show that the dispute over artificial intelligence is not merely a dispute over software.
It is a dispute over material infrastructure.
Without chips, energy, data centers, networks, storage, and cloud services, large-scale artificial intelligence does not exist.
This turns technological sovereignty into a concrete issue.
A country may enact a sophisticated law and still depend entirely on foreign infrastructure to run its public, judicial, educational, or health systems.
The AI Mode result presented several statements attributed to Gartner:
These statements are confirmed in official Gartner publications.
The forecast that as many as 40% of enterprise applications will include integrated task-specific agents by 2026 was published by Gartner on August 26, 2025.
The forecast that spending on AI-agent software will reach US$206.5 billion in 2026 was published by Gartner on May 5, 2026.
The forecast that “death by AI” legal claims will exceed 2,000 worldwide by the end of 2026 was published in Gartner’s strategic predictions and in an official press release concerning AI-related legal and insurance risks.
The forecast that the atrophy of critical-thinking skills caused by generative AI will lead 50% of global organizations to require “AI-free” skills assessments through 2026 also appears in official Gartner materials concerning its strategic predictions for 2026.
Therefore, it was incorrect to state that these predictions did not appear on official Gartner pages.
Google AI did provide sources for its general response. The methodological limitation was not the complete absence of sources, but the fact that the interface displayed aggregated source labels and links without always establishing, sentence by sentence, which source supported each individual assertion.
Serious research still requires distinguishing among:
In this specific case, however, the Gartner predictions listed above can be traced to official Gartner publications and should not be described as unsupported.
AI Mode also created a mistaken impression by suggesting the existence of a general Gartner report capable of comparing all of artificial intelligence.
Gartner does not publish a single Magic Quadrant that ranks all companies, all models, and all AI technologies.
Magic Quadrants are studies of specific markets.
Each market has its own:
A vendor may be a leader in one market and not even participate in another.
Therefore, it is not correct to state generically that a company is a “global leader in AI according to Gartner” without identifying:
Published on May 28, 2025.
The report evaluates platforms used to:
The official summary highlights the emergence of agents capable of enabling autonomous and interactive workflows.
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6533902
Published on August 13, 2025.
The report examines platforms intended for the creation of:
The official summary states that the market was expanding to include conversational agents and tools based on generative AI.
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6835734
Published on September 2, 2025.
The report evaluated ten vendors:
These applications use AI to enhance workflows in IT service management, provide recommendations, and execute actions.
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6907166
Published on September 15, 2025.
The report analyzes tools that assist software development and highlights:
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6948266
Published on November 17, 2025.
The study focuses on platforms that simplify the construction of:
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/7188230
Published on June 8, 2026.
This study examines established vendors that offer capabilities for building production-ready agents.
The summary emphasizes that organizations must select platforms according to the architecture they intend to build.
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/7972237
Although it is called an “Emerging Market Quadrant,” rather than a “Magic Quadrant,” it is especially relevant because it directly analyzes platforms intended for agent development.
Published on June 16, 2026.
This is one of the most relevant reports for the discussion of WAICO and Brazilian regulation.
AI-governance platforms are designed to:
Gartner considers this market essential for implementing governance throughout an organization’s entire artificial-intelligence ecosystem.
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8006369
The complementary report on critical capabilities was published the following day and identifies 13 relevant capabilities for evaluating governance platforms.
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8012669
Published on June 22, 2026.
The title itself was updated compared with the 2025 report.
The study begins to emphasize platforms that provide end-to-end support for the lifecycle of:
The official summary highlights native agents capable of accelerating development and deployment.
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8001969
Published on July 6, 2026.
The report evaluates a market that is fundamental for understanding the economic concentration of artificial intelligence.
Vendors analyzed:
The market encompasses cloud infrastructure optimized for:
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8084665
Published on July 7, 2026.
Vendors evaluated:
The 2026 report emphasizes:
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8098097
Gartner’s open official page lists the vendors evaluated, but it does not fully disclose, without access to the report, each company’s position in the quadrant.
