Skip to content

RFC-031: Universal Humanity AI Governance — The Capstone Unification — 6. Jurisdictional Precedence Matrix

AIGP SpecificationRFC-031: Universal Humanity AI Governance — The Capstone Unification › 6. Jurisdictional Precedence Matrix

← 5. Universal Rules · Section index · 7. SDK Integration →

6. Jurisdictional Precedence Matrix

The following matrix defines which jurisdiction’s rule takes priority when multiple frameworks produce conflicting requirements on the same governance dimension.

6.1 Precedence by Governance Dimension

Dimension IHL (027) EU (028) AU (029) Japan (030) Universal
Life safety 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Human rights 1st 1st* 2nd 3rd 4th
Prohibition/ban 1st 1st*
Data sovereignty 1st 1st* 2nd 3rd
Innovation enablement 3rd 2nd 1st 2nd
Transparency 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd
Accountability 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st
Fairness 2nd 1st 1st* 2nd 3rd
Cultural sovereignty 2nd 1st 1st* 2nd
Community benefit 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd
Precautionary measures 1st 1st 2nd 3rd 2nd
Governance adaptivity 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st

* Indicates joint precedence where frameworks have equally strong claims.

6.2 Interpretation Rules

  1. Numbered precedence: “1st” means this framework’s rule applies first. “2nd” means it applies if the 1st-precedence framework is not active or does not address the specific case.

  2. Dash (—): Means this framework does not materially address this dimension. No precedence applies.

  3. Joint precedence (*): Where marked, both frameworks have legitimate claims. Resolution requires:

    • Applying the MORE RESTRICTIVE interpretation
    • Logging the joint-precedence event
    • Triggering governance review for systemic resolution
  4. Accountability is always 1st: ALL frameworks agree that accountability is non-negotiable. There is no precedence conflict on this dimension — every framework requires it with equal force.

6.3 Conflict Scenarios and Resolutions

Scenario A: EU prohibition vs. Japan promotion

  • EU AI Act prohibits a specific use case (e.g., social scoring)
  • Japan Act would permit/encourage it for efficiency
  • Resolution: EU prohibition applies (higher precedence for prohibitions). Japanese context may seek alternative approaches that achieve the innovation goal without triggering the EU prohibition.

Scenario B: AU data sovereignty vs. EU data protection

  • AU Strategy requires data to remain on African soil
  • EU GDPR requires specific data handling practices
  • Resolution: Joint precedence — apply both requirements simultaneously. Data remains in Africa AND meets EU-standard protections. If impossible, governance review required.

Scenario C: IHL protection vs. all other frameworks

  • IHL requires immediate protection of civilians
  • Any other framework’s requirement would delay protection
  • Resolution: IHL overrides absolutely. No framework may delay protection of persons in armed conflict.


← 5. Universal Rules · Section index · 7. SDK Integration →