Cross-Border Data Governance for Artificial Intelligence: Comparing EU, EAEU and SCO Institutional Frameworks

This article maps how three regional governance architectures structure cross–border data flows essential for artificial intelligence systems. Through doctrinal analysis of primary legal instruments and comparative regulatory evaluation, the research identifies three distinct institutional logics: the EU rights‒proportionality framework, the EAEU's sovereignty‒driven fragmentation, and the SCO's security‒coordination paradigm. Developments from 2020–2024 reveal limited convergence opportunities despite persistent divergence. The EU adequacy mechanism under GDPR Article 45 sets a market‒access benchmark, yet Article 46 standard contractual clauses now govern most EU‒US transfers after the Schrems II judgement. EAEU governance remains fragmented through national data localisation mandates, though the 2023 Digital Agenda Framework introduces voluntary cooperation principles. SCO governance maintains intergovernmental coordination without binding harmonisation, prioritising state security over individual rights. Comparative analysis demonstrates that regulatory friction imposes infrastructure cost premiums on transnational AI training, though empirical estimates vary across sectors. The article addresses "sovereigntist" critiques by acknowledging Western institutional bias and power asymmetries in standard‒setting. Policy recommendations centre on technical standardisation forums and bilateral digital trade agreements rather than multilateral adequacy harmonisation. Contribution lies in updating comparative institutional mapping with 2020–2024 legal amendments and integrating counter‒arguments from non‒Western governance perspectives. The analysis acknowledges its limitations: reliance on English‒language sources, modest incremental contribution, and lack of empirical cost data. Future research should address evidentiary gaps in EAEU/SCO enforcement practices and evaluate privacy‒enhancing technology effectiveness in reducing compliance costs.