Mapping General-Purpose AI Governance in Twenty AI Middle-Power Jurisdictions
The most capable general-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in two jurisdictions, the United States and China, but the risks they carry land globally. Regionally advanced economies hosting no frontier developer, which we call AI middle-powers, are writing their own rules to govern GPAI. This paper investigates which GPAI-relevant provisions these AI middle-powers have enacted, mapping twenty jurisdictions including the European Union at the level of the individual provision, across four governance areas that trace the accountability chain for the model layer: systemic risk assessment, evaluation and verification, prohibitions with monitoring and detection, and serious incident reporting. Confirmed absence is recorded as data alongside positive provision. We find that jurisdictions converge on form, but diverge on force. Sixteen engage in at least three of the four governance areas, yet only about one in five provisions sit in binding law, and three-quarters of the instruments that do bind do so without defining GPAI. The institutional infrastructure shows the same shape: four in five of the mapped governance actors hold mandates that predate GPAI, and obligations attach wherever the inherited regime already reached, which is the application layer rather than the model. Where these states engage the model layer, they build capacity to observe it rather than impose duties on those who build it, and almost every evaluation body was constituted without the power to act on what it finds. Nominal coverage of the full accountability chain reaches eleven jurisdictions, but only five hold more than one provision in every area and, outside the EU, no jurisdiction imposes a binding evaluation duty on a model developer. The dataset gives researchers and policymakers a provision-level basis for identifying where regimes could align, and where coordination would have to start from scratch.