Scholarlink

<p>This paper undertakes an examination not of AI or law per se, but of the framework within which we speak of them. It asks: when we invoke concepts such as “sovereignty,” “justice,” or “fairness,” what do we presuppose? These are not neutral or universal categories. They are the outcome of a specific cultural history, the theological imagination of Europe, subsequently secularized and naturalized as legal and political commonsense. The universality of such categories is not evidence of their truth but of their successful global dissemination. Through a genealogy of their theological roots, this paper shows how their deployment in AI governance results in epistemic distortions when applied to non-European societies. What appears as neutrality is, in fact, the imposition of a foreign grammar. The paper’s distinctive contribution is to show that contemporary AI governance does not merely <i>repeat</i> a rights-based universalism; it operationalizes it. By translating moral-political categories (fairness, rights, dignity) into risk tiers, compliance checklists, audits, and statistical metrics, AI law turns a regional grammar into a portable template that travels through supply chains and standards. The Indian case is used not to “illustrate colonialism” in general, but to diagnose a specific double bind: domestic normative commitments collide with imported, metric-driven fairness regimes, producing institutional pressures that neither side’s concepts can easily resolve.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Political fantasies of fairness: artificial intelligence, law, and the myth of sovereign reason

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月8日

查看全文
  • Keerthiraj,
  • Apoorva Misra,
  • N. G. Devaiah

摘要

This paper undertakes an examination not of AI or law per se, but of the framework within which we speak of them. It asks: when we invoke concepts such as “sovereignty,” “justice,” or “fairness,” what do we presuppose? These are not neutral or universal categories. They are the outcome of a specific cultural history, the theological imagination of Europe, subsequently secularized and naturalized as legal and political commonsense. The universality of such categories is not evidence of their truth but of their successful global dissemination. Through a genealogy of their theological roots, this paper shows how their deployment in AI governance results in epistemic distortions when applied to non-European societies. What appears as neutrality is, in fact, the imposition of a foreign grammar. The paper’s distinctive contribution is to show that contemporary AI governance does not merely repeat a rights-based universalism; it operationalizes it. By translating moral-political categories (fairness, rights, dignity) into risk tiers, compliance checklists, audits, and statistical metrics, AI law turns a regional grammar into a portable template that travels through supply chains and standards. The Indian case is used not to “illustrate colonialism” in general, but to diagnose a specific double bind: domestic normative commitments collide with imported, metric-driven fairness regimes, producing institutional pressures that neither side’s concepts can easily resolve.