https://irjahs.com/index.php/home/issue/feed 2026-07-18T17:16:05+00:00 International Journal of Arts Humanities & Social Sciences (IJAHSS) editor@irjahs.com Open Journal Systems <p style="text-align: justify;">International Journal of Arts Humanities &amp; Social Sciences (ISSN: 2945-3127) is an <strong>Open Access, Peer-Reviewed, UGC Guideline Compliant</strong> International journal. At present, the journal brings out bi-annual publication i.e. two issues in a year. This journal is published by River Publication House &amp; Media to accentuate academic &amp; research activities in the field of arts, humanities, social sciences and other interdisciplinary fields.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The prestigious international editorial team reflects spacious spectrum of subject under coverage of arts, humanities &amp; social sciences. It is dedicated to publish high quality research article, Review article, Short communication, Case report, Posters, Slides notes, and Conference materials.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">International Journal of Arts Humanities &amp; Social Sciences (IJAHSS) scope covers emerging areas of Arts, Humanities and social sciences.</p> <p><strong> Aim &amp; scope: </strong>International Journal of Arts Humanities &amp; Social Sciences has wide scope for interdisciplinary areas of Arts, Humanities and social sciences. </p> <p>The scope of the journal includes but not limited to</p> <ul> <li>Linguistics</li> <li>Literature</li> <li>Performing arts</li> <li>Politics</li> <li>Philosophy</li> <li>Religious studies</li> <li>Visual arts</li> <li>Anthropology</li> <li>Archaeology</li> <li>Cultural</li> <li>Ancient and modern languages</li> <li>Musicology</li> <li>Social economics</li> <li>Geography</li> <li>Human integrative history</li> <li>Political science</li> <li>International relations</li> <li>Public administration</li> <li>Public policy</li> <li>Psychology</li> <li>Sociology</li> <li>criminology</li> <li>Demography</li> <li>Rural</li> <li>Gender studies</li> <li>Global studies</li> <li>Human ecology</li> <li>Political ecology</li> <li>Political economy</li> </ul> <p><strong>^{Contributions must be original, not previously or simultaneously published elsewhere, and are critically reviewed before they are published. Papers, which must be written in English, should have sound grammar and proper terminologies.}</strong></p> <p>^{The published papers are made highly visible to the scientific community through a wide indexing policy adopted by this online international journal. Hence, they can freely be accessed and utilized by everyone for the development of science and technology. Being a part of an eco-friendly community, favors and promotes e-publication of papers to truly present itself as an online journal.}</p> https://irjahs.com/index.php/home/article/view/134 2026-07-18T17:16:05+00:00 Mehar Sandhu a@gmail.com

<p>As artificial intelligence systems increasingly transcend national borders, the regulatory frameworks governing them have developed along strikingly divergent paths. This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of three of the world's most influential AI governance regimes: the European Union's AI Act, the United States' executive order-driven approach, and China's evolving suite of AI regulations. Using a structured comparative framework, the study examines each jurisdiction's regulatory philosophy, risk classification methodology, enforcement mechanisms, and treatment of general-purpose versus narrow AI systems. The EU's AI Act represents a comprehensive, risk-tiered, rights-based model rooted in ex-ante compliance; the US approach reflects a more fragmented, sectorspecific, and executive-driven strategy shaped by shifting political priorities and limited congressional action; China's framework combines state-driven algorithmic oversight with strategic industrial policy objectives, emphasising content control and social stability alongside innovation goals. The paper argues that while surface-level convergence is emerging around certain technical concepts — such as risk categorisation, transparency obligations, and safety testing — the underlying regulatory logics, enforcement capacities, and normative priorities remain substantially fragmented. This divergence carries significant implications for multinational AI developers navigating compliance across jurisdictions, for the prospects of international regulatory harmonisation, and for the broader question of whether a global AI governance regime is achievable or desirable. The paper concludes by evaluating pathways toward interoperability, including mutual recognition mechanisms, technical standard-setting bodies, and mini-lateral cooperation, while cautioning against overstating the likelihood of near-term convergence given divergent political economies and strategic interests.</p>

2026-07-15T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026