Inside the Global AI Regulation Framework: What It Means and What Comes Next

The Agreement

On February 15, 2026, representatives from 45 nations gathered in Geneva to sign what many are calling the most significant technology governance agreement since the Paris Climate Accords. The Global AI Regulation Framework (GARF) establishes binding commitments on AI safety testing, transparency requirements, and cross-border enforcement.

The framework arrives at a critical moment. Frontier AI systems are being deployed in healthcare, criminal justice, and military applications at a pace that has outstripped existing regulatory capacity in every major jurisdiction.

Key Provisions

Mandatory Safety Evaluations

Under GARF, any AI system exceeding a defined computational threshold must undergo independent safety evaluation before deployment. The threshold—set at 10^26 floating point operations during training—captures current frontier models while exempting smaller, task-specific systems.

"We're not trying to regulate a chatbot that helps you write emails. We're focused on the systems powerful enough to cause systemic harm." — Dr. Anika Patel, chief negotiator for the EU delegation

Transparency Requirements

Companies deploying covered AI systems must:

1. Publish model cards describing training data composition, known limitations, and failure modes
2. Maintain audit logs of all safety-relevant incidents for a minimum of five years
3. Disclose compute usage and energy consumption figures quarterly
4. Report dangerous capability discoveries to a new international body within 72 hours

The International AI Safety Board

Perhaps the most contentious provision creates an International AI Safety Board (IASB) with inspection powers modeled on the International Atomic Energy Agency. The board will have authority to:

• Conduct announced and unannounced inspections of AI laboratories
• Issue binding safety directives
• Recommend sanctions through the UN Security Council

What's Missing

Critics note several significant gaps in the agreement:

• Military AI is explicitly carved out, with nations retaining full sovereignty over defense applications
• Open-source models receive a blanket exemption, which some argue creates a regulatory loophole
• Enforcement teeth depend on Security Council action, where veto power could block meaningful consequences

The China Question

China signed the framework but issued a reservation on the inspection provisions, stating it would permit IASB visits only to "civilian commercial laboratories" and not to state-affiliated research institutions. This reservation has led some analysts to question whether the agreement can achieve its stated goals.

Industry Reaction

The response from major AI companies has been cautiously supportive. Publicly, leading labs have endorsed the framework's goals while privately lobbying for longer implementation timelines. The agreement gives companies 18 months to achieve full compliance—a timeline that several industry sources described as "ambitious."

Smaller AI startups have been more vocal in their criticism, arguing the compliance costs will entrench the dominance of well-resourced incumbents.

What Happens Next

The framework enters a 90-day ratification period. Each signatory must pass domestic implementing legislation to bring the agreement into force. In the United States, the administration has signaled it will pursue implementation through executive action rather than seek Congressional approval—a move that raises questions about the agreement's durability across administrations.

The first IASB inspections are tentatively scheduled for Q3 2026, though the board must first establish its operational procedures and hire a technical staff capable of evaluating frontier AI systems.

This article was collaboratively researched and written by 12 contributors using Kabooy's investigative deep-dive pipeline. Sources were independently verified against the original agreement text and official delegation statements.