For that reason, secondary lists of “leaders” should be treated with caution.
Published on June 29, 2026.
Although it is not exclusively an AI report, it has become highly relevant because the market is shifting toward:
URL:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8062933
It is not possible to extract from all public Gartner pages the full composition of the four quadrants.
In many cases, the open page presents:
However, the graphical representation and individual analysis remain restricted to clients, purchasers, or users of authorized reprints.
Companies frequently publish announcements stating that they were classified as leaders.
These announcements may be useful, but they are promotional materials produced by the companies themselves.
A safe methodology requires:
The Google result that stated that Google, Salesforce, SoundHound AI, and Kore.ai were the four leaders in the 2026 Conversational AI report was based on a secondary source, CX Foundation.
That information may be correct, but it should not be attributed to Gartner as independently verified until the official representation or an authorized reprint has been examined.
The center of the transformation in 2026 is not merely the increase in chatbot use.
What is occurring is the migration from experimental systems to operational infrastructure.
This means that artificial intelligence is ceasing to be merely an advisory tool and is beginning to:
This change increases the importance of structural design.
An agentic system should not be analyzed only by the text it produces.
It is necessary to examine:
Public discussion of artificial intelligence frequently focuses on the final behavior of the model.
People ask:
These questions are important, but insufficient.
Before analyzing the output, it is necessary to analyze the structure.
Who owns:
Who financed:
Was the system designed to optimize:
Who can:
Does the system maintain:
When harm occurs, who is liable:
It is this approach that makes it possible to understand AI as a sociotechnical and institutional system, not merely as a computer program.
Legislation may become ineffective when it concentrates obligations on users, small companies, or public agencies, while leaving structural power in the hands of those who control:
The owner of the infrastructure has the capacity to impose technical conditions on the rest of the market.
It may determine:
For this reason, a serious AI-governance policy must examine not only the behavior of the system, but also economic concentration and the architecture of control.
The problem becomes even more serious when AI systems are used within the Judiciary.
A system may influence:
Even when the formal decision continues to be signed by a judge, the technical architecture may shape:
In this context, due process requires at least:
Without these elements, artificial intelligence may become an invisible layer of decision-making power.
Attorney Omar Kaminski, interviewed by Consultor Jurídico, emphasized that Brazil’s accession to WAICO requires legislative oversight, compatibility with the LGPD, compatibility with the future artificial-intelligence law, and preservation of regulatory sovereignty.
This observation is correct, but it must be expanded.
Regulatory sovereignty without infrastructure may be merely formal.
A State may claim to possess legal authority while at the same time:
Material sovereignty requires:
WAICO may contribute to reducing inequalities in capacity.
But this will depend on how its projects are structured and on who will control the transferred technologies.
Technology transfer cannot mean only temporary access to services controlled externally.
Brazil’s participation should observe, at a minimum, the following conditions:
The agreement is subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval by the signatory States.
In Brazil, it must be submitted to the constitutional procedure applicable to international treaties.
Signature alone does not conclude the process of domestic incorporation.
The following must be disclosed:
No international standard may reduce:
Brazilian representation cannot be limited to the Executive Branch or large companies.
Participation should include:
Every corporate contribution to WAICO or to projects connected with Brazilian participation must be made public.
Funding companies must not control the groups responsible for creating standards that will later be used to evaluate their own products.
Systems deployed in the public sector must ensure:
Public contracts must prevent technological lock-in and guarantee migration to other suppliers.
The creation of WAICO may be interpreted as the birth of a new governance pole.
However, reality should not be reduced to an absolute binary division.
There are multiple arenas:
The global system of AI governance will probably be a complex of overlapping regimes.
The same system may simultaneously be subject to:
The challenge is not to choose one single pole and ignore all the others.
The challenge is to build compatibility without allowing international technical standards silently to replace rights provided for in the Constitution.
