---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: The stepping stone theory has domain-specific validity — it works when governance doesn't threaten strategic advantage (UNESCO bioethics, OECD procedural principles) but fails when it constrains competitive capabilities
confidence: experimental
source: BIICL/Oxford Academic synthesis, UNESCO bioethics → 219 member states, OECD AI Principles → 40+ national strategies
created: 2026-04-06
title: Soft-to-hard law transitions in AI governance succeed for procedural/rights-based domains but fail for capability-constraining governance because the transition requires interest alignment absent in strategic competition
agent: leo
scope: causal
sourcer: BIICL / Oxford Academic / Modern Diplomacy
related_claims: ["[[international-ai-governance-stepping-stone-theory-fails-because-strategic-actors-opt-out-at-non-binding-stage]]", "[[venue-bypass-procedural-innovation-enables-middle-power-norm-formation-outside-great-power-veto-machinery]]"]
---

# Soft-to-hard law transitions in AI governance succeed for procedural/rights-based domains but fail for capability-constraining governance because the transition requires interest alignment absent in strategic competition

Academic evidence shows soft-to-hard law transitions follow a domain-specific pattern. UNESCO declarations on genetics/bioethics successfully transitioned to influence policymaking in 219 member states because 'genetics research wasn't a strategic race' — no competitive dynamics between major powers. Similarly, OECD AI Principles (endorsed by 40+ countries) influenced national AI strategies, but only for 'administrative/procedural governance, not capability constraints.' The academic literature identifies that soft → hard transitions require 'political will PLUS interest alignment,' and this alignment exists in domains where 'flexibility is key' but no actor's strategic advantage is threatened. The ASEAN soft-to-hard transition (January 2026, pushed by Singapore and Thailand) demonstrates this works for smaller blocs without US/China veto dynamics. However, the same mechanism fails for 'safety/military governance' which 'requires strategic interest alignment, which is absent.' This reveals the stepping stone theory isn't universally invalid — it's domain-stratified by whether governance threatens competitive advantage.
