Lecture: China’s Approach to AI Regulation: To Feel Its Way Forward
Date: Friday, 5th September, 2025; 14:00
Lecture by: Xiuyan Fei, Associate Professor at the School of International Law and Director of South Asian Law Workshop at the Institute of BRICS Legal Studies, East China University of Political Science and Law.
Xiuyan Fei is the Associate Professor at the School of International Law and Director of South Asian Law Workshop at the Institute of BRICS Legal Studies of the East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL). Her research interests include international economic law, international commercial mediation and arbitration, and AI law. Xiuyan obtained her PhD in law in 2015 from the University College Dublin, was a doctoral researcher at the New York University School of Law (2011-2012), and was selected as a member of Shanghai Pujiang Talents Project in 2017. Xiuyan has papers published in Chinese and English journals.
Synopsis: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a strategic focal point in China’s pursuit of technological modernization and economic transformation. While China has yet to promulgate a comprehensive regulatory instrument equivalent to the European Union’s AI Act, it has deployed a hybrid framework combining hard law and soft law to govern the diverse domains shaped by AI technologies. In contrast to the United States, whose regulatory orientation has largely prioritized industry self-regulation and high-level ethical principles, China has advanced a centralized, rule-based architecture administered by an array of state authorities.
A salient feature of China’s regulatory philosophy is its incrementalism. Legislative intervention is typically undertaken only after a critical mass of empirical observation and policy experimentation has been accumulated. This gradualist strategy—often encapsulated by the idiom “crossing the river by feeling the stones”—constitutes a pragmatic response to the Collingridge dilemma, insofar as it enables regulators to address emergent social risks while preserving space for technological innovation and competitiveness in the evolving geo-technological landscape.
At the domestic level, the embedding of core socialist values within regulatory instruments remains central to the normative orientation of China’s AI governance, underscoring the state’s emphasis on aligning technological development with ideological and social stability objectives. At the international level, China’s discourse emphasizes multilateralism, technological sovereignty, and inclusive development, which together form the foundational principles of its engagement with global AI governance. Taken together, these dynamics illustrate a model that combines robust legislation with strategic pragmatism, positioning China as both a regulator and a norm entrepreneur in the global governance of artificial intelligence.