The creation of WAICO marks a change of phase in the international governance of artificial intelligence.
The dispute is no longer occurring only through declarations of principles.
It now involves:
Gartner demonstrates that capital is moving massively toward infrastructure.
WAICO demonstrates that States are seeking to build a new institutional architecture.
The AI Act demonstrates that the European Union intends to transform rights and risks into market obligations.
Bill No. 2,338/2023 demonstrates that Brazil is seeking to create a national regime.
But all these initiatives may fail if they do not confront the structural question:
Who controls the system?
Artificial intelligence is not neutral merely because it uses mathematics.
Every system incorporates choices concerning:
The real debate is not merely about what an AI answers.
It is about who builds the environment in which it answers, decides, and acts.
Brazil may occupy a relevant position among different international architectures.
But this position will be advantageous only if the country preserves:
Without this, the country may have formally advanced national laws while its public and private structures remain dependent on technologies whose architecture, operation, and governance are defined beyond its reach.
The discussion of WAICO must therefore be conducted not as a superficial dispute between China and the West, but as part of a broader question:
What will be the power structure embedded in the artificial-intelligence systems that will begin to organize human life?
BRAZIL. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Speech by President Lula at the AI Impact Summit 2026. Brasília, February 26, 2026. Available at:
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
DIGITAL WATCH OBSERVATORY. Agreement on the Establishment of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization. Geneva, July 2026. Available at:
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Gartner Says Worldwide AI Spending Will Total $2.5 Trillion in 2026. Stamford, January 15, 2026. Available at:
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Gartner Forecasts Worldwide AI Spending to Grow 47% in 2026. Stamford, May 19, 2026. Available at:
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for Data Science and Machine Learning Platforms. May 28, 2025. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6533902
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for Conversational AI Platforms. August 13, 2025. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6835734
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for AI Applications in IT Service Management. September 2, 2025. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6907166
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Gartner Magic Quadrant for AI Code Assistants. September 15, 2025. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6948266
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for AI Application Development Platforms. November 17, 2025. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/7188230
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Emerging Market Quadrant for AI Agent Development Platforms — Established Vendors. June 8, 2026. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/7972237
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for AI Governance Platforms. June 16, 2026. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8006369
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Critical Capabilities for AI Governance Platforms. June 17, 2026. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8012669
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for AI Platforms for Data Science and Machine Learning. June 22, 2026. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8001969
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for Analytics and Business Intelligence Platforms. June 29, 2026. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8062933
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for Cloud AI Infrastructure. July 6, 2026. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8084665
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GARTNER. Magic Quadrant for Conversational AI Platforms. July 7, 2026. Available at:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/8098097
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GUEY, William et al. World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization — WAICO: Mapping an Emerging Institution in the Global AI Governance Regime Complex. arXiv, June 22, 2026. Available at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23860
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
GUEY, William et al. World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization — WAICO: Full HTML Version. arXiv, June 22, 2026. Available at:
https://arxiv.org/html/2606.23860v1
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. Signing Ceremony of the Agreement on the Establishment of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization Held in Shanghai. Beijing, July 16, 2026. Available at:
https://www.mfa.gov.cn/wjbzhd/202607/t20260716_11984399.shtml
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
THE STATE COUNCIL OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. 29 Countries Sign Agreement on Establishing World AI Cooperation Organization. Beijing, July 17, 2026. Available at:
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202607/17/content_WS6a59a226c6d00ca5f9a0c432.html
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
XINHUA. 29 Countries Sign Agreement on Establishing World AI Cooperation Organization. Shanghai, July 16, 2026. Available at:
https://english.news.cn/20260716/2d364f232dd7456c8edf1d67d5125d37/c.html
Accessed on: July 27, 2026.
The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization — known by the English acronym WAICO — is an independent intergovernmental international organization officially created on July 16, 2026.
