Skip to content
Open access

COMPLIANCE THEATRE: RETHINKING EVALUATION AND ENFORCEMENT IN FRONTIER AI REGULATION

Jul 2026 · The Cambridge Law Journal · pp. 1-29 · 0 citations

TL;DR

Faced with the prospect of an anthropocentric ceiling to efforts to understand frontier AI systems, a new paradigm for lawmakers is proposed, Sentinel Governance, grounded in governance-oriented innovation and experimentation to supplement human oversight of AI.

Abstract

This article argues for a re-evaluation of the current orthodoxy in artificial intelligence (AI) regulation, driven by the inconvenient reality that existing mechanisms for measuring AI capabilities are inadequate for the task of evaluating general-purpose AI. Lawmakers and legal scholars alike have drastically overestimated our understanding of frontier AI systems and how they work. Nascent governance frameworks often assume a basic capacity for evaluating general-purpose AI that is simply not supported by the technical literature – they are built on a house of cards. The rapid pace of progress on the AI frontier has taken general-purpose AI past the point where a human expert can reliably interpret or interrogate their behaviour, particularly to the legal standards that lawmakers have codified to date. This article explores how technological complexities within general-purpose AI create sui generis challenges for regulators and the law. Faced with the prospect of an anthropocentric ceiling to efforts to understand frontier AI systems, this article proposes a new paradigm for lawmakers, Sentinel Governance, grounded in governance-oriented innovation and experimentation to supplement human oversight of AI. New mechanisms for evaluation and enforcement are needed to avoid AI regulations subsiding into a checkbox exercise.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access 2026

Between law and code: Operationalizing responsible AI in public administration

This article investigates how to translate abstract responsible artificial intelligence (AI) principles into practical constraints for public-sector AI systems, and proposes a concrete techno-legal architecture that ensures automated public decisions comply with enduring legal norms.

Prema Elumalai, Ragul Olakkur Vijayakumar · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

Cyber Algorithmic Governance: AI as a new normative agent in contemporary law

A systematic review of the literature covering the last decade of academic research, a comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks, and case studies that reveal both the benefits and risks of delegating legal functions to automated systems are examined.

Víctor Rodríguez González, Rafael Canorea-García, Juan Carlos Fernández-Rodríguez et al. · 0 citations
Sep 2026

Artificial Intelligence as a Challenge for Human Rights, Labour Law and Antitrust Regulations

The intersection between AI and antitrust law is explored, analysing whether AI can be used to facilitate anti-competitive practices and to what extent algorithm-driven pricing mechanisms act autonomously and to what degree they may be intentionally influenced or optimized to benefit corporate interests.

Daniel Milewski, Cezary Małozięć · 0 citations
Review Open access 2026

Constitutional Intelligence as a Governance Architecture for Trustworthy Public-Sector AI

The central claim is that constitutional and democratic requirements should not be treated as external compliance burdens when embedded into institutional design, they operate as productive constraints that improve legitimacy, implementation discipline, and the long-term trustworthiness of AI-enabled public decision-ma...

C. Oliveira · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

Problems of AI Regulation: Solutions Through Soft Law

The study concludes that courts are experiencing difficulties in applying existing legal norms to new legal facts arising from AI, which justifies a balanced approach to legal regulation of AI, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and ethical standards while providing the necessary freedom for the development...

Daniel Danov · 0 citations
Aug 2026

Artificial Intelligence and Command Responsibility Under the Rome Statute: Reassessing Knowledge and Effective Control

This article proposes that the ‘should have known’ standard under Article 28(a) be interpreted to encompass risk awareness of AI system limitations, and that effective control extend to the organisational and technological conditions governing AI deployment.

Md. Sariful Islam · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.