Toward Human Rights Benchmarking for LLMs: A Pilot Methodology

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate legal determinations over what human rights are realized, and how. Yet, no evaluation benchmark exists to assess whether they can reason correctly about human rights law. To this end, we report our efforts to develop a robust and scalable methodology for creating HumRightsBench: the first expert-validated, scenario-based benchmark for evaluating reasoning grounded in the obligation structure of international human rights law. We adapt the IRAC framework for legal reasoning to better suit the unique reasoning patterns of human rights work (substituting P, "proposing remedies," for C, "legal conclusion," yielding IRAP) to structure our evaluation heuristics. We also produce a pilot series of authentic scenarios designed to implicate the many dimensions of real-world human rights issues and annotated by human rights lawyers and professionals across the world. Ultimately, we find that model accuracy scores range considerably across legal reasoning tasks (overall model performance ranges from 0.339 to 0.577, task min-max ranges from 0.025 to 0.774), which strongly implies that HumRightsBench is a capable instrument for advancing this emerging subfield of AI evaluations science at a critical moment in its evolution.

Global Index on Responsible AI: 2026 Report

Grounded in human rights-based frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms. GIRAI 2026 assesses these across five dimensions: Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and AI Use in Public Service. A global network of 135 country-level researchers collected and assessed 68,138 data points on 38 indicators organised across three pillars: government AI policy and implementation (17 indicators), civil society engagement (5), enabling conditions (15), and documented cases of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems. The data covers November 2023 to September 2025. A score of 100 is derived from the indicators to rank all countries. Findings show that while responsible AI governance is expanding, with 126 of 135 countries having at least one government policy or initiative across the 17 AI Policy indicators, this does not often translate into meaningful protection. For instance, Global South countries account for 203 of 306 new cases of indicators with frameworks since the first edition, yet 78% of their frameworks remain non-binding compared with 42% in the Global North. Government commitment to AI governance also does not extend to their own algorithms: whereas Transparency and Explainability is the strongest performing indicator, with 58% of countries having some framework, only 18% require Public Disclosure of Government Algorithms. Credible evidence of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems was also found in 35 countries. These findings show that responsible AI governance must move beyond framework adoption toward enforceable rights-based protections, resourced oversight institutions, and accessible redress.

From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design

AI-enabled authoritarianism is not confined to autocracies. In this paper, we provide greater transparency by investigating and mapping the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China. By drawing on an extensive range of sources (academic publications, investigative research reports, third-party evaluations, media interviews, government procurement notices), we conduct a systematic, qualitative comparison across systems to identify the critical technical and operational features that enable authoritarianism within their respective political contexts. We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment, regulatory gaps that fail to deter misuse, weak user compliance that nullifies human oversight mechanisms, and the encoding of protected group traits that identify members of vulnerable populations. We find that these features are present across systems deployed in autocratic and democratic regimes, albeit in varying configurations. We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps: centralized systems directed by executive authorities, particularly within security and military institutions, are often not subjected to formal oversight mechanisms, while fragmented systems diffuse accountability between stakeholders, paving the way for entrenchment. These findings reveal that AI-enabled authoritarianism is distributed, resulting from design and operational choices made by developers, administrators, and users alike. We conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to mitigate these risks.