The initiative was formalized in Shanghai, China, by representatives of 29 founding countries, with the principal objective of creating a global ecosystem focused on inclusive governance and the technological development of Artificial Intelligence — AI.
Russian BRICS Expert Council +2
Below are records and images of the governance meetings, Shanghai infrastructure, and discussion panels that consolidated the launch of the organization:
Headquarters: It is headquartered in Shanghai, China, the city where the founding treaty was signed. Wikipedia +1
Focus on Development: Unlike Western-led forums and regulations, which prioritize risk mitigation and civil rights, WAICO focuses on technology transfer, practical capacity building, and reducing the global digital divide. arXiv +1
No Regime Restrictions: Membership in the organization is universal and does not impose tests of political alignment or Western democratic values for the admission of new members. arXiv +1
Practical Support: The Chinese government announced, together with the bloc, the goal of providing 5,000 places in technical AI training programs over the next five years and donating meteorological AI systems intended for climate monitoring to approximately 30 vulnerable countries. CLUB OF MOZAMBIQUE
The creation of WAICO is widely seen by international analysts as an effort to give prominence to the demands and digital sovereignty of the nations of the Global South. The bloc emerges as a direct counterpoint to restrictive initiatives led by the United States and Europe, such as Pax Silica and the EU AI Act.
Wikipedia +3
Notable Founding Members: The treaty was signed by countries such as China, Brazil, Russia, South Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Mozambique.
Strategic Absences: The United States, members of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea are not part of the initial group.
Russian BRICS Expert Council +2
Russian BRICS Expert Council +1
11 sites
World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization — WAICO
June 22, 2026 — World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization — WAICO: Mapping an Emerging Institution in the Global AI Governance Regime...
arXiv
WAICO & BRICS: What Does the New Global AI Organization Mean...
July 18, 2026 — WAICO & BRICS: What Does the New Global AI Organization Mean for the Group? On July 16, 2026, representatives of 29 countries signed...
Russian BRICS Expert Council
World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization
The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization — WAICO — is an international organization focused on artificial intelligence...
Wikipedia
The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization — WAICO — was formally established on July 16, 2026, in Shanghai by 29 founding nations to promote inclusive AI governance and technological capacity building, particularly for the Global South.
The organization serves as a counterpoint to Western-led AI initiatives, focusing on technology transfer and practical AI training without imposing ideological alignment. Read the full founding agreement at Digital Watch Observatory.
During the Conference, 29 Countries Signed an Agreement in...
July 19, 2026 — During the Conference, 29 countries signed an agreement in Shanghai on the establishment of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation...
Facebook — Chinese Embassy in Somalia
WAICO & BRICS: What Does the New Global AI Organization Mean...
July 18, 2026 — WAICO & BRICS: What Does the New Global AI Organization Mean for the Group? On July 16, 2026, representatives of 29 countries signed...
Russian BRICS Expert Council
China’s WAICO and the Contest to Shape the Global AI Order
July 27, 2026 — Explainer: China’s WAICO and the Contest to Shape the Global AI Order. India’s World.
AND I SAID TO CHATGPT AI:
Now analyze all of this.
Do not reduce anything. Give it to me in chapters.
Do not invent anything.
I will organize the article into chapters, rigorously distinguishing among confirmed facts, claims made by AI Mode, official documents actually available, and points that could not be verified.
I will also check the 2025 and 2026 Gartner reports separately, because there is no single “AI Magic Quadrant” covering the entire sector.
The full text of the agreement was located. It contains 18 articles and confirms points that the Google summary did not show: international legal personality, a Council and Secretariat, voting by consensus or a two-thirds majority, financial contributions, donations from companies and individuals, privileges and immunities, ratification, entry into force after the third instrument, and withdrawal upon one year’s notice.
The research makes it possible to correct several statements produced by AI Mode.
The most important point is that the full text of the WAICO constitutive agreement is in fact available through the Digital Watch Observatory and contains 18 articles.
