Asia

Since our prior post on Singapore’s Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI, Singapore’s Infocomm Media Development Authority (“IMDA”) has published an updated version (Version 1.5) (the “Updated Framework”), incorporating feedback from over 60 organizations.

The Updated Framework, published on May 20, 2026, retains the same four-pillar structure—(1) assess and bound the risks upfront, (2) make humans meaningfully accountable, (3) implement technical controls and processes, and (4) enable end-user responsibility—but expands the guidance in several notable respects. These include a new discussion of multi-agent systemic risks, more granular guidance on technical controls, and real-world case studies illustrating how the Framework can be applied across sectors. We summarize some of the key updates below.

Continue Reading Singapore Updates Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI

As agentic AI systems move from research labs to enterprise workflows, regulators worldwide are grappling with how to address the potential risks these systems may pose (as discussed in prior blog posts here and here).  In January 2026, Singapore’s Infocomm Media Development Authority (“IMDA”) launched a non-binding Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI (“Framework”), just a few months after the Cyber Security Agency released a discussion paper titled “Securing Agentic AI” (“Discussion Paper”).

Together, these documents provide organizations with a structured, operational roadmap to consider when navigating some of the potential security and governance challenges posed by agentic AI.  This blog post highlights some of their key points.

Continue Reading Singapore Issues Governance and Security Guidance for Agentic AI

January brought several significant, long-awaited developments in the U.S. semiconductor policy space, marking an inflection point in how the Administration is deploying trade tools to advance national security and industrial policy objectives.

On January 14, 2026, the White House issued Presidential Proclamation 11002 (the “Proclamation”) and an accompanying Fact Sheet adopting …

Continue Reading A Month in Semiconductor Policy: Section 232 Measures, BIS Rule, and Taiwan Deal Signal Strategic Push

On January 13, 2026, the U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a final rule, titled Revision to License Review Policy for Advanced Computing Commodities (the “BIS Rule”), that implements a more favorable license application review policy for exports from the United States of certain advanced computing…

Continue Reading U.S. Commerce Department Revises License Review Policy for Exports of Certain Advanced Computing Commodities to China and Macau

After passing the House the preceding week, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 2026 NDAA) passed the Senate on December 17 by a vote of 77-20 and was signed into law by President Trump the following day. As is frequently the case, this annual “must pass”…

Continue Reading New Sanctions Authorities in the FY 2026 NDAA

Over the past few months, Chinese regulators have taken steps to update the country’s cybersecurity framework, with a particular focus on artificial intelligence (AI) safety and clarifying incident reporting obligations for onshore infrastructure. These developments reflect a broader trend toward more proactive AI and cyber governance and could signal priorities for the year ahead.

Continue Reading China Amends Cybersecurity Law and Incident Reporting Regime to Address AI and Infrastructure Risks

October 12, 2024, marks the 10-year anniversary of entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair Benefit-Sharing from their Utilization (“ABS”). This additional treaty to the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”) has now been ratified by 142 countries. Over the past decade, Nagoya Protocol has resulted in the mushrooming of more than one-hundred thirty (130+) national ABS laws around the globe. All this time the Covington life sciences team has stood by its pharmaceutical, food and biotech clients to navigate this ever-more challenging Harlequin’s costume that is the global ABS legal regime. 

In this Client Alert we share lessons learned from our 10+ years of experience on ABS in the life sciences sector.[1] As an anniversary edition, this document is a long read. For ease of navigation, we have structured it as a Q&A. 

We first recall the basics of ABS. Then we cover key questions from clients such as e.g. compliance best practices and enforcement trends. Finally, we look to challenges in the near-future, focusing on emerging ABS regimes such as the global mechanism on benefit-sharing from Digital Sequence Information (“DSI”), the genetic resource disclosure requirement when filing patents under a new World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) treaty, the new “pathogen” ABS provisions of the World Health Organization (“WHO”) Pandemic Treaty, the High Seas Treaty on marine genetic resources, and last but not least, the new corporate due diligence obligations under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CS3D”).

If you have any questions or would like a meeting concerning the material discussed in this Client Alert, please contact our partner Bart Van Vooren at bvanvooren@cov.com.

The ABC of ABS

1. What is the purpose of the Nagoya Protocol?

The Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 recognizes the sovereignty of countries over biological resources within their jurisdiction. The CBD has three main objectives: (1) the conservation of biodiversity, (2) its sustainable use, and (3) “the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the arising from the utilization of genetic resources.” Although there are 196 Parties to the CBD, by 2014 very few countries had implemented rules on ABS. The Nagoya Protocol was therefore negotiated as a supplemental treaty to achieve the third objective of the CBD. It does so by empowering countries to impose prior authorization (Access) and payment requirements (Benefit-Sharing) on companies that commercialize products or processes that utilize biological materials. This supposedly creates a financial resources and incentive for countries to protect biodiversity.

Continue Reading The Nagoya Protocol at Its 10th Anniversary: Lessons Learned and New Challenges from ‘Access and Benefit-Sharing’

With the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, the regulatory frameworks for AI in the Asia–Pacific (APAC) region continue to develop quickly. Policymakers and regulators have been prompted to consider either reviewing existing regulatory frameworks to ensure their effectiveness in addressing emerging risks brought by AI, or proposing new, AI-specific rules or regulations. Overall, there appears to be a trend across the region to promote AI uses and developments, with most jurisdictions focusing on high-level and principle-based guidance. While a few jurisdictions are considering regulations specific to AI, they are still at an early stage. Further, privacy regulators and some industry regulators, such as financial regulators, are starting to play a role in AI governance.

