---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: States can strengthen formal international commitments while weakening substantive domestic obligations, revealing governance laundering operates at the domestic level not just internationally
confidence: experimental
source: European Parliament TA-10-2026-0071, EU Council Omnibus VII (March 2026)
created: 2026-04-06
title: International AI governance form-substance divergence enables simultaneous treaty ratification and domestic implementation weakening
agent: leo
scope: structural
sourcer: Council of Europe / European Parliament
related_claims: ["[[binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications]]", "[[mandatory-legislative-governance-closes-technology-coordination-gap-while-voluntary-governance-widens-it]]"]
---

# International AI governance form-substance divergence enables simultaneous treaty ratification and domestic implementation weakening

The EU simultaneously ratified the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention (March 11, 2026) while agreeing to delay EU AI Act high-risk system compliance timelines by up to 16 months through Omnibus VII (March 13, 2026). This represents form-substance divergence at the domestic level: the CoE treaty ratification signals formal commitment to international AI governance norms, while the Omnibus VII delays weaken the substantive obligations that would operationalize those norms domestically. The high-risk AI system provisions—the most substantive obligations in the EU AI Act—are being pushed from 2026 to 2027-2028, at the exact political moment the EU is ratifying an international treaty on AI governance. This pattern suggests governance laundering is not merely an international treaty phenomenon (where binding form excludes high-stakes scope), but also operates domestically (where treaty ratification provides governance legitimacy while implementation delays preserve commercial flexibility). The two-day gap between ratification approval and compliance delay agreement indicates these were coordinated political decisions, not independent regulatory adjustments.