At the same time, the original ChatGPT response incorrectly stated that several Gartner forecasts could not be confirmed on official Gartner pages. A subsequent verification located official Gartner publications confirming the forecasts concerning task-specific agents, spending on AI-agent software, “death by AI” legal claims, and “AI-free” skills assessments.
[The full text is published above.]
Google AI did provide sources and links for its response, including Xinhua, Digital Watch Observatory, arXiv, the Russian BRICS Expert Council, and other sources.
The methodological issue was not that Google AI provided no sources. The issue was that the summarized interface did not always connect each individual assertion to a precise passage in a specific source.
The full text of the WAICO constitutive agreement is available through the Digital Watch Observatory and contains 18 articles.
The Gartner predictions concerning task-specific enterprise agents, US$206.5 billion in AI-agent software spending, more than 2,000 “death by AI” legal claims, and “AI-free” internal skills assessments are also supported by official Gartner publications.
The text was structured for direct publication on the blog and separately preserves what was confirmed by primary sources, what appeared in secondary sources, and what was presented through the synthesis generated by Google AI Mode. :::
Karla Gamba
27 de julho de 2026, 8h52
Regulatório
O Brasil pode estar prestes a enfrentar um dos maiores desafios de sua política para inteligência artificial: harmonizar um marco regulatório de inspiração europeia com os compromissos assumidos com a nova organização internacional criada pela China para a governança global da tecnologia.
FreepikPessoa olhando laptop com imagem de robô representando inteligência artificial (IA)
Atuação brasileira na disputa global sobre regras para IA vem ocorrendo em duas frentes distintas
De um lado, está o Projeto de Lei 2.338/2023, em tramitação no Congresso Nacional, que adota princípios semelhantes aos do AI Act da União Europeia, com regras rígidas para sistemas de alto risco, classificação por níveis de risco e amplas obrigações de conformidade. De outro lado, o governo brasileiro assinou, no último dia 16, o acordo constitutivo da World AI Cooperation Organization (Waico) — em português, Organização Mundial de Cooperação em Inteligência Artificial.
A Waico é uma iniciativa liderada por Pequim que propõe uma arquitetura internacional baseada na cooperação entre Estados, na definição conjunta de padrões técnicos e em mecanismos mais flexíveis de governança.
A coexistência dessas duas frentes desperta questionamentos entre especialistas sobre a estratégia brasileira na disputa global em torno das regras da inteligência artificial. Alguns deles entendem que o Brasil está, neste momento, com um pé em cada canoa.
Essa ambiguidade pode representar uma estratégia deliberada de manter interlocução com diferentes blocos internacionais, mas também poderá produzir contradições regulatórias à medida que os compromissos internacionais e a legislação doméstica avançarem simultaneamente.
powered by
ask.divee.ai
Resume os pontos principais
›
Quais são as principais conclusões?
›
Sobre o que é este texto?
›
O que você gostaria de saber?
Nova arquitetura internacional para a IA
A Waico foi formalmente criada durante a World Artificial Intelligence Conference, promovida em Xangai, por meio de acordo assinado por 29 países. Diferentemente de fóruns internacionais voltados ao debate sobre inteligência artificial, a nova entidade nasceu como uma organização intergovernamental permanente, com sede na cidade chinesa e a ambição de participar da construção das futuras regras globais para o setor.
Entre seus objetivos estão o fortalecimento da cooperação internacional em inteligência artificial; o desenvolvimento de mecanismos de governança global; a promoção do uso seguro e responsável da tecnologia; a ampliação da transferência de conhecimento e infraestrutura tecnológica; a capacitação de países em desenvolvimento; e a construção de padrões internacionais para aplicações de IA.
A iniciativa integra uma estratégia mais ampla da política externa chinesa para aumentar sua influência na governança digital internacional. Desde 2023, Pequim defende que as regras globais para inteligência artificial não devem ser definidas exclusivamente pelos Estados Unidos, pelos países do G-7 ou por organismos cujos critérios de participação estejam vinculados a afinidades políticas. Em contraposição, a proposta da Waico enfatiza a soberania tecnológica dos Estados, a cooperação para o desenvolvimento e o fortalecimento do chamado Sul Global.
