AI and Technical Standardization in China and the EU: Diverging priorities and the need for common ground
Given the highly disruptive potential of AI, global cooperation on AI safety and governance is imperative, and yet the deeply transformational potential of AI also ensures that a high level of competition and systemic rivalry is likely unavoidable. How can the EU best manage its complex relationship with China in the field of AI so as to ensure a necessary level of cooperation in spite of competition and rivalry?
This Policy Brief offers insights from the field of technical standardization for AI. Technical standards are crucial for defining the parameters of AI systems, from basic reference architectures to security and ethics requirements to the technical functioning of specific applications in a wide diversity of fields including healthcare, education, advanced manufacturing, energy, and agriculture. In their efforts to harness and channel the development of AI, both China and the EU have turned to technical standard setting as a means to mitigate risks and achieve broad political goals.
The EU’s AI Act has placed technical standards at the heart of the AI governance conversation by aiming for the development of European “harmonized standards” around risk criteria that AI systems and products must meet in order to comply with EU regulations. China meanwhile has aimed to establish itself as a global leader in AI standardization and is working to balance two, often competing priorities of ensuring control while facilitating innovation and boosting competitiveness. The EU and China seem to be at odds, and yet, common standards are needed to ensure space at the foundational, technical level for necessary cooperation on AI safety and governance and to avoid a more structural slide into de-coupling.
Policy recommendations:
Ensuring a baseline of synergy on technical standards requires that Europe and China, but also key global partners starting with the United States, come to a common understanding at two levels, as further explored below:
Standard-setting at the domestic level:
- The parameters and red lines of domestic standards participation by foreign entities in the AI domain in China, in the EU and elsewhere must be clarified.
Standard-setting at the international level:
- International standardization of AI should be channeled toward established forums such as the ISO/IEC.
- Greater synergies on AI and standardization between the EU and its key partners, notably the United States, must be prioritized.
- The rules meant to shield technical standards development from malign influence must be reinforced and respected.
Download the ReConnect China Policy Brief via the project’s website: AI and Technical Standardization in China and the EU: Diverging priorities and the need for common ground
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
China’s Climate Leadership after Hormuz: How Should Europe Adjust?
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 offered an unplanned stress test of China’s approach to energy security, and China passed it far better than most expected. The episode demonstrated that the underlying risk of supply disruption is real, while validating a preference for resilience and resource security that has long underpinned Chinese energy and climate policy and has now been reinforced under the banner of building an “energy powerhouse.”
China as an ambivalent supporter of the WTO and the multilateral trading system
Amid rising trade tensions between Europe and China and broader uncertainty in the international rules-based trade regime, Beijing has worked to preserve and bolster the multilateral trading system while at the same time failing to reform the domestic policies that have served to undermine that same system.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.
The Oceania Factor in France’s Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategy
This paper examines the two-way relationship between France’s Indo-Pacific strategy and developments in Oceania. Oceania was not a priority in the initial years of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, as the region was largely treated as secondary to major strategic hotspots and key partnerships, while overseas territories were primarily handled as domestic issues and recipients of a top-down strategy.