This blog post provides an overview of various approaches in regulating AI and managing AI-related risks in the APAC region.  

  • AI-Specific Laws and Regulations

Several jurisdictions in the region are moving toward AI-specific regulations, including the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as China), South Korea, and Taiwan.

  • China has been most active in shaping regulations specific to generative AI technologies since 2023. It has taken a multifaceted approach that combines AI-specific regulations, national standards and technical guidance to govern generative AI services and the regulatory focus has been on services that are provided to the public in China. The Interim Administrative Measures for Generative Artificial Intelligence Services represent a milestone as the first comprehensive regulation specifically addressing generative AI services (a summary of this regulation can be found in our previous post here). Several non-binding technical documents and national standards have been issued or are being drafted to further implement this regulation. Prior to the regulation that specifically addresses generative AI services, China had issued regulations for deep synthesis and algorithmic recommendations. Further, China promulgated rules on conducting an ethical review of scientific activities involving generative AI.
  • Beyond a few provisions on narrow aspects scattered in other regimes, South Korea does not presently have a comprehensive AI-specific regulatory framework. Proposed in early 2023, the draft Act on Fostering the AI Industry and Securing Trustworthy AI remains currently pending before the National Assembly. If enacted, it would set out the first comprehensive legislative framework governing the usage of AI in South Korea, generally reflecting an approach that would permit AI usage and developments subject to subsequent safeguards if and as needed. In parallel, the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) has been advocating for a flexible approach to AI based on self-regulation, with support from the PIPC. Furthermore, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) will soon start a detailed study to identify potential AI-induced risks in terms of consumer protection as well as unfair or anti-competitive practices, which might result in KFTC-supervised self-regulation of certain AI aspects through industry codes of conduct supplemented by a set of guidelines on AI, or even proposed legislation or amendments to existing consumer protection or antitrust rules. 
  • Similarly, Taiwan is drafting a basic law governing AI, i.e., the Basic Law for Development of Artificial Intelligence, which will set out fundamental principles for AI development and for the government to promote the development of AI technologies. However, it is still uncertain whether and when Taiwan will pass this draft law.
  • Non-binding AI Principles and Guidelines
Continue Reading Overview of AI Regulatory Landscape in APAC

On September 28, 2023, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) issued draft Provisions on Standardizing and Promoting Cross-Border Data Flows (Draft for Comment) (规范和促进数据跨境流动规定（征求意见稿）) (draft “Provisions”) (Chinese version available here) for a public consultation, which will conclude on October 15, 2023. 

The draft Provisions propose…

Continue Reading China Proposes Significant Changes to Cross-Border Transfer Rules

Following our recent overview of key topics to watch in the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024, available here, we continue our coverage with a “deep dive” into NDAA provisions related to the People’s Republic of China (“China” or “PRC”) in each of the House and Senate bills.  DoD’s focus on strengthening U.S. deterrence and competitive positioning vis-à-vis China features prominently in the 2022 National Defense Strategy (“NDS”) and in recent national security discourse.  This focus is shared by the Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (“Select Committee”), led by Chairman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL). 

It is no surprise, then, that House and Senate versions of the NDAA include hundreds of provisions—leveraging all elements of national power—intended to address what the NDS brands as China’s “pacing” challenge, including many grounded in Select Committee policy recommendations.  Because the NDAA is viewed as “must-pass” legislation, it has served in past years as a vehicle through which other bills not directly related to DoD are enacted in law.  In one respect, this year is no different—the Senate version of the NDAA incorporates both the Department of State and Intelligence 2024 Authorization bills, each of which includes provisions related to China. 

To get a flavor of the approach to China in this year’s NDAA, look no further than the “Ending China’s Developing Nation Status Act” in Section 1399L of the Senate bill, which would require U.S. opposition to granting China “developing nation” status in treaties under negotiation and by international organizations of which the U.S. and China are members, such as the World Trade Organization.  Classification as a “developing nation” affords China access to preferential loans and other economic benefits intended to increase trading opportunities, notwithstanding its current status as an upper-middle income country (as determined by the World Bank), and the world’s second largest economy, trailing only the U.S.  Not to be outdone, Section 155 of the House bill contains a provision mandating expedited deployment of advanced radars to track high-altitude balloons and other potential threats to the U.S., in direct response to the incident earlier this year in which a Chinese balloon flew across the U.S. before being shot down by the Air Force.

Given these provisions, and many more (some we discuss below), this year’s NDAA strikes us as different.  It incorporates many more China-related provisions and many of these would impose greater obligations on government contractors to limit their interactions with the PRC and entities affiliated with the PRC Government.  Whether the laundry list of China-related provisions in the current NDAA survive, and in what form, will be determined by the conference process currently underway.  But these provisions have the potential to impose significant near-term burdens on contractors—requiring them to assess their obligations and make adjustments to ensure compliance.  Indeed, these provisions may be far more disruptive than requirements imposed by prior year NDAA China provisions that contractors have navigated by reassessing supply chains and increasing due diligence.  All government contractors and suppliers to government contractors with any connection to China would be well advised to monitor how the NDAA conference approaches resolution of this legislation over the coming months.

Continue Reading Not to Be Outpaced: NDAA Presents Measures Addressing China