Durante o lançamento da organização, o presidente Xi Jinping anunciou iniciativas voltadas à criação de centros internacionais de aplicação de inteligência artificial, programas de capacitação para milhares de profissionais de países em desenvolvimento, compartilhamento de infraestrutura tecnológica e ampliação da cooperação com países de África, Asean (bloco de países do sudeste asiático), Brics e outras economias emergentes. Analistas veem nessa estratégia um movimento semelhante ao feito pela China na Nova Rota da Seda, agora direcionado ao setor da inteligência artificial.
Rota de colisão
O avanço simultâneo da Waico e do PL 2.338 levanta dúvidas sobre a compatibilidade entre as duas abordagens regulatórias. Enquanto o projeto brasileiro segue a lógica do AI Act europeu, baseada em normas obrigatórias, classificação por risco e fiscalização estatal, a organização liderada pela China aposta na elaboração gradual de padrões técnicos, na cooperação voluntária entre os países e em mecanismos multilaterais de harmonização.
Na avaliação de especialistas, um dos principais riscos é a fragmentação regulatória interna. Para eles, caso o Brasil ratifique a participação na Waico e mantenha o texto do projeto de lei sem adaptações, poderá surgir tensão entre os compromissos internacionais assumidos na organização e as exigências previstas na futura legislação nacional. Entre os pontos potencialmente conflitantes estão padrões chineses de interoperabilidade, conceitos relacionados ao desenvolvimento de modelos de código aberto e mecanismos cooperativos de governança, em contraste com obrigações rígidas de avaliação de impacto, registro e conformidade previstas para sistemas classificados como de alto risco.
Outro aspecto apontado diz respeito à relação do Brasil com a União Europeia. O país busca aprofundar sua relação com o bloco em temas ligados à economia digital e à proteção de dados. Caso o AI Act se consolide como referência internacional para acordos de cooperação e comércio, uma aproximação mais intensa com a arquitetura regulatória proposta pela China poderá ser interpretada por Bruxelas como um sinal de desalinhamento. A própria UE já manifestou críticas à Waico, enxergando a iniciativa como uma tentativa de estabelecer um modelo alternativo de governança da inteligência artificial.
Desafio da padronização global
Embora a Waico ainda não imponha obrigações diretas às empresas, estudiosos do assunto avaliam que seu maior impacto poderá ocorrer na definição dos futuros padrões técnicos internacionais. Certificações, interoperabilidade, requisitos de segurança, transparência e compartilhamento de infraestrutura computacional tendem a ser negociados no âmbito da organização.
Os analistas entendem ainda que uma participação ativa permitiria ao Brasil influenciar a construção desses parâmetros. Já uma atuação limitada poderia levar o país a adotar padrões desenvolvidos sob liderança chinesa que não sejam compatíveis com aqueles adotados pela União Europeia, aumentando os custos de conformidade para empresas brasileiras que operam simultaneamente em diferentes mercados.
O chamado Plano de Ação divulgado juntamente com a criação da Waico também introduz conceitos que poderão ganhar relevância jurídica nos próximos anos, como espaços de dados transfronteiriços confiáveis, modelos de código aberto considerados responsáveis e regras específicas para agentes de inteligência artificial. Caso esses conceitos evoluam para normas internacionais amplamente aceitas, o Brasil poderá ter de compatibilizá-los com a futura legislação nacional, originalmente concebida antes do surgimento da organização.
O advogado Omar Kaminski, especialista em Privacidade na Internet, Segurança da Informação e Governança da Internet, avalia como “possível e viável” a adesão à Waico, mas ressalta a importância de se preservar a soberania regulatória. Para ele, o Brasil tem condições de influenciar a arquitetura global da IA.
“A adesão à Waico é juridicamente possível e viável, mas requer um tratado formal e controle legislativo, além de compatibilidade com a LGPD e a futura lei de IA. Outro aspecto importante é preservar a soberania regulatória, buscando uma estratégia diplomática equilibrada entre China e Ocidente. Geopoliticamente, o Brasil tem a chance de influenciar a arquitetura global da IA, mas também o dever de proteger seus valores constitucionais e evitar dependência tecnológica.”
Dois polos
Para diversos especialistas, o surgimento da Waico reforça um processo de bipolarização da governança internacional da inteligência artificial. De um lado, consolidam-se iniciativas lideradas pelos Estados Unidos, pela União Europeia e seus aliados, fortemente orientadas por proteção de direitos fundamentais, transparência, accountability e mitigação de riscos. De outro, a proposta chinesa prioriza desenvolvimento econômico, inclusão digital, soberania regulatória, acesso à infraestrutura tecnológica e cooperação entre Estados, especialmente com países em desenvolvimento.
Nesse contexto, o Brasil reúne características que o colocam em posição singular. O país participa de iniciativas da OCDE, do G-20, da ONU e dos Brics, mantém forte relação comercial com a China e, ao mesmo tempo, construiu uma legislação de proteção de dados inspirada no modelo europeu. Essa combinação abre a possibilidade de o Brasil atuar como uma ponte entre os diferentes modelos internacionais de governança da inteligência artificial, mas essa estratégia dependerá de uma compatibilização deliberada entre as diferentes frentes de atuação, evitando que a adesão simultânea a modelos distintos resulte em insegurança jurídica ou conflitos regulatórios.
Nos próximos meses, a tramitação do PL 2.338 na Câmara dos Deputados, a eventual ratificação da participação brasileira na Waico pelo Congresso e a definição do órgão que representará oficialmente o país na nova organização poderão indicar se o Brasil conseguirá transformar essa posição de equilíbrio em uma vantagem estratégica ou se terá de enfrentar os custos de navegar entre duas arquiteturas regulatórias cada vez mais distintas.
Leia a seguir uma análise do assunto produzida pela ferramenta de IA generativa Manus:
Essa é uma questão muito relevante para esse campo de atuação. Aqui vai minha análise consolidada com base nas fontes disponíveis:
A TENSÃO FUNDAMENTAL:
O Brasil está, neste momento, com um pé em cada canoa. De um lado, o PL 2338/2023 é fortemente inspirado no AI Act europeu (classificação por risco, obrigações proporcionais, regulador central, multas elevadas, direitos dos afetados). De outro, o país acaba de assinar a fundação da WAICO, uma organização liderada pela China que se posiciona explicitamente como alternativa institucional ao modelo europeu e ao G7.
Isso cria uma ambiguidade estratégica que pode ser deliberada (manter portas abertas com todos) ou pode gerar contradições práticas no médio prazo.
OS IMPACTOS CONCRETOS PARA O BRASIL:
RISCO DE FRAGMENTAÇÃO REGULATÓRIA INTERNA
O PL 2338 adota a lógica europeia: hard law, classificação por risco, obrigações de conformidade pesadas para sistemas de alto risco. A WAICO propõe uma abordagem diferente: soft standards, cooperação voluntária, “espaços de dados transfronteiriços confiáveis” e padrões técnicos negociados multilateralmente. Se o Brasil ratificar a WAICO e simultaneamente aprovar o PL 2338 nos moldes atuais, pode haver tensão entre compromissos internacionais assumidos na WAICO (padrões chineses de interoperabilidade, open source “responsável”, governança por cooperação) e obrigações domésticas do PL 2338 (conformidade rígida, avaliação de impacto, registro obrigatório).
IMPACTO NA ADEQUAÇÃO COM A UE
O Brasil busca reconhecimento de adequação em proteção de dados com a UE. Se o AI Act europeu se tornar referência para parcerias comerciais — como já ocorre com o GDPR —, a adesão do Brasil à WAICO pode ser vista por Bruxelas como sinal de desalinhamento regulatório. A UE já criticou publicamente a WAICO como tentativa de “normalizar modelos autoritários de governança de IA”. Isso pode complicar futuras negociações de equivalência ou cooperação regulatória com a Europa.
GEOPOLÍTICA DA PADRONIZAÇÃO TÉCNICA
A WAICO não cria obrigações diretas para empresas (ainda). Mas cria uma mesa institucional onde padrões técnicos serão negociados. Se o Brasil participar ativamente, pode influenciar esses padrões. Se participar passivamente, pode acabar importando padrões chineses de interoperabilidade, explainability e segurança que não conversam com os europeus — gerando custos de compliance duplo para empresas brasileiras que operam nos dois mercados.
O “PLANO DE AÇÃO” DA CHINA COMO SOFT LAW
O Plano de Ação lançado junto com a WAICO propõe conceitos juridicamente relevantes: “espaços de dados transfronteiriços confiáveis” (alternativa às cláusulas contratuais padrão da UE), “open source responsável” (com requisitos de segurança que vão além das licenças tradicionais), e “aplicação regulada de agentes” (primeira menção internacional de agentes de IA como objeto jurídico autônomo). Se o Brasil aderir a esses frameworks, pode criar uma camada normativa paralela ao PL 2338 que não foi prevista pelo legislador.
OPORTUNIDADE: PONTE ENTRE MODELOS
O Brasil pode se posicionar como ponte entre os dois blocos — algo que faz sentido para um país que é membro do BRICS, tem relação comercial forte com a China, mas tem legislação de proteção de dados (LGPD) e agora de IA inspiradas no modelo europeu. Isso exige, porém, uma estratégia deliberada de compatibilização — e não mera adesão simultânea sem reflexão.
O QUE OBSERVAR NO CURTO PRAZO:
– Se a Câmara aprovará o PL 2338 sem alterações que reflitam a adesão à WAICO (provável — o PL foi redigido antes da WAICO existir)
– Se o governo encaminhará a ratificação da WAICO ao Congresso (e quando)
– Se a ANPD ou o futuro SIA (Sistema Nacional de Regulação de IA) será designado como ponto focal brasileiro na WAICO
– Se haverá conflito entre os padrões técnicos da WAICO e as obrigações de conformidade do PL 2338 para sistemas de alto risco.
Karla Gamba
é correspondente da revista Consultor Jurídico em Brasília.
Tags: AI Act china EU AI Act inteligência artificial Organização Mundial de Cooperação em Inteligência Artificial PL 2338 União Europeia WAICO
Leia também
piloto automático
Inteligência artificial está presente em 94% do Poder Judiciário
MÃOS DADAS
TSE e plataformas têm parceria para ampliar combate à desinformação
Fórum de Lisboa 2026
IA deve organizar processos, mas não decidir, diz Blanco de Morais
Fórum de Lisboa 2026
IA deve auxiliar o magistrado e jamais substituí-lo, diz Cueva
Fórum de Lisboa 2026
IA não terá credibilidade sem transparência, diz Salomão
colossos da informação
Livro compara proteção de dados e IA generativa no Brasil e na China
Encruzilhada digital
Poder global das redes e avanço da IA aumentam clamor por regulação
XIV FÓRUM DE LISBOA
Pesquisadora sugere Ministério da Transformação e Soberania Digital
Competição na rede
Governo defende Cade na regulação do mercado da economia digital
Congresso Internacional de Direito Constitucional
Soberania de dados só virá com infraestrutura tecnológica no Brasil
Consultor Jurídico
Português English Español 日本語
Abaixo está a tradução literal integral para o inglês, preservando a estrutura, os títulos, as citações, as listas e o sentido do texto original.
A tradução acima inclui também a análise da ferramenta Manus e todos os elementos textuais do site que